Hansard — Tuesday, April 15, 2008 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


Introduction and First Reading of Bills		11341
	Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 27)
	Hon. I. Chong

Second Reading of Bills		11341
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act (Bill 18) (continued)
	On the amendment (continued)
	A. Dix
	R. Austin
	G. Coons
	B. Ralston
	Hon. B. Penner
	On the main motion
	M. Karagianis

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		11356
	Estimates: Ministry of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy
	Hon. S. Bond
	D. Cubberley

Hon. I. Chong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

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

Hon. I. Chong: I'm pleased to present the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. The legislation I'm introducing today encourages local governments to take leadership in their communities to achieve sustainability.

This legislation supports local governments to think, to plan and to build green, and it supports the development of compact communities with affordable housing and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Bill 27 will provide local governments with the flexibility to reduce emissions, to conserve energy and to make communities more socially and more environmentally sustainable in ways that make the most sense for their own communities.

Local governments, too, will need to establish how they will reduce greenhouse gases as part of their planning efforts. The 2007 and 2008 Speeches from the Throne and the Premier's speech at the 2007 Union of B.C. Municipalities annual convention proposed a range of initiatives related to climate change and environmental management. This legislation connects with those important changes proposed by our government.

This legislation means that local governments can make long-lasting decisions for the benefit of their communities and their citizens, and this act is about supporting communities across the province to become more vibrant places to live and work.

I move that the bill, Bill 27, be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 27, Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Mr. Speaker, in this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 18, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, and in Committee A, I call estimates of the Ministry of Education.

A. Dix: As members will know, we're speaking on the amendment put forward by the member for Vancouver-Hastings, who has argued that this legislation…. Let's remind ourselves of what the legislation is. It's an empty shell. It's an empty shell that isn't ready to be implemented. So there is time, legitimately, to have a public debate about this.

I think it's a very important amendment, a very helpful amendment to government by the member for Vancouver-Hastings. What the amendment says is that the subject matter — cap-and-trade — of this bill should be referred to a legislative committee and that we should not give the bill second reading now. I think the case for the amendment is compelling.

I think that most people, in looking at this…. We've cited the views of the freedom-of-information commissioner, who has expressed strong concerns with section 36 of the bill. I think that a committee looking at this issue might legitimately ask the freedom-of-information commissioner to come and speak to the committee and talk about that to see how we can make this system more transparent so that this isn't a system of private deals between the government and important players in the B.C. economy and important players in terms of the climate change debate — but rather than that, in fact, that it be a more public process and that the public have confidence in that process.

We're asking everybody to take part in this process, but apparently the public isn't going to be given the right to know. That's not according to me; that's according to the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner. That's the first thing.

Also along those lines, what it would do is give an opportunity to people like Darrell Evans from the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association. I'll remind you of what he said about this bill. He said: "…yet another attempt by the Liberals to place corporate information behind an iron curtain."

So why not, given that the bill isn't ready…? You know how I know it isn't ready? Because distinguished and well-known British Columbians, not opponents of the government but rather — I don't think the right

term is "employees of the government" — the people working with the government and getting remuneration for that from the government…. For example, Dr. Mark Jaccard has said…. And he didn't say this….

A. Dix: The member for Surrey-Whalley is asking when he said this. Well, Dr. Jaccard said this on April 9, 2008, which was approximately one week ago. It was less than a week ago, in fact, that he said this.

What did he say? He said that B.C. is "still a long way from implementation of a cap-and-trade system." It's so much so that he says that B.C. might decide to take only "an observer position in the western climate initiative while it sees what the next U.S. federal government will do." What Dr. Jaccard is saying quite eloquently there, I think, in an e-mail is that we have time to involve the public in this process. I think it's the reason we should do that.

I think that what the member for Vancouver-Hastings has done here is given the government an opportunity to build support and interest and public involvement in the climate change debate. That's what he's done with this important amendment at second reading.

He's saying that it's time for the public to have its say so that this won't be an issue — if I might quote Darrell Evans — "behind an iron curtain." It's not a debate that will take place between the government and its financial backers behind an iron curtain — but that the debate take place in the public. What will flow from that inevitably, I think, is more public engagement, more public support and more public involvement, of course, on the issue of climate change — in other words, a good thing.

As my time to speak on this bill winds down…. I think that what the member for Vancouver-Hastings has done is throw a lifeline to the government. He's said to them: "Let's have the public debate. Let's have the public discussion. Let's come back in the fall and debate a real bill, not a bill that's a regulatory shell, a bill that's an enabling power for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — the cabinet — but a bill that really deals with the issues of climate change and lays out what cap-and-trade will look like in British Columbia."

I ask all members of the House to support this important motion by the member for Vancouver-Hastings. I thank you very much for your consideration.

R. Austin: I rise today to speak in favour of this amendment to refer Bill 18 to an all-party committee. I think it's an important debate for us to have here because, as has been noted by previous speakers, we are entering a new territory and a very complicated subject.

I want to begin my remarks by stating very clearly on the public record that I am in favour of a cap-and-trade system. I think it is very important, as we try to tackle climate change and do our part in British Columbia, that we recognize that trying to change the behaviour of the major polluters in our province is at the very heart of trying to solve this problem.

What we have seen with previous bills that have come into the House thus far are some details, particularly in the gas tax, as to how to hit ordinary consumers in their pocketbook. But we haven't really seen the details of how we would tackle climate change for the large polluters in our province. I think the reason why we haven't seen a lot of detail in Bill 18 is because it's complicated, and we don't really know where the government stands and what they're going to do with this cap-and-trade bill.

It should be pointed out, as has been pointed out, that we have a bill here that has very, very few details. It's just enabling legislation. All we are here to discuss is: are we going to give the cabinet the right to go and decide on our behalf, on the people's behalf — basically behind closed doors, in secret, with people we don't even know who are part of the discussion — how this is going to affect all of us?

I think that's the wrong approach to take. It would be better for us to have a public debate, to engage as many people as possible to answer some of the very difficult questions. And what are those questions? Well, first of all, what's the cap going to be? How many permits are going to be issued? What sectors are going to be covered by all these regulations? We don't know that.

In my neck of the woods we have a large polluter that has been making aluminum for the last 50 years. They are currently thinking about modernizing that plant and moving to a much greener plant in the sense of its pollution output. In fact, I understand that the new plant, if it is ever actually constructed, will have 90 percent less pollution or greenhouse gas emissions going into the atmosphere, which is a wonderful thing. But is this company now going to be allowed to trade that savings in pollution and sell it so that they can offset it against some of their more polluting plants in Quebec? Who knows? We don't know that.

How are these permits going to be allocated? Are they just going to be handed out willy-nilly? What's the price going to be? What are the caps going to be? Is there going to be an auction for this cap-and-trade system, or is it going to be decided and allocated? These are all very, very important decisions which we need to have debated publicly. I think a good place to do it is in the public realm and then have an open discussion here in the House once we have details of a cap-and-trade system.

We need to know what the penalties will be for those companies that break those caps or are non-compliant. Obviously, if those penalties are not high enough, then we're not going to see the kind of change we need to see in terms of companies deciding that it's worthwhile for them to actually pollute less rather than just carry on their behaviour as before and maybe buy an offset.

We need to know what kinds of restrictions will be placed on the alternative compliance units, or the offsets. How many offsets are there going to be? How easy is it to go and buy an offset? Are we going to allow companies, say, to go and buy a parcel of land that is going to be reforested when that land may already have been reforested under the forest licence? That wouldn't be fair. So these are the kinds of things that we need to do.

We also need to have a detailed recognition of what kind of government oversight is going to be there. You know, statistics are bandied around a great deal in debates like this, but we need to know where these statistics come from. What is the data? What's the actual detail of where we are when we start, and how are we going to get to the actual totals that we want to get to?

This bill is really unaccountable to the public. It authorizes cabinet to introduce any kind of cap-and-trade regime. We don't know what it's going to be like. For example, in Europe when they started this system a few years ago, they made mistakes — huge mistakes — and it enabled companies to profit greatly by selling each other credits without actually changing any behaviour.

Well, we don't want that to happen here in British Columbia. We want to make sure that when we set up a cap-and-trade system, it will reach the public policy goals that we want. We also want to make sure that the big emitters in this province are actually hit hard and forced to change their behaviour.

That's a critical thing within this debate, because so far they've been let off the hook, in large part. What I fear, and what many of us fear on this side of the House, is that they will get a bit of a free ride or that they'll be able to negotiate deals behind closed doors that will help them have a longer period of time in which to try and offset and change their behaviours.

So we need to figure out all of this before we decide how we're going to vote. The member for Vancouver-Hastings has given us an opportunity here to create a longer public debate, because this is not an easy matter to decide. I think that most of the public, when they hear the term "cap-and-trade," don't really understand what it's about. They recognize that we have a global warming crisis in the world, and they probably recognize that we as an industrialized society need to do our bit to solve this problem. We need to be leaders, in fact — seeing as we have the wealth, the expertise and the know-how to be able to change a lot of our industrial policies.

Just because the general public views climate change as a huge matter of concern doesn't mean to say that they understand all of the details of how we will come across those solutions. When they hear the term "cap-and-trade," I think most people are completely unaware of what exactly is involved.

If we are able to put this motion forward and pass it here, we can then engage the public in a much broader debate that will have more and more people sitting down and understanding what exactly a cap-and-trade system is. Let's face it. The more people who get engaged — the more brains, the more ideas we have — the better the system will be that we eventually come up with.

There is no debate on that, in terms of both sides of the House agreeing that we need to bring in a cap-and-trade system. The question is: what kind of system is it? Can we get the best one? Can we learn from some of the mistakes that have been made in other countries?

I want to speak for a minute about the section that deals with auction or allocation. As I have alluded to, I think it's very important that we have an auction here in this province and not have it just allocated by the cabinet. That's what this bill currently allows them to do or may not allow them to do. We don't know exactly. It's really an enabling piece of legislation, and we don't know exactly what kind of cap-and-trade system they would bring in.

But if it was allocated, then a company, for example, that produced 20 percent of the aluminum in this province would automatically be allowed to have 20 percent of the emissions. Then they would be able to offset that or to trade it, if they wanted to increase their production and presumably increase their pollution.

That wouldn't exactly help to make any of the kinds of changes that we want to do. I think it would be better if we had a free auction. That way, the price would be set by the market as opposed to it being set by cabinet. This is one of the mistakes that was made in the early days in Europe where the price wasn't set correctly, and companies just carried on for several years without making any of the changes in their industrial practices because they didn't need to. It just wasn't worthwhile. There wasn't enough of a penalty. There wasn't enough of a cost to the pollution, so it was easier to just carry on polluting rather than make those changes early on.

What we are discussing here is really about openness, democracy and accountability. We have a government that came to power and said that they wanted to be the most open and accountable government. Here is a bill before us that's asking us to vote on something when we don't really know what it is that we're voting on; at least, we don't know the details.

If it was as open and accountable as they wanted to be in their first term — at least, when they came to power in 2001 — we wouldn't be having this debate because what would be happening is that they would have a fulsome discussion in an open cabinet. All the details would be there for people to see. Then we would be able to sit and have a debate here in the House and discuss those policy details to decide what the best kind of cap-and-trade system is for us to come up with.

I hope very much that as people make these speeches in this House, the other side will listen long and hard and recognize that it's complicated. How do we know it's complicated? Well, with all the resources the government has behind it…. They've put millions of dollars into this special initiative and this climate change action team. With all those resources, we have yet to see any of the details come out, and that tells you something.

That tells you it's so complicated that they don't even want to make this an open process because they don't know where they're at either. I think that is further proof that what we need to do is set a time, put together an all-party committee….

You know what? I would agree with the Premier on this. This is not a partisan issue. All British Columbians want to try and effect change with regards to climate change. Here you have both sides of the House agreeing in principle that a cap-and-trade system is an important

That being said, if both sides can agree with that, then surely not just both sides of this House but all of the general public should have the ability to see what is being done and have some input into this.

I think that's very important for the government as well. When you're asking people to make huge changes — whether it be industry or whether it be individuals — if they can feel that they have had input into the process, they are more likely to make the sacrifices necessary to make those changes. These are very fundamental and important changes in our society.

If we don't go ahead with that, if we just have a system where we pass Bill 18, and the cabinet down the road comes forward and says: "You know what? We've discussed this with our panel of experts. We've discussed this with the big emitters, most of whom actually give us huge donations, and here's the plan we've come up with…."

Then you're going to have a plan that's brought forward without the support of the general public, which would be a very sad thing because as I've said, most people want this problem to be solved or at least have some solutions that lead to bettering this problem or to lowering the emissions of this province. I think it's actually in the government's interest to go on side with this and recognize that we need to have a more fulsome public debate.

This is a problem that is of world magnitude, and we here in British Columbia are only a small part of the solution. However, if we can make changes in this province that learn from some of the mistakes of the cap-and-trade systems that have been brought about in other parts of the world, then surely we are furthering the cause for all the industrial countries that are trying to move in this direction. It's something that we certainly have a moral obligation to do when you consider that we have large countries that are still developing — such as India and China — and are looking to us, the industrial world, to come up with solutions.

You know, hon. Speaker, we've got it very good over here. We have a very high standard of living, and that standard of living has largely been made on the back of the general environment. We have used more than our fair share of resources around the world to create a very high standard of living, and now those poorer countries that want to develop just as we have done and want to have higher levels of education and health care are also following the same path of industrialization that we have taken over the last hundred years.

Who can blame them? Who can blame them for following the path that we have taken? But what we are now realizing, which perhaps we didn't realize or have been very late to realize, is that that is not sustainable. It was never sustainable for us in the rich countries that allowed ourselves to pollute around the planet and not have a price on pollution. Now that we see huge populations in China and India wanting to take the same route, all of a sudden we're kind of saying: "Oh my goodness, we can't do this; we have to fix this problem."

What's necessary is for us in the industrialized world to take the lead and to first of all show those countries that are still developing that there's a better way to industrialize than the one that was used by the traditional countries in western Europe and in North America. We have to be able to say to them: "You know what? There is a price for pollution."

Everybody is realizing this. I was reading yesterday in the papers about what they're going to have to do in China to try and hide the levels of pollution during the upcoming Olympics. They are planning on closing every factory in Beijing in order to make the air even semi-breathable. My understanding is that you'll still be able to see the air before you breathe it. This is a huge problem around the world.

What these countries are looking for is for the leading countries who have been the great polluters — in western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan…. They're looking for some leadership here. They need us to point the way and say: "Look, here's a way that you will be able to industrialize that will not create the problems that we have created for the whole world."

So it's very important, as we have this debate, to recognize that cap-and-trade — while it sounds very simple — is very, very complicated. I think it's incumbent upon all of us to take the time to go into the details, to go into the nitty-gritty and understand how we can create a system that actually effects change — change at the corporate level and change at the individual level. I'm not sure which is easier to do.

At the individual level, people have to adjust their lifestyles. They have to adjust their budgets, spend money on different things than they would have done otherwise and recognize that there's a price on everybody's pollution level — that we all have an individual carbon footprint that we have to start to take responsibility for. That's an individual choice, and people need to be moved by government in the direction of making the right choices.

In terms of the corporate sector, it's much more complicated because the corporate sector doesn't really have to worry about individual moral choices. What they have to worry about are the interests of their shareholders. So when you're talking about pollution at the corporate level — and that's where the cap-and-trade system will really have an effect — you're talking about trying to effect change in a sector where people's interests lie in making the most profit for their shareholders.

We have to have a system that mitigates the actual forces and tendencies of any corporation. I mean, I recognize that it's a natural and good thing for corporations to be able to look after their bottom line to ensure that their shareholders can make a good rate of return on their money. Otherwise, we'd all be in trouble. They'd all fold.

But at the same time we have to recognize, those of us who are legislators, that we have a responsibility to bring into place a system that will mitigate the interests of the corporate sector — one that recognizes they have to make a good rate of return for their shareholders

while at the same time recognizing the role they have to play in the broader society as a whole.

We need to make sure our cap-and-trade system is a good one, that it effects change, that it forces companies to not take the easy route and carry on producing at a level that's producing higher levels of pollution, to find new ways of creating their products — not only to make them safer for consumers and not only to take care of the interests of their workers but also to take care of the general environment.

That is a huge sea change in thought. Prior to this debate, corporations didn't really have to think about that broad extent. There was no price on pollution. They could just pollute away and not really have to worry. But this is all changing, and that's what this debate is all about.

In closing, I hope very much that the government will listen, will take the advice of the opposition here, will take advantage of the fact that the member for Vancouver-Hastings actually brought forward this amendment — a very wise amendment — that says: "Look, the government side doesn't know the answers to this."

They don't. If they did, they'd share it with us. They don't know the answers. With all of the brain power, the people behind them, with all of the university professors, they haven't come up with a solution.

So let's take some time here. Let's get it right. Let's engage the public. Let's engage this House in an open debate. We shouldn't have to be looking at a piece of legislation without any details, which just says to the cabinet: "Well, we trust you. You go ahead and fix this problem, and we'll just vote for it now. We'll enable you to go and do whatever you want." That's not right. That's not democracy.

Let's do the right thing. Let's pass this amendment. Let's recognize that the government needs time and the public needs time, and let's have a debate later on in the House when we all know exactly what kind of cap-and-trade system the government is proposing to bring into effect in this province.

G. Coons: I take the opportunity to stand to support the move to referral of this bill to an all-party committee, which was introduced here by the member for Vancouver-Hastings. I believe it is an appropriate and prudent motion to take a second look at what has been proposed here in Bill 18.

Bill 18 is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act. I think it's quite appropriate that we need to examine the whole subject of cap-and-trade and how we as a province, as British Columbians, intend to use cap-and-trade not only in British Columbia but how we work with other provinces and other states.

If we are to achieve the goals that have been set forth in law by legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent in the year 2020, we don't need a good bill; we need a great bill. It must be ambitious, and it must be a bill that's supported on both sides of the House and by the vast majority of British Columbians.

We have a great opportunity to push a lot of legislation and a whole host of issues through a committee structure, and we should use that tool that we have offered to us in the Legislature. We very seldom do that. We must ensure that people are informed and that everything is on the table.

I believe that all of us agree that cap-and-trade is one of the ways we can move forward to deal with greenhouse gas emissions, but before we fully analyze where we want and need to go with cap-and-trade, we must know, all of us in British Columbia, what exactly cap-and-trade is and what it involves.

The concept for some out there is fairly simple as long as we are given the opportunity to discuss how we formulate the end result. We have emissions that are capped at a certain level, and the government of the day determines what is appropriate and what is understandable by all. Hopefully, there is no behind-the-scenes manipulation or lobbying to affect the government of the day's decision.

We then have the emitters assigned or given pollution permits, and if a certain emitter uses less than what is allowed or permitted, they can benefit, usually by trading or receiving cash or other benefits. If they require more than their assigned permit, there is an opportunity that they can access more permits by trading or paying cash for the additional allowance to have their emissions, let's say, neutralized.

We all believe that cap-and-trade is the way to go, and the motion to refer this is, as I mentioned, a wise and prudent one. The notion of cap-and-trade is to use market drivers to encourage polluters to be innovative and change their behaviour. We need to have a much broader debate and offer initiatives that effect change. As I mentioned, it is widely supported by many, and by most in this House, as an initiative that can work.

But we must be careful that we have the right legislation, that we all understand it and that it does work. We must have detailed language about how such a model would operate. Bill 18 is enabling legislation for a future cap-and-trade system in British Columbia and, I have to note, a system that we, all of us, have openly supported.

The reason I support referral is that Bill 18, as it currently stands, leaves all aspects of a cap-and-trade system up to a regulation and to the discretion of a ministerially appointed director. Many throughout the province and in this House are questioning the accountability, the transparency and the secrecy which seems to go hand in hand with this particular government.

There are major concerns raised by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. He had significant problems with the bill and urged both the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Energy and Mines to withdraw section 36. The secrecy continues with this government.

Referral to an all-party committee is a method to hold us all to account. As pointed out by David Loukidelis in his letter to both ministers, section 36 of the bill makes sweeping confidentiality concessions that will deny freedom-of-information access to previously accessible corporate data and relates to a market that will be potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Bill 18 deems information as being supplied in confidence, even if it originates from government, and this applies to commercial, financial, labour relations, scientific or technical information.

Mr. Loukidelis states in his communication with the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources…. He basically says, and this is from his letter, "This letter comments on the access to information implications of Bill 18. In a separate letter…to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, I have expressed concerns about Bill 16" — the other bill, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, similar to the ones he has concerns about in Bill 18.

He has concerns with section 36 of Bill 18 as it "would override the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and would deem certain information to have been supplied in confidence to the government for the purposes of" freedom of information. He believes that key goals of freedom of information are "to make public bodies more open and accountable to the public." We on this side of the House and many in British Columbia believe in the office of the freedom-of-information officer.

He goes on to say: "Only a relatively small number of these overrides have been enacted in the 17 years since FIPPA came into force. Bill 18 would unnecessarily add to that number, and this is a matter of significant concern, considering the importance of environmental protection measures relating to climate change and the need for openness and accountability in the monitoring and enforcement of such measures." Referring Bill 18 would ensure openness and accountability. We need to ensure that freedom of information is not denied for information relating to Bill 16 and Bill 18.

One last comment from the commissioner's letter: "Given the fundamental importance of the FIPPA's accountability and openness goals, statutory provisions overriding or deeming matters otherwise addressed under FOI ought to be avoided."

This isn't the first time that the commissioner had concerns. Back in my ferry files, there was another concern, and again, this relates to the referral motion. We need openness, we need transparency, and we need accountability. We don't need secret meetings. We don't need behind-closed-doors chumming around. We need input. We need public debate.

Back in April of 2003, comments on another Bill 18. The Bill 18 back in 2003 was the Coastal Ferry Act. It's a very similar letter to the minister of the day, Judith Reid. In that, he says: "Thank you for your April 10 letter." David Loukidelis back in 2003, and I'm quoting from the letter:

Once again, when we start looking at the letters…. David Loukidelis recently, in response to Bill 18, indicated that only a relatively small number of overrides have been enacted. Again, we have denial of public information and public access by this government. Because of that, there have been major, major concerns with the operational safety of B.C. Ferries. We've had the safety audit that this side of the House pushed for.

Finally, B.C. Ferries and the government decided to have the Morfitt report. In that, there was a litany of concerns with operational safety. Again, this ties right into the referral motion, where we need public input, public debate and public information.

If we look at the Morfitt report, one of the recommendations says that: "B.C. Ferries should ensure that each of the corporate strategic and business plans includes a strategic goal that pertains directly to the safety and security of customers…and reinforce that operational safety is the company's number one priority and that at no time should any other objective take a higher level of priority." If we had access to safety records of B.C. Ferries, then we could ensure that the public has a safe, affordable and reliable ferry service. That's why we need to refer.

This is a continuing and fairly scary Liberal trend. "Hide the truth, the real facts, so we can get away with crushing the public and any opposition with the illusion that we care, that we are a kinder and gentler Premier and government. We didn't really mean to stomp the HEU workers to the ground like shadflies on hot concrete. We didn't really mean to hold a racist and divisive referendum against first nations rights and entitlement. We really are green, as long as our friends and insiders have the fast track and access to the information, and nobody really needs to know anything about it."

We need to refer this bill so that the public and those in this House know exactly how it's being put together. If done poorly, there are huge consequences and massive implications. It is a complicated process to determine cap-and-trade. It is a complicated bill to move forward with, and we do need a much broader debate that affects change.

There are many questions out there. Do we have a free allocation or an auctioned allocation or a combination of both? These are questions that need answers. Bill 18 needs to have an all-party committee review it, share it, discuss it with all British Columbians.

What do we see with Bill 18? We see unaccountability. We see Bill 18 authorizing cabinet to introduce any kind of cap-and-trade regime and to change it at any time without legislative oversight. It leaves even the core principles of the cap-and-trade regime up to regulation.

Greenhouse gas allocation must be done in a public and accountable way. The reason we need to refer this and involve the public is because we need to know and the public needs to know. If you leave these decisions

to regulation, what you're doing is leaving it to the inner circle of the cabinet. Who knows who will have the ear of the Premier and the inner cabinet? I believe that won't be in the best interest of British Columbians.

As I mentioned before, we are all aware that cap-and-trade is something that can work, something that we have to have work to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. Referring this to an all-party committee would allow members of this House to sit down, work together, relate as legislators in a meaningful manner to come up with something that works for the province and to work with our partners in Manitoba and down in the western states.

Being on a committee that did work together, the sustainable aquaculture committee…. That taught all members of the committee on sitting together, listening to key issues, hearing from expert witnesses, coming up with recommendations that are workable and achievable, with no secrecy and with a lot of accountability. It took hundreds of presentations and a year and a half of public meetings throughout the province, but the democracy of that process was worth it — the same as referring this bill would offer us.

It must be noted that sections of the bill leave many, many unanswered questions. For example, when we look at section 26(1), it states that corporations can commit an offence under the act — but "corporation" is not defined. Who do we want to have that defined by? I would prefer, and most British Columbians would prefer, an all-party committee to look at that and make those recommendations. We know who that side of the House wants to have their decisions made for them, and we have a real concern with that. That isn't looking after the public interest.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for giving me this opportunity to ask for an opportunity to make an introduction.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today are two residents of Salmon Arm. I'm delighted to have constituents here visiting the Legislature. I'd like the House to make Alfred and Gertrude Schalm welcome, please.

G. Coons: I will continue on the referral motion of Bill 18, which is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act. The public has been completely shut out of the process. Every initiative, every plan, every committee, every hearing that this government has had on climate change has been under an umbrella of secrecy. All appointments to the climate action secretariat and the Climate Action Team have been done behind closed doors and not inclusive to those who are key stakeholders.

If we look specifically at key exclusions, they have been on the climate action secretariat; the 177 presentations given to the government; the Climate Action Team and their work; the climate change plan, which is soon to be released; cap-and-trade negotiations; and all the implementation of the carbon tax — all fall under the veil of secrecy.

Last April, in 2007, the government excluded the Cabinet's Committee for Climate Action from the Freedom of Information Act. What are we afraid to disclose? What are we afraid to share with British Columbians?

In May 2007 the Premier joined the North American Climate Registry but refused to make the information from this registry public. They've refused to disclose any documents through FOI to the opposition, or reports or briefings related to the 33 percent target.

I believe — and I believe most British Columbians understand — that we can take on this bill in a committee format to come up with solutions. We can look at the gaps. We can work together to work on a bill that meets the needs of British Columbians.

We need much broader debate on this. We need debate that effects change. We need full confidence of the public, all stakeholders and especially the rest of the world, who are closely watching the developments in this province.

We have a choice. We can take a path that will move the important issue of greenhouse gas forward with full confidence, with full input and debate or take the path of secrecy and being unaccountable, which could create misery and embarrassment for all legislators.

As it stands, this bill does nothing. It will supposedly enable the regulations that will come once the western climate initiative has determined recommendations for a cap-and-trade system. However, that will not be for quite a while.

Some out there may not know what the western climate initiative is. Basically, just to fill some people in, it's a collaboration which was launched in February of 2007 by the governors of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington to help regional strategies to address climate change. WCI, the western climate initiative, is identifying, evaluating and implementing collective and cooperative ways to reduce greenhouse gases in the region.

In the spring of 2007 the Governor of Utah, our Premier and the Premier of Manitoba joined the initiative, and it was applauded. I applaud that initiative. Montana joined in January 2008, and other U.S. and Mexican states and Canadian provinces have joined as observers.

Through WCI, the partners set an overall regional goal in August of 2007 for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. By this August, they will also complete the design of a marketing-based mechanism to help achieve the reduction goal. They developed a workplan to guide their work and are seeking public input through the process.

If we look at the initiatives of the western climate plan, there's lots of public involvement. On their website we

see that stakeholders are involved. There is public input. There is accountability. There is transparency. There is scrutiny in the legislatures of the other states that are involved and sharing in this initiative.

In a letter from the WCI chair and co-chair from Washington and Arizona…. There's a letter dated last January to all stakeholders inviting them to attend in person and participate during the webinar. They had 300 people and 200 people by webcast. There's a website for public review and comment. A quote from the letter to the stakeholders: "The WCI partners will take the comments received on the final drafts and work on a final recommendation."

They value public input, whereas we in British Columbia, contrary to the way it's being handled with our partners, with the western climate initiative, deny freedom-of-information access. We have secret meetings. We have meetings behind closed doors — no public debate, no accountability, no transparency, no scrutiny and a lack of open, public debate on initiatives that are very important to British Columbia and British Columbians.

I believe that this bill seems to merely serve the purpose of misleading the public that some action has been taken to penalize the big greenhouse gas emitters. While the government was quick to levy a tax on ordinary British Columbians with their gas tax — and we're hearing the concern in the north and rural areas, the unfairness of it — there has been no immediate action to curb greenhouse gas emissions from large industrial polluters.

Even the government's climate change consultant is asking questions about what is happening with the cap-and-trade system that will be set up in the near future. Mark Jaccard, in response to media on the carbon tax, says: "Still a long way from the implementation of a cap-and-trade system." Moreover, he said, B.C. may decide to remove itself to the sidelines while U.S. states work out their own emission caps.

If that's the plan, fine. But let's be honest. Let's put it on the table. Let's have public debate about it. Let's refer Bill 18 to an all-party committee to look at what we may have to do.

Mark Jaccard continues: "B.C. might decide to take an observer position in the western climate initiative while it sees what the next U.S. federal government will do." This was in an e-mail in The Vancouver Sun on April 9.

We must be reminded that our large emitters represent nearly 40 percent of our total provincial greenhouse gas emissions, and it's important that the cap-and-trade model currently being negotiated effectively deals with these large industrial emitters.

As I start to move through my support for referral of this, again, there are many questions that need to be answered — questions about how many permits will be issued, what sectors will be covered by regulations, how permits will be allocated, how big the penalties will be for a non-compliance. So I believe that this referral motion is something that can work for us in this Legislature to get answers and for the public to get answers and get a grasp of what Bill 18 is actually about.

Darrell Evans from the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association has other concerns about Bill 18. He says: "Yet another attempt by the Liberals to place corporate information behind an iron curtain. It's vital that our democratic values not be abandoned by the creation of a rapidly growing quasi-governmental grey zone where the government and private sector mix."

He continues: "Transparency and accountability should prevail wherever public work is done and taxpayer funds are spent." In The Vancouver Sun that was said by Darrell Evans. Again, I relate it back to the quasi-privatized model — denying FOI access — with Bill 18, the Coastal Ferry Act. Exactly the same process is happening, and I have concerns about that.

Stephen Hume, writing in The Vancouver Sun, reiterates what worries Loukidelis and should concern the rest of us. Stephen Hume, on April 9 in The Sun, says: "What worries Loukidelis and should concern the rest of us are the sweeping confidentiality concessions offered private corporations that might benefit hugely from selling carbon credits acquired by meeting emissions targets."

On the same day that Stephen Hume had his article in The Sun, there's another concern. This is a quote from The Sun on April 9: "Hide from public scrutiny the details of who is reaching what targets and how emissions are monitored, and the process seems ripe for abuse by the unscrupulous."

British Columbians do not want the process to be ripe for abuse by the unscrupulous, and we need to refer this bill to a committee for full debate to fill in the gaps and inform the public.

As I mentioned before, the key unanswered questions that must be in the public realm, that must be on the table…. We need to know about the issuance of permits. Will there be a limit on these? How are the largest industrial sectors connected in the bill? What sectors should be covered by the cap-and-trade program? Within each covered sector, what point of regulation is most appropriate? Should all sectors be covered by the program on the same launch date, or should there be some added over time? If so, we need the reasons why.

What about the allocation and distribution of permits? Who will set the penalties? How high will they be for non-compliance? What restrictions will be placed on the alternative compliance units — for example, any offsets? What sort of government oversight will there be in the cap-and-trade regime? What types of permits are we using — auction or free allocation or a combination of these?

There are many, many questions that need answering. There's much debate on what works and what method we should be using. These are the questions that referring this to an all-party committee could take into account.

This actual bill is an enabling bill, which allows to set regulations but doesn't set it by legislation. It's not only very concerning to many on this side of the House but very concerning to many British Columbians who would like to know what a true cap-and-trade is. Is it merely a cap-and-trade that everyone looks at, at first glance and says: "Hey, we need it, so let's do it"?

We need to know exactly what it does. What are the triggers? What are the penalties? Who's making key decisions? Is the public involved? Are decisions made behind closed doors? We need to know and hear the answers to these and many more questions.

In conclusion, we need to break away from this veil of secrecy. I believe British Columbians want and expect three things from this government: scrutiny, transparency and accountability in this Legislature. I would ask all members of the House to support this move to referral to ensure that these three key issues are put to the test with Bill 18.

B. Ralston: I rise to speak to the amendment to Bill 18 proposed by the member for Vancouver-Hastings that Bill 18 not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives.

I rise to speak in support of that amendment to the bill. This debate arises out of the budget put forward by the government wherein 40 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions that are currently going up into the atmosphere in British Columbia were not covered by the gas tax introduced by the Finance Minister in the budget this spring.

At that time, in the budget document on page 13, the minister referred somewhat obliquely to other emissions, including those resulting from industrial processes such as the production of oil, gas, aluminum and cement, and emissions from landfill and other sources, which will not be subject to the tax initially — that is, the gas tax or, as the minister prefers to call it, a carbon tax.

Initially in the budget, the major polluters faced no consequences whatsoever while ordinary citizens and those in rural and suburban British Columbia in certain industries and sectors increasingly see the apparent unfairness of the application of the tax that the Finance Minister has proposed. The major polluters, the major emitters, were given a free pass in the budget. This legislation is introduced to begin, at least, the appearance of imposing some form of greenhouse gas restraint upon major emitters in the province.

Why this referral motion is particularly important is because it's very apparent not only from the comments of Dr. Jaccard…. He is recommending to the government that they wait at least until next year, until the new federal government in the United States is in place, before taking any steps. To merely attend the western climate initiative of the American states and some Canadian provinces not as a participant but as an observer suggests that the time horizon for the imposition of this kind of a system and the resulting tax on major emitters is far in the future.

This bill that's before us, therefore, gives us some leisure to consider the important step that this kind of scheme would involve and would bring to British Columbia to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Because this covers 40 percent of provincial greenhouse gas emissions, it's important that this proposed system be the right one. If this 40 percent is not captured, it won't help reduce pollution. It would have negative consequences for reducing pollution — for the public confidence in any scheme to reduce greenhouse gases — and would damage British Columbia's reputation down the road. So it's very important that this system be set up properly, that we get it right and that there be some public input into that process.

The bill that's been introduced — as has been pointed out by the member for Nanaimo, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway and other members on the opposition side — is really but a shell. It's a shell that really gives the government the opportunity in cabinet — or, as the formal term, as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — to really put the guts of the bill together. The legal term for this is delegated legislation. It's legislation that is law made not in parliament or the Legislature but by the executive under the powers delegated to it by parliament.

Many legal observers have, over recent years, become very concerned about that tendency to delegate to the executive, away from the Legislature, increasing powers to make regulations, including the power to tax and a number of other important areas of law that affect many citizens, companies and cooperatives in the economy and in society.

In 1929 Lord Justice Hewart called this delegated legislation — law made not in parliament but by the executive — the new despotism. It has become increasingly a feature of many countries in the Commonwealth. One of the basic principles is that, according to Westminster-style parliamentary theory, taxation requires the financial resolution of the House of Commons.

So what we see here is the potential for very sweeping legislation which will affect major industrial sectors — not only the management and operation of those firms, but those who work in those firms; those who buy and use the products of those firms, or the services of those firms; and those communities that are affected by the presence of a plant in their community. So this is very important economic legislation. It's the sort of thing….

You can already hear in the press the various industrial sectors — the cement industry, the oil and gas industry — raising concerns, granted, and understandably, from their perspective. There was a story recently in the Globe and Mail about the Chevron Refinery in Burnaby. The manager or spokesperson there wondered what impact a cap-and-trade system might have upon the operations of that refinery.

These are important questions, but it's clear that the government in this bill — at least what is enunciated by this bill — does not wish to discuss those details. Those details are the nitty-gritty of the bill, the essential matter of the bill. They don't want to discuss those publicly. What they want to do and what this bill would enable them to do is take the legislation, head into the cabinet room under a veil of secrecy and begin to put together the regulations that would make this system work or not work.

There are very basic questions that this bill should be answering. The principles of legislative drafting

suggest strongly…. I looked at A Guide to Legislation and Legislative Process in British Columbia, prepared by the office of the legislative counsel and a guide to preparing drafting instructions.

What they recommend is that when the government is putting together a bill, from the perspective of the legislative drafter, they should know in advance what the regulations are going to be in order that the bill be properly designed if regulations are meant to be subordinate to the main legislation. If the proposed regulations are not known, it makes for a potential problem, in that the proposed regulations may not be consistent with the legislation that's being put forward.

Now, either the government knows what the proposed regulations are here and has discussed them and chooses not to reveal them, which in my view and the view of the opposition is a real problem, because this issue is very important and deserves a full public airing…. There's lots of help that could be given to the government. Many people — certainly citizens, experts and affected communities — have views on how this legislation might work and should be given the opportunity to offer their advice.

If the government knows what those regulations are, in my view, it has an obligation to release them. On the other hand, the government may not know what the regulations are, have given an incentive to the legislative drafters just to "put this legislation together as fast as you can because we are" — speaking as the government — "under…."

Their view may be that they're under such pressure to introduce this legislation that most of the details aren't ready, have to be left out and an empty shell has to be put forward to the Legislature in order to simply have something on the record that may convince the public which, if they don't scrutinize this legislation, chooses to believe that something is being done on cap-and-trade to regulate and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the major emitters in the province.

Either the government knows the regulations and is choosing to hide them, or they don't know and they're choosing to hide that fact. Neither option is a particularly palatable one, in my view. The government, I think, could seize this opportunity put forward by the member for Vancouver-Hastings and help work its way out of the dilemma that it has put itself into by rushing into the Legislature with this shell of a bill.

There are some important aspects to what is being proposed here, but the veil of secrecy that surrounds this bill is not merely confined to the legislation itself, the presence or absence of regulations. In the body of the bill, this legislation proposes to take the secrecy even further.

This is where the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and Mr. Loukidelis came into play. He wrote a letter directly to the minister responsible for this piece of legislation. This is a very unusual step. This is the Information and Privacy Commissioner, an independent officer of the Legislature. He is completely independent, appointed by an all-party committee. No one is entitled to, nor would attempt to, interfere with his work. He views the legislation independently and has chosen of his own accord to come forward and express some very, very serious concerns about this legislation.

Not only does this legislation delegate to the government in its proposed regulations, which may be already written in draft or may not be — one doesn't know — but in the operation of the bill, which ordinarily the public has the right to find out…. Through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, they have the right to make requests.

Even if the government chooses not to release the regulations, even if the government chooses not to share with the public some of the considerations that have gone into the making of a piece of legislation, or the operation of a piece of legislation, that act gives the public the right to make requests under the act and to have some of that information provided and made public.

What the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner, Mr. Loukidelis, is concerned about is that unlike an ordinary bill — and the Freedom of Information Act, with all its restrictions and all the attempts that the government has put to slow down or block the release of information — this legislation would incorporate statutorily a number of provisions that would prevent any release of information at all about the operation of this act.

These are very, very sweeping proposals. Mr. Loukidelis refers to section 36 of Bill 18. I'm going to just read briefly from his letter.

The government, even if it supplied the information itself…. That would be barred from public review. It would employ the infelicitous and ambiguous phrase "information with respect to a trade secret," which creates a very broad and unclear ambit of protection from public scrutiny of anything relating to a trade secret. All of those provisions have attracted the attention of the commissioner, and the minister is aware of this letter because it's addressed to him personally.

It's unusual to receive it thus far, either in his introduction of the bill…. Given that there's very little, if any, debate from members on the government side, there appears to be no acknowledgment of this problem that the commissioner has pointed out, no commitment to at least even examine those provisions, no prospective amendments — nothing. Complete silence on this issue, which suggests that the government is hoping that the public will not be terribly concerned about this and

will be able to blow by it and introduce it as part of the legislation that's before the House.

That ought to concern all of us. Many commentators have put it in perhaps more simple language and more direct language, which really expresses a measure of alarm that one rarely sees attached to legislation that comes before this House.

I'm looking at a piece by Paul Willcocks, who's a commentator on B.C. politics. He says:

Should it be important, for example, that Prince George MLAs have at least some information on the likely caps and costs for the forest industry before they decide if they're prepared to support the bill?

So there's one commentator, admittedly — one whose views are regularly followed by many members of the public — who's expressing real and profound concerns about what's in this legislation and what's not in this legislation.

The government's record on the secrecy that surrounds all of the climate change initiatives is really quite extraordinary, when one compares it to the western climate initiative that the MLA for North Coast referred to just a moment ago in his speech, where the public is invited to attend the meetings, most of the proposals are up on their website, there's an important dialogue, and people are brought along in the democratic process, as they should be.

Granted, the proposals are evolving, but there's the opportunity to incorporate suggestions from the public. There's an expectation that business will be interested, but their representations and their interest is a matter of public record so that people know what's taking place, what compromises might be being made and what deals might be being worked out, all with a view to passing final judgment on the ultimate result.

This process, which would take all of those important questions and give them to a committee of cabinet, presumably, is completely consistent with the veil of secrecy that has surrounded these initiatives right from the start, right from the moment the Premier had his epiphany on the beach in Maui in January 2007.

The public has been completely shut out of the process — every initiative, plan, committee or hearing the government has had on the climate change. All appointments to the climate action secretariat and Climate Action Team have been done behind closed doors. Labour is completely left off the Climate Action Team. The exclusion from the FOI application has been to the climate action secretariat — the 177 presentations made to government, the Climate Action Team and their work, the climate change plan, cap-and-trade negotiations and the implementation of the carbon tax.

In April 2007 the government excluded the Cabinet's Committee for Climate Action from the Freedom of Information Act. In May 2007 the Premier and the government joined the North American climate registry but refused to make the information from this registry public. The government has refused to disclose any documents through freedom of information to the opposition on reports and briefings related to the 33 percent target reduction.

So there's a history of moving forward in stealth and secrecy. Just why is not clear. This is an important matter of public concern.

A cap-and-trade system is one of the potential legislative solutions that's been examined and put in place in Europe. Initially, the cap-and-trade system there was perhaps not as successful as it could have been, due to the way in which permits were allocated. More permits were given than emissions that were being put into the atmosphere, and the system collapsed. But that was apparently a growth pain, and the system is back on a more effective track now.

Those are the kinds of public concerns that need to be debated and discussed so that the public can be drawn into it, so that interested parties can be drawn into it, so that business can be drawn into it, so that environmental groups can be drawn into it, so that labour can be drawn into it, so that affected communities can be drawn into this process, rather than just, as this legislation would, take the empty shell of the bill in behind closed doors and, under the veil of secrecy, work out what system might come forward. There are very real questions to be asked about any cap-and-trade system.

The minister in his…. I took the opportunity to review his very brief introduction of this bill at second reading, and his remarks are terse and clipped, to say the least. There's very little information in his introduction and very little to guide the debate here in the chamber.

None of the questions that have been posed here by members of the opposition have been answered by any member on the government side, and there's ample opportunity to stand up and debate. Government members have not availed themselves of the opportunity to debate this bill, with very few exceptions, and those who did didn't provide any answers to those key questions. Very important unanswered questions that this committee….

There is time, as has been made very clear. There's no rush on the part of the government to implement this system. They've publicly signalled that very strongly. This system, if it is to be implemented, might not be

implemented by 2009 or even 2010. So there is time to consider these basic questions and for the government to give some sense to the public of what this system might look like, what their panel of experts have advised them.

There are a number of experts who are retained and are being paid to provide some answers to these questions and who, I'm sure, would be quite willing to share what they've decided and the areas where there is some real need for broader public debate. For example, how many permits will be issued? It's a very basic question.

What will be the cap? How will the cap…? That's the limit on overall emissions from this sector, the 38 so far. It looks like it might apply to the 38 major emitters who emit more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases a year. That's because Environment Canada requires that there be a record kept of that. But is there a plan to lower that limit? That's a reasonable question. That's a legitimate question. That's part of the debate. Is there any answer? Will we hear anything from the Ministry of Environment before we're called upon to support, or not, this legislation?

What sectors will be covered by these regulations? The WCI, the western climate initiative, has what they call a scope subcommittee. As the name suggests, the very work of that committee is to decide the sectors that would fall under the program, the emission sources that would fall under the program, the greenhouse gases that would fall under the program and the points of regulation where the program would be enforced.

Those are all pretty basic questions, pretty legitimate questions. If you're a business operating and you're one of those 38 businesses, major emitters, those are questions that you'd want to know, that you'd want to have answered. You'd want to know the answers to those questions. This legislation doesn't provide that. The government hasn't offered any detail on that — completely silent.

How can businesses plan effectively? How can they decide whether they want to support the legislation? How can the communities where these plants are make plans for their future? How can the workers and the businesses that depend on the economic activity that's generated there know what the future holds for them?

This is a major intervention into the economy. I support a cap-and-trade program in principle, but in order to effectively implement one, these kinds of questions have to be dealt with. This government is not prepared to do that at all.

The issue of how the permits will be allocated. There is huge debate about the process by which permits would be allocated. Do you simply assign them? Or what some prefer and some economists have suggested, and a view that I myself am inclined to, is that an auction of permits should take place. That way, it's an open market. There's a market principle involved there. In addition, you generate money for the public treasury by that auction process.

That enables businesses, through the auction mechanism, to put a price on carbon and send the market signal to the new market in permits that might be created through this western climate initiative and the cap-and-trade system. The very essence or principle of a cap-and-trade system is to bring the market principles to bear on the price of carbon, to create a market for permits, to incent innovation and incent businesses to reduce their emissions, therefore creating the savings that result from that — and also to further incent them because they'll be able to sell the permits that they have got and receive some income from that as well.

The system is designed to do that if an auction system is put in place, but we don't have an answer from the government on that. We don't even have an inkling of what the government is thinking on that — complete silence from all the leaders in this debate.

Madam Speaker, that's why the member for Vancouver-Hastings has so wisely put forward this amendment that would send this bill out to the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives.

We could hear before that committee. That committee could travel the province — I've been on the Finance Committee; it sometimes does that — and hear from the public on how to make this cap-and-trade system work in the way that we want and how to have it be an effective solution for what is the greatest environmental challenge of our generation and how to have this legislation work for the interests of all British Columbians, not just for those who have access to the confidentiality and privacy of the cabinet room where deals might be worked out to solve individual problems for companies, rather than all the problems of all British Columbians.

With that, I conclude my remarks on this. I urge the government to take this opportunity to support the very wise amendment from the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

Hon. B. Penner: Just speaking to the motion that's been put forward by the members of the opposition, the government will not be supporting this motion. Effectively, it's a delaying motion.

One of their members, I think, put it quite succinctly. The member for Surrey-Newton said that the government needs to take a slower look at the climate change initiatives of government. We're not going to be supporting this motion. In fact, one of their other members said something quite contradictory. The member from Vancouver-Fairview said that it's important that governments collectively around the world take quicker action on climate change, not take a slower look, as the member for Surrey-Newton suggested.

So I don't think that the members of this side of the House will be supporting this motion.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the motion is on the amendment: "Be it resolved that Bill 18 not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives."

M. Karagianis: I rise to speak to the main motion here. I have to, first of all, voice my great disappointment that the government didn't seize upon the opportunity that was given to them here to actually support the amendment that was just defeated. That, combined with the government's total lack of response so far with regard to the debate on this bill and the issues that have been raised throughout the amendment debate, give me a great deal of concern.

In fact, this is a monumental piece of legislation that will have long-reaching implications into the future, will have huge implications on the economy of this province, will have huge implications on the whole issue around climate change and our need in this province to engage and change our behaviour. So the lack of response on the government side to all of the very legitimate questions that are being raised here by the opposition gives me a great deal of concern.

The issue around creating an effective carbon-trading system is something that governments are grappling with around the world. We've seen that the initial endeavours by the European countries have had some failures, have had some successes. From that, there is an enormous amount of things that could be learned. At no point are we hearing from the government that, in fact, they have given long and hard consideration of the concerns that are being voiced about carbon-trading systems and the success or failure.

In standing and speaking to the main motion here, again, I would draw to the government's attention the very legitimate concerns that not only the opposition members have for this. In fact, the environmental community itself, the business community, certainly many of those who will be most affected by a cap-and-trade system have themselves voiced some concerns.

So I think it's fair for us to expect that government would give us some assurance that they understand the complexities of creating an effective carbon-trading system and that they are willing to engage in a public dialogue to disclose exactly how they are going to approach this.

Given the occurrences around the world that have failed with regard to how the carbon-trading system was set up, I think it's imperative for government to actually pay attention and to respond, and to respond in the debate process here, as well, to let us know exactly what kinds of things they are thinking. It is this complete absence of any kind of detail or information that has given us the most concern.

A strong system, an effective carbon-trading and cap-and-trade system, has to be secure, with no loopholes. That is one of the biggest concerns that's occurred here around the issues with lack of detail on this bill. We don't know what kind of caps are going to be set. We don't know what kind of loopholes, if any, might occur.

We don't know what kind of system the government is going to base this on. Are they going to look to the European model? Are they going to learn from the mistakes and errors that have occurred there and create a system built on that, or are they looking at something new? Where, in fact, are the details, that we can see, on what kind of cap-and-trade system the government is expecting to implement?

The issue around including the appropriate sectors, not only in the discussions but certainly in the caps and relative to exclusions, I think, is a huge concern. There have certainly been plenty of examples with some of the existing proposed legislation by the government that…. The exclusions around some industries, I think, are inappropriate.

Certainly, if we leave out the aviation industry, if we leave out B.C. Ferries, if we leave out the oil and gas industry, if we leave out some of the major polluters in

this process — not only in the process of compiling and setting up an adequate and appropriate carbon-trading system — and if we exclude them from their need to comply within this, then I think that there should be some very grave concerns here raised by the public, raised by business and, certainly, being voiced here by the opposition. I think government has a duty to listen to those things and to respond to those things.

We've just very recently seen the disclosure around corporate donations to the B.C. Liberal Party. There's no doubt in my mind that there are some significant ties here to government's behaviour and their allegiance to those donors. I know that The Tyee has done an analysis here and said that those corporations that have given money to the Liberals in the past have benefited from policy shifts in the past. We've seen considerable changes within some of the regulations around some of those industries. The implications are there that they certainly get value for their investment.

The mining sector's lobbying efforts after the 2001 election resulted in amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act, removing requirements for sustainable development. There we have right there…. If the government is willing to compromise the Environmental Assessment Act, take out sustainability as a key part of their expectations of that for the mining industry…. There's a pitfall right there that, I think, is an example of the kind of concerns that the public and the opposition have a right to voice.

We look at some of both the major donors and major polluters, and there are certainly some ties and relationships to the B.C. Liberals and to this government. Canada Forest Products and West Fraser Timber Co. and Weldwood of Canada, which no longer exists, gave huge contributions. In fact, we've seen such significant shifts in forest law that you have to actually draw a very close line and you have to draw that connection, and you have to be very concerned about that connection.

When we look at other corporate donors — Teck Cominco, Goldcorp, Elk Valley Coal, EnCana, Highland Valley copper — there would be absolutely no surprise whatsoever that these organizations will fall very much at the top of the list of emitters and polluters that will be most directly affected by how the cap-and-trade system and the carbon-trading system are set up.

I wouldn't be unduly suspicious to say that large donations there and the placement and priority that these companies will have in the list of those who will be the uppermost in consideration of the cap-and-trade and the capping system…. We see in the list here of top polluters in this country and this province that Alcan themselves have been ranked as one of the top air polluters here in the province. The oil and gas sector: responsible for 1/5 of B.C.'s total greenhouse gas emissions.

It would be of great concern, I think, to the opposition members, to the environmental community, to the citizens of British Columbia, if these very top identified polluters in any way were given exclusions under the cap-and-trade system that we're setting up here. But we have no response from government to our concerns. We've got no details whatsoever on how the cap-and-trade system will be set up, and so we have no choice but to continue to be very concerned and to voice our concerns.

The issue is around permits and how they are going to be distributed. How many are going to be distributed? Previous speakers have outlined the experience in European countries around this that, certainly, they were far too lavish in their original number of permits. That resulted in the collapse of the cap-and-trade system that was initially set up there. There were great hopes, I think, in that system and watching how that system developed.

Certainly, around the issue of how distribution will be done, whether that is, again, going to be something that is going to be left to the whim of the executive council of cabinet and what direct relationship that will have on both the previous comments I made on who were donors, who are the major polluters, who will be excluded, who will not and what those expectations will be….

The government has given us no indication whatsoever whether they will take the recommendations that have come from all kinds of experts in the field — and certainly, with passion from the opposition side here — that we expect and demand that there must be an auctioned permit system put in place. Those permits must be auctioned so that absolute fairness takes precedence here.

Limiting offsets and setting the penalties for non-compliance. One of the failings of some of the cap-and-trade examples coming out of Europe is that emitters were able to buy their way out without any significant, real and physical responsible change to environmental compliance. So where are the details here on limits to offsets and penalties?

Frankly, none of this, in any way, would contravene this enabling legislation — to have some of these things clearly outlined. How is the system going to be built? How are they going to set caps? Who's going to be in, and who's going to be out? Is it going to be absolutely unilateral and fair? Are we going to identify the top emitters and polluters and make sure that they're not excluded? Are we going to auction permits? How many will be distributed? What kind of limits to the offsets and what kind of penalties for non-compliance will be levied?

Those are all very real questions that need to be answered. I don't think that they are, in any way, questions that are out of keeping with the kind of details that are expected on any legislative actions within this chamber.

I'm very disturbed, and I spoke to this during the debate on the amendment, that the western climate initiative and our government's proposal to take a really passive role in discussions there…. I think that those are very key initiatives that will be set. Time frames and caps will be determined by consensus by the members of the western climate initiative. Often consensus leads to the lowest possible thresholds set so that there's no discomfort level for all parties. For us to simply sit and take a passive role while declaring that, somehow,

we're taking a leadership role here, federally, provincially and internationally, is a complete sham.

If we want to be real leaders, we will not take a passive role in that discussion. We will not let the consensus be determined by a whole number of other players and then take what's left on the table and say: "Well, we've got the lowest common denominator. Meanwhile, we've had a lot of pressure from our own donors, funders and friends, and therefore, we're going to come in with a watered-down carbon-trading system, much of which will be developed in private and in secret." The public will only get the vaguest kind of idea of whether or not the large emitters and polluters are complying. Forty percent of the pollution problems in this province come from these specific sort of corporate entities.

So Madam Speaker, this issue around the secrecy…. We know that the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner has flagged very, very specifically the issues around secrecy here on this act. Frankly, setting the caps and disclosing that publicly and being very transparent to the public, I think, is an imperative part of this bill.

If the government wants support for this, if they want compliance with this, we've got to see all of that — the setting of the caps, the determining of who is or is not in and out and what the penalties and non-compliance provisions are going to be. All of that is of keen interest to the public, and we would expect that the government should be forthcoming with that.

Tracking and reporting out on the behaviours and compliance or non-compliance of major polluters needs to be another part of this. So far, the government has been silent on what kind of reporting program we will see here. Anytime any of these actions take place in private — in secret, behind closed doors — then I think we have grave concern, and we have a right to voice that. We have a right and an expectation that government will answer us on this.

In the case of this kind of enabling legislation, where government says, "Trust us. We'll do the right thing. We'll do it behind closed doors, but you need not worry," frankly, I and many of my constituents don't necessarily have a lot of confidence in the government's ability to follow through on any of their promises.

We have seen, from 2001 until today — seven years of a B.C. Liberal government — broken promise after broken promise, some of them with devastating consequences at the end of the day. So for the government to rely on the fact that this enabling legislation, which is a fundamental key to a paradigm shift here in our behaviour in the province of British Columbia…. It's a part of a key initiative that we, frankly, support.

The climate change initiatives, cap-and-trade — a real effective system — and some of the other components here that allow us to move forward into a new future that is very conscious and responsible to climate change…. We support that. But for the government to simply say: "Well, trust us. We'll do a good job, and you need not worry yourself about that. We don't have to come clean with the public. We don't have to be transparent with the public on any of the components of this carbon-trading system…."

This is a government that has had to be forced each and every step of the way to do the right thing. We have seen so many broken promises from this government, where it is only upon public pressure from the general public; from the opposition; from the courts, in the case of Bill 29; public outcry over the child death reviews; the ongoing pressure that seniors are feeling as the government has still not delivered on their promises around long-term care beds…. It's only after enormous pressure from the opposition and the public that we see the government forced, in some cases, to do the right thing.

Let's be very clear. In almost every one of those cases, the government takes the path of doing the least possible. I'm frankly not fond of the saying "It's the least we could do." I think we should never strive to do the least we can do. In the cases where government has had to be forced back to the table to reassess things, like the institution of a new children's representative, like having to revisit Bill 29 only at the pressure of the Supreme Court, like the promise not to sell B.C. Rail — and now it's embedded in a huge and very costly, scandalous lawsuit…. All of these things should say to us that you can't just simply say, "We trust government. They'll do the right thing," and walk away from this.

I think it is fair and right that we demand some of these answers with regard to this kind of legislation, that we do not blindly trust that something as key as the climate change initiative and a bill that is going to have the biggest impact on the economy, on corporate behaviour, on corporate responsibility — that is, in fact, going to determine a key part of the business community's role in climate change, hand in hand with whatever is going to be imposed on consumers….

I think it's imperative that we get these answers, and it's not in any way unjust for us to demand those before we determine if it's good or bad legislation. How can you know that when you don't have any of the details? Until I hear from the government some reassurance here and some response, then we're left thinking this is all a huge mystery, and we can only surmise that we may or may not be doing the right thing.

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

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

I want to begin by doing probably the most important thing we do: recognize the incredible staff that we have working with us. I am pleased to have a number of staff with us today. I'll introduce the ones that are going to start, and then we'll have various others working their way through this process over the next couple of days.

First of all, to my right is my deputy minister, James Gorman. To my left is Rick Davis, who is one of our superintendents of achievement, and just behind me is Doug Stewart, who is our assistant deputy minister in our resource management division.

There are a number of other staff joining us in the room today. I want to just pay a compliment to all of them. It's a pleasure to work with them on a daily basis. Also, they are terrific at what they do. Delighted to have them here. I know they'll be helpful in providing information to the members opposite as they ask their questions.

I want to just very briefly remind people today that in the recent Speech from the Throne, in fact, government laid out a clear vision not just for education in the province. But for the province of British Columbia, education continues to be one of the top priorities of this government. I think, certainly, that both sides of the House would agree that that is an important priority for whoever makes up government.

Today we want to talk about some of the initiatives and investments, and I'm sure there will be specific questions related to some of them. We've been clear. We recognize that British Columbia has an excellent education system, and our job is to ensure that it continues to improve and that we allow all of the children in British Columbia to have a top-notch educational opportunity.

The facts are very straightforward. This budget creates an increase in education funding of 3.3 percent in 2008-2009. In fact, that's an increase of $181 million. This year's budget also includes further increases of $103 million in 2009-2010 and $44 million in 2010-2011. When you look at that cumulatively over the last number of years, in fact we see an increase in our budget from $5.494 billion in 2007-2008 to $5.822 billion by 2010-2011. That is a $1.2 billion additional increase in education funding since 2000-2001.

In 2008-2009 our per-pupil funding will actually increase in British Columbia to $8,037 a year, which is an increase of more than 29 percent since 2001. When you look at the statistics and how we put that in context, Budget 2008 also represents another year of record funding in the province.

At the same time, we continue to lose students in British Columbia. We have actually seen a decline of more than 50,000 students since 2001. This is the tenth consecutive year of declines in the province. That trend continues — of increased funding and decreased enrollment.

We know that we want to be very strategic about our investments, and we will continue to focus on student achievement with boards of education across the province.

One of the things very exciting to us, certainly in our work, is the commitment to expand StrongStart centres in British Columbia, a program which looks at early learning and early literacy resources both for children and their families.

One of the unique factors in those programs is that they are placed in schools which have excess space. One can imagine that if you have 50,000 fewer children, you're likely to have some excess space. So I was delighted that in the Finance Minister's budget we saw a $38 million investment in StrongStart centres in British Columbia, and we are extremely pleased. We think that will make a difference also in our completion rates — when you look at investing in those early years.

We intend to continue to invest in aboriginal student achievement. Adult learners are also an important component, and we also want to work with boards of education to look at green school buildings, buses, programs to help our students understand the environment and the sustainability issues that they're so keenly interested in.

With that, I think we've been clear in our throne speech. We have reflected the principles that we presented in the throne, backing that up by the financial commitments in Budget 2008. I know that I look forward to continuing to work with boards of education and educators across the province — all of our partners — to ensure that British Columbia continues to have an excellent education system.

With that, we'd be delighted to begin to respond to the questions that the members opposite might have.

D. Cubberley: I'd like to add my voice of welcome to all who are participating in today's events and to the ministers. I'd also like to join the minister in thanking staff for their contribution to my performance in the House, and they bear no blame for any lack of performance on my part in the House. I'm capably seconded by Carson Fennell and Iain Reeve, and I would thank them for their contribution to the questions that I'll be asking.

I would just make some preliminary remarks before jumping into questions, to respond a little bit and indicate the obvious agreement that we would have with education being a top priority.

We know that education is the single best way to redistribute opportunity to individuals, to ensure that they can meet their maximum potential.

We also know that the achievement of education is the single most important determinate of health of any — irrespective of background and predispositions that might suggest that someone would be less advantaged in health terms. If they achieve an educational outcome, if they complete high school, statistically they are much more likely to enjoy a productive lifetime, to secure more wealth for themselves and their family, to live in more stable family arrangements, to produce children that are healthier and happier and live longer themselves, and to live free of disease for longer than individuals who do not complete high school.

That should, I think, stay in front of us at all times when we're talking about the importance of trying to improve on the performance of our school system.

I think part of the focus on this side will be to try to engage discussion about how we can do more and better for those who start behind and who struggle in school, while ensuring that we improve overall performance for those who are more developmentally ready and can perform at grade level from the outset. I want to try to put a focus on where and how we can improve. I look forward to having some good, engaged discussion about that.

I would have to say, in a broad sense, that while the minister paints a generally rosy picture about the school system we have and while it's a very fine system, I think that the picture is a little more complex on the ground. I know that in the period of time that I've been critic, I've experienced trustees, teachers and communities wrestling with the fallout of funding instability that has come from repeated changes after budgets have been set. I know that this doesn't accord with the official narrative from the government on this, but they certainly experienced declining real funding relative to mandated program.

They wrestle with the fact that, in a time of declining enrolment, they simply cannot wind the fixed costs of delivering education down in proportion to the loss of students — a loss which, I would have to hasten to add, is complicated because of the outflow of small numbers of students into the private school system. That's something that we will need to look at a little more closely, because it certainly worsens the situation of school districts.

The Chair: Member. I have to remind all members that when they have the floor, there is no use of electronic equipment.

D. Cubberley: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought for opening notes that I could. Okay.

D. Cubberley: I'm sure everyone will put their BlackBerrys away. Anyway, I understand, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Member, it's only when you're standing. You can use it for research in between questions.

D. Cubberley: Obviously, rural school districts continue to struggle to deliver equivalent educational opportunity to their more dispersed populations, and that is exaggerated as we continue to see outflows of population toward urban areas. We want to be certain that those districts are being given the kinds of resources that they need to address their particular problems, their special problems, some of which include a much higher incidence of various kinds of special needs kids and complicates very much what they have to deal with.

There are significant issues around English-as-a-second-language programs. We continue to see evidence that the outcomes, which were very, very good in the 1990s and in the early part of the new century, are now beginning to be something that we can't count on as much. There are things that work, such as the change in the composition of the immigrants to the province, that are clearly having some impact on the teaching programs in the schools and their success rate. That is something that we need to look at.

The government has set and has taken some steps in the direction, in a framework sense, of setting priorities to improve literacy. As regards schools, in particular, one of the populations that is most important is to try to address those kids who are not developmentally ready, who struggle at school and who frequently go on to be non-complete. There is, however, a bit of a gap between the stated intention to address those kids and the programs that are actually being put in the field. We will want to look at that.

The closure of schools is an issue that communities across British Columbia wrestle with, that is extremely painful and that can rip the heart right out of them. I have many, many contacts with parents in school districts across B.C. who are wrestling with this and who are very, very angry at the loss of what they view as public assets. Many of them — or a number of them; I shouldn't say "many," because it isn't a one-for-one relationship — find that the first thing they discover is that the school is being closed.

The second thing they discover is that the land is going to be sold. The sale of school lands is an issue that is very divisive in communities, and it's one that we will want to try to air during the course of the discussion as well.

The last area that I might just highlight, which I think would benefit from lots of discussion on our part, is that of special needs kids, which are a very, very high priority and a substantial portion of the enrolment in public schools.

There's very clear evidence that the supports in place in the classroom are, in the minds of many people, parents and teachers in particular, inadequate to the challenges being faced.

We have the benefit — and I know that the minister has had a chance to review this — of a report done in Langley school district that I think can be the basis for a

useful discussion of both the problems and perhaps some of the directions for change that could help to alleviate that situation.

Having said all of that, I would like to pass into questions. To begin with, I thought we might just look at some general issues of funding and start there, and then go into some other topics.

I was interested in the $181 million figure that the minister presented. I wonder if she could just break that down for me and tell me what the purposes of that are, and we'll go from there.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, over $161 million of the $181 million is going to educational programming. That includes both public and independent schools. And $20.9 million goes to debt and amortization.

D. Cubberley: Perhaps we could unpack the $161 million. What portion of that is going to private schools, and what is that for? What portion to public, and what specific activities would that be funding? How much of that would be committed to negotiated salary increases rather than for new programs?

Hon. S. Bond: The amount of the $161 million that goes to independent schools is $20.4 million, and the rest of the dollars, as the member opposite would know, are provided to boards of education in block funding. It's not assigned to a particular program or a particular area. It is, in fact, block funding. Boards of education receive those dollars and make the decisions about how those funds are used.

D. Cubberley: Were all of the negotiated settlements fully covered in block funding prior to this increment, or is a portion of this increment intended to cover off money still owing for negotiated salaries?

Hon. S. Bond: This funding provides for the negotiated settlements that were provided and reached with teachers across the province. Boards of education determine how to extend those funds, including how much staff they actually hire. Those funds cover those costs.

D. Cubberley: Could the minister explain to me just a little bit on the $20 million in debt retirement money? What is that for? What level of debt is that?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, that money is critical to our capital program. It covers the prepaid capital advances, and that includes the debt service and amortization. So that would cover things like seismic and buildings. It is the prepaid capital advance part of that $181 million.

D. Cubberley: I wanted to ask next about the level of capital funding allocated for this year — whether it's an increase over last year and by how much. And maybe, just because I'm curious about this, the minister could tell me why the prepaid portion of capital expenditures is paid out of the operating moneys, as opposed to having a stand-alone. Why wouldn't that be included in block capital funding — the capital allocation for the year?

Hon. S. Bond: The cash flow for capital this year will be $305 million. The $20 million that we referred to earlier is actually the operating cost to service the debt. So that is, in fact, an operating cost. The $305 million is the cash flow on the capital side of the envelope.

D. Cubberley: I had asked whether that was an increase over last year, which I believe it is. So perhaps the minister can comment on that.

At the same time, let me ask: is there a portion of that which is allocated for the seismic upgrade program, or is there new money for seismic upgrading being included in that? Perhaps that's the best way to ask that question.

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, seismic is included in that. Last year's cash flow on the capital side would have been $256 million, and this year it's $305 million.

D. Cubberley: I just wanted to ask the minister how they go about formulating the capital budget for the year. Is it based on a preapproval of projects? Is it a schedule of projects that the minister intends to see completed in the year? And does it include a mandated contribution from school districts for each of the individual projects?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, we have an extensive capital planning process in the ministry, and districts across the province rank their priorities. It is a multi-year process. So at any given time in a capital planning process, we have buildings that are entering the planning phase, doing feasibility studies. We have projects that are actually under construction, and we have projects that will be completed. It is a multi-year plan — in fact, extensive investment in capital over the last couple of years — and no, it is not mandated that boards bring resources to the table.

D. Cubberley: Does it represent an acceleration of the seismic-upgrade process — the new money? Can you give me an idea of how many seismic upgrades you plan to complete in the next year?

Hon. S. Bond: This is not an acceleration. It is basically an ongoing 15-year project that is incredibly aggressive and intensive. I will give the member opposite the current project status. The commitment was to make sure that the high-priority schools, 95 of them, were in process during the three-year period when the commitment was made.

The project status is that 13 are completed; 14 are currently under construction; 36 will commence in 2008; 16 will begin in 2009, but the preliminary work for that begins now with project agreements, etc.; and 19 are pending school district review for priority to proceed.

We still have challenges as we work with boards of education. In fact, we've had boards come to us and say: "This project — we don't want it to go ahead. We have others that we want to move through." So this is a collaborative approach with boards of education.

We will see a significant number commence this year, but there are also 14 currently under construction.

The minister said that the three-year commitment was to have the 95 in process. I'm perhaps misrecalling it, but it seems to me that in the news release I read, it was to complete the 95 projects in the three years. I'll have a look at my files on the break and see. I believe that it was the 95 and that there were some additional ones to be added. There was a further process to look at adding additional schools.

I think that the completion was a promise going into the 2005 election campaign, as I recall. I understand that it's turned out to be more complicated than perhaps the enthusiasm of that moment suggested it might be. It looks as though some of this will not get done in the three-year window. But I do thank the minister for the information.

The minister said a few moments ago that the ministry doesn't require school districts to bring any resources to the table in order to get a capital approval. What I hear from school districts is that their ranking, relative to the ministry's ranking, of priority for a capital project is one thing if they are not bringing resources to the table and that it changes dramatically if they do bring resources to the table. They can shave many years of waiting off getting a new facility if they bring money to the table.

I don't hear that from just one place. I hear from many places that that is the discussion with the ministry. I would just be interested in the minister's comment on that.

It is not required that boards of education bring dollars to the table. We have an aggressive capital process that continues as we speak. So we will have seen literally billions of dollars of investment in building schools. In fact, despite declining enrolment…. The other side of the argument that actually doesn't get presented is that we have built new schools, we continue to renovate schools, and that continues to take place.

Of course we're going to take opportunities to work with schools, school districts across the province and boards of education to reinvest what is public investment in assets. So we require that boards now, as a government, declare what they consider to be surplus in their districts.

Let's be clear about that. They make choices about what they declare to be surplus before any disposal is considered. The new process that's in place actually requires that government has the first option to look at that public asset to see if there is another public use that might be appropriate for that building. The second step in the process is that communities, municipal levels of government and others, have the chance to look at the asset before it's disposed of, and in the event that it is disposed of, it has to be reinvested in educational infrastructure.

D. Cubberley: I heard the minister say that the requirement is that boards declare what they consider to be surplus, and then prior to disposal — and I understood this part — the province, another ministry, has a look at whether it be an appropriate place for a government building to go or some other government use. Then, after that, the minister suggested that communities can look at it before it ever being offered up for sale.

The interesting thing there is…. In my experience — and I went through this as a local councillor a number of times and have gone through it as an MLA — communities certainly could have a look at it, but they were told that they could only have a look at it if they were willing to pay highest and best-use cost or willing to pay those prices for the land.

Perhaps the minister could comment on that, because it was not available, as I understand it, on a less-than-development-value basis to communities. At least I'm certainly not aware of that occurring, so I'd be interested in that.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the member opposite is correct. There certainly is a process, and he articulated that correctly. We do now in government actually have a look at assets that are currently owned.

We need to be clear here. The assets are owned by the boards of education and are investments that public taxpayers have made. So we do expect there to be a thoughtful process. How we look at that…. Government gets the first opportunity to see if there's some type of match.

A couple of key points that I also made earlier. The fact of the matter is we expect boards to look at long-term planning, and we don't assume they will dispose of either property or buildings if, in their long-term plan, there is an anticipation that that building will be required. That would not make sense either from a taxpayer or a board of education's perspective, so of course we expect them to do that.

In terms of what they can do — communities…. Yes, there is an expectation that it be at fair market value, but I need to point out to the member opposite that across this province today there are amazing partnerships that are taking place with excess space. It doesn't simply require that boards immediately assume they need to sell a property or a building. In fact, in many cases that's not happening. I can name probably three examples of it in my own school district alone, where a hub centre has recently been created in partnerships with the school district. The city of Prince George, the Northern Health Authority and the Family Y have taken advantage of excess space and turned it

into something incredible. So there are a number of options for boards to consider.

D. Cubberley: Just to explore a little bit the concept of offering it to communities at fair market value. This is kind of a curious term to me, especially the fair and market side of it. These lands are zoned in official community plans as school zones. In all the planning I have done, there has been an aura of permanence around the designation of those lands. Both the buildings and the sites are integral in the planning that is done around community development.

They provide all kinds of things — for example, recreational opportunity both for students and for the community and for teams to use — at all hours of the day. They are typically in official community plans not on a development path. They are not looked at one day down the road as being disposable assets. Therefore, it seems rather curious to load a term like "fair market value" into them, because what it sounds as though we're doing is saying: "You can have them on the grounds that you're willing to pay what they would cost after you've rezoned them for use that currently isn't allowed on those lands."

I would just like the minister to comment on that, because it pumps up the cost to a community to a point where it is prohibitive if we're talking about urban situations. It's absolutely prohibitive to buy these lands at the cost of RS-6 zoning or something even more intense than that. So I'm just interested: fair market value.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm going to profess right upfront that I'm not a zoning expert, but I do know this. What I can reiterate are the basic principles that we expect boards of education to look at.

I think that, for one thing, we want to be clear about this message. We're not expecting or asking or, most importantly, requiring boards of education to dispose of excess property or buildings. We're asking them to plan thoughtfully and carefully for their future. We're asking them to recognize that you have 50,000 fewer children in British Columbia's school system today, and that will continue to decline.

We are seeing extraordinary partnerships created around that excess space. In fact, the government itself has been clearly designing programs to look at how we take advantage of some of that excess space to the benefit of families in British Columbia.

So the most important message that I can give to the member opposite is the fact that we're not requiring boards of education to dispose of things or insisting how that would be done. It is certainly not a requirement when looking at replacement for capital infrastructure.

D. Cubberley: Well, it may not be a requirement, but certainly, in my conversations with school trustees, many feel that they can move their projects up the order very quickly if they bring money to the table. Given the straitened circumstances of most boards — relative funding, relative to scale of program being undertaken — really the only source of saved money would come from land sales.

So on the ground there's a very clear message. There are incentives in the form of quick approvals, if you will, for capital projects if you bring resources to the table. That can be as much as: "On our planning horizon, yes, this school would need to be replaced, but we would probably not normally approve this for another seven to eight years. However, if you can find $8 million and bring it to the table, we'll approve it for next year."

Now, that's an experience that I have had shared with me. So that's happening. Whether it's ministry policy or not, that is happening. But I want to explore it more from not why boards are doing it or why they might do it but how this impacts a community that has had a relationship with a particular school as a place and the land surrounding it as public spaces, in the way it's unfolding currently.

There are some real problems with it, because it's a kind of potentially toxic process at the community level, especially if it follows upon the heels of a fight over the closure of the school. The double whammy is when it's sold off and the way in which it's being managed.

You know, I'm not trying to develop it as a black-and-white issue, but I think we have to be realistic. School districts have not been in the business of land use. They have not been in the business of zoning land, and they're not in the business — apart from planning schools within the framework of the school site — of planning communities and where development should occur.

But when they go into the marketplace with lands that they consider developable, that are surplus to requirements, there's a whole array of impacts as a result of that process. It causes concern all the way down the chain of decision-making — from the council that will ultimately deal with the situation that lands on their doorstep, to the community which is going to have to live with the impacts of the decision.

There are some things about the way the process is working right now that are highly uncomfortable and, as I say, at the community level can be toxic. I see this in my community, I see it around the region, and I see it in other parts of British Columbia, in the urban areas. You know, part of the problem is that at the community level and the neighbourhood level, there's a disconnect between their use of land and buildings — which is not just for sending their kids to school, although it definitely involves that, but it's a broader use — and the development orientation of the process, which leads to uses that completely conflict with those and make it very hard for them to even preserve residual elements of those uses.

I'm just going to put this out. The way it occurs right now, the land goes into a development process without a planning process. There's no planning process around the land going into development. The most recent example that I've had to deal with in my own constituency…. The community found out that the land was for sale, because the president of the community association likes scrolling the B.C. Bid website, and that's where she learned the land was for sale. Now, this is

very upsetting to many people because it's a request for proposals on B.C. Bid that wasn't connected to any community notice that the land was actually now going to be put up for sale.

At another level, it was not connected to any community process involving planning future use of the land. This is a thing that…. You know, more sophisticated communities do more of it, but community planning, the future use of community lands, is sort of what the whole shtick at the municipal level is about. That's citizen engagement, and we go through five-year updates on our local area plans in order to take account of changing composition in the community, changing needs in the community, and maturing opinions about development, growth and change. This is completely disconnected from that — the way it's working.

I am interested in what the minister has to say about what I've said so far, but I'm also mindful that I haven't given her a specific question, and the format really requires that I give her a question. So let me try this. One of the things that happens around this process is that there is no mandate requiring that, before a school district dispose of an asset for development, it do an inventory of the physical features and public uses of the lands in question.

So my question would be: has the minister considered mandating, would she consider mandating, that, prior to the sale of any lands and as part of its public process, the board of education develop an inventory of assets that would include such things as intact habitat, by which I mean…. In the Victoria instance, it would be Garry oak meadows or rocky outcrops with native vegetation on them.

On many school sites there are residual areas that are intact: trails and pathways through the grounds and school lands that are part of the chain of lands that are put together into greenway networks, which are part of the open-space system in communities. So the trail, the movement through the site, is an important consideration. Sometimes there are designated trails that are actually built, sometimes with community investment in them. Would they identify them?

Playing fields currently in use. Landscaping and trees that may have been planted through municipal involvement. We have joint-use agreements on numerous school sites in both the Saanich school district and the Greater Victoria school district with the municipality whose citizenry I represent in part. They make investments in these kinds of things on school lands.

The purpose of this would be to identify an inventory of things that are of value to the community, have an inherent value in their own right and that would form part of anything that would go out to a developer that would orient them towards the assets to be considered. Because without that, now, the community has no comfort that they have any value. There's no planning process that identifies them. The developer makes a bid based on what is on B.C. Bid, and basically, the school district is going to pick the highest number.

Then all of the hashing it out rolls over into the municipal sphere once it's accepted by the school district. They can wash their hands of it. It's now a process between the developer who has bought land based on who knows what assumptions about density and a municipality that wasn't intending to rezone the lands. So, I know that's a lot, but we can come back.

Hon. S. Bond: We were just having an interesting chat with my staff, but I think it's more important to react to those comments.

I think that one of the things that the member describes there as creating toxic situations…. Undoubtedly, there are high-profile emotional circumstances around assets that people are attached to. Community schools and neighbourhood schools are something that people are connected to. They feel personally, emotionally connected to those things. So I think that any time we look at changing that in some way, of course there's a reaction from people. We certainly recognize that. But we also need to be good stewards, and we need to be responsible to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

So what we ask school boards to do is reasonable. We ask them, first of all, to look at their long-term plans and decide with the best information that they can have….Victoria doesn't have that information. Boards of education, individually, very carefully track children that are coming and going, and they can project very well. I know my school district, when I was a school board trustee, was very good at it.

We ask them to make thoughtful planning decisions. So there's no rush to say: "If this building looks like it's important in your future…." We're not suggesting they sell it or dispose of it. We are saying, on the principle we're looking at: "With your community, you need to make some decisions about what the future looks like."

I think the process we've put in place with Labour and Citizens' Services, which actually says that government will have a look at whether or not there's a compatible use for that particular facility, makes sense. I think that then moving that on to a municipal level for a discussion also makes sense. How do we best use those resources?

I think that right now in the ministry we're grappling and working hard at working with individual communities and boards to say: how can we come together and look at building and the challenges facing individual boards?

Let's take the Vancouver school board, for example. They're faced with rapid growth in some areas, rapid decline in other areas. We have heritage buildings. We have seismic requirements. No simple formula or process can adequately deal with that, from our perspective.

The schools we want for the future may look quite different. They may include child care and early learning programs. So we've agreed — for example, in this circumstance — to say to the Vancouver school board: "Let's sit down, and let's talk about what it is that you want for your community, what values you have. How can we as a ministry help facilitate?"

Are there processes in place? Yes. Are there expectations of boards? Yes. Are we looking at how we can

help facilitate a meaningful role for existing buildings and creating new ones? Absolutely.

We are not expecting boards of education to be zoning experts. They are to work with municipalities as they look at the issues that the member opposite talked about — things like Garry oaks and plans and all of those things. But I think it's fair to say that we are facing a challenge in British Columbia with excess space, declining enrolment. How do we shape a school that still maintains the values of neighbourhood and community that are so important to people?

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for the expression both of some sentiment around that and for expressing the government's interest in attempting to recycle and protect these community schools, find new uses for them and diversify their use. I think they do, de facto, function as community centres, along with a whole array of other uses. I don't disagree with her there at all.

I want to come back, though, to the way in which this process works, because it doesn't work very well at the local level. The challenge is in that little part of it where the minister said that school districts work this out with municipalities and communities. It implies that there's a kind of planning process of some kind. In fact, there's not a planning process occurring.

The decision to sell the land is being made independent of a planning process. The ability for a council to decide that the community would like to preserve a substantial share or all of the space for community uses of one kind or another, whether they're park or recreation or habitat protection or trails or recycling of the gym or whatever else it might be…. That possibility is not a greenfield planning possibility — how we'd like to use this land in the future. It's: would you like to buy this land at the values we hope to have it rezoned at?

The answer to that is always going to be no. At the local level people go through, all the time, trying to protect a trail access through a new development which requires them to buy three or four lots from the developer. It's a decision at current values of $1.2 million to $1.5 million, which is probably a 3 percent lift in property taxes for one year. I mean, you can't assemble land at the community level at development values. There simply isn't the tax base for that, and there are too many other requirements for the money that's being collected.

The flaw in that part of the equation is…. Communities really need the opportunity to be able to say: "We'd like to retain some of these lands," or "We don't want you to develop any of it," or "We don't want you to develop all of it, because these assets need to be protected."

That's why I come back to this idea of placing a requirement on a board of education that, prior to disposing of land for development, it identify the assets that attach to the land and that it do what a community would do, what a municipal council would do, if they were looking at developing a piece of land and were respecting the aspiration of the community to protect the environment and protect some opportunities for public mobility or to provide a recreational opportunity. They'd require those elements to be expressed in some fashion in a document that would attach to whatever the RFP is that eventually goes out to a developer. This would be both an alerting process to a prospective developer, and it would provide a basis for local government to say this, that or the other thing about the lands.

Currently that discussion doesn't occur. Communities — individual citizens, neighbourhood groups, parents associations and the like — feel dealt out of it entirely. All they see is that lands are going to not only be sold off and lost to community use, but they're going to be covered with housing of the most intense kind that the developer feels he could get through a council. There's a disconnect.

I just want to pose that question again. It would seem to me to be healthy for the entire process and might, in fact, constitute the creation of much more realistic expectations on the part of school boards about what revenues could be realized from the sale of lands without damaging the community.

You know, I think that the member opposite has, and I have found this in the past with my discussions with him…. I think those are thoughtful questions. On this side we're sort of contemplating what the actual description looks like, for example, when it comes to the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services. Does it include those things which attach value in a different sense?

Certainly, there is a complete disclosure. There's a property disclosure which outlines what the assets might be. I'm not vigorously opposed to that thinking. I think that there are important assets that are attached to those facilities and that it's something we should probably have further discussion about at some other point in time.

I think the major step in the right direction that we have put in place is that we expect planning. We expect government to have the opportunity to look at that asset, because we know how important they are for communities. If the member opposite is simply suggesting…. I think the best way we can describe this is that there is perhaps a more narrowly defined list of assets that is presented when you're looking at disposing. If the member opposite is asking for a broader set of assets to be described, I don't think that's revolutionary but, again, something for further discussion. We certainly think that's worthy of some further thought.

Not to drive the point home too finely, we are not requiring anyone to dispose of anything. We do expect them to be reasonable and thoughtful. I really hope that the member opposite doesn't underestimate or undermine a lot of the great work that does go on in terms of community partnerships, and there are countless examples across the province.

So yes, there are some high-profile circumstances where this becomes a very difficult situation in a neighbourhood or a community. That isn't necessarily the case across the province and certainly is not the case in every situation.

D. Cubberley: No, I wouldn't minimize the collaborative partnerships that are occurring. In fact, I would encourage more of them to occur. I would say this. Land assembly is a very, very difficult thing to accomplish, the more so as buildout occurs on existing urban lands. The school lands certainly have value for development potential, but they also have tremendous value as community assets. It's to not see that stock of lands, which can't be replicated easily. You will not assemble land like this in old areas easily again, if it's all developed. That is not going to happen easily, because the public purse can't afford to rebuy it at those up-zoned values. It's just not going to happen.

So there is an interest in trying to protect the open space that we have. It's attempting to find a way not to incentivize the selling-off of these lands and not to set in motion processes which create unrealistic expectations on the part of developers and turn into a pressure on councils to rezone these things beyond anything contemplated in their official community plans. I do have some evidence of that kind of thing occurring. That's a concern.

There's also a concern…. I know that the minister is aware of it, but I want to touch down on this a little bit. There used to be the possibility in the province of British Columbia of a thing called a free Crown grant. It still operated, I think, well into the '90s. That possibility, beginning with the NDP government in the '90s, and it has continued in this direction with the current government, is to have more and more fences placed around it, so it's of less and less use.

I think that the loss of the opportunity for a community, a municipal council speaking on behalf of its citizenry, to request that it be given the option of access to that land before it's sold off at less-than-market values is what is gone from the equation entirely. Because councils can't afford to buy these lands at rezoned values, it's a very quick conversation about whether you want to buy it or not, when that offer is made. It's a non-starter.

I want to read this, to bring back the degree of resolve on the part of municipalities in British Columbia. This is a resolution from a recent UBCM convention. It's not the only one that has been passed, but it reads:

So that's the aspiration of communities, to have that option. I'm not at all clear that in every case they would wish to exercise it, but I think it would give them the possibility of saying that this has a far more profound value to be retained in the community as open space, as playing fields or for the building itself to be recycled for another community purpose which might, in fact, meet larger government objectives.

That could be anything from attempting to maintain open spaces in communities because that encourages greater levels of physical activity and addresses the health agenda; or because it keeps people more physically active and engaged, and that encourages the reduced greenhouse gas emissions agenda; or because it simply keeps the social capital in the neighbourhood at a high-enough level that the quality of life in that neighbourhood or surrounding neighbourhoods is maintained. Therefore, it presents fewer problems when kids show up at whatever school they happen to be going to in the future.

Hon. S. Bond: As the member opposite likes to remind me all the time, this is a complex set of discussions. The resolution that the member has just read out from the UBCM, I would suggest, would be completely countered by a resolution from the boards of education in British Columbia, who would very much have a different perspective.

In fact, there are boards of education who actually own and have purchased their own infrastructure. It's not as simple as saying let's just do it this way, because there are a number of circumstances for boards across the province. There are school districts who own all their own buildings and paid for them all. One would expect that there would have to be some way of looking at that.

I think the most important thing we can say is that this is a difficult time in terms of looking at the use of those assets. We are working very closely with boards across the province and with communities to say: "How do we find partnerships that actually see that those assets are used in ways that, first of all, respect the value that has been placed by taxpayers in British Columbia but also captures the value for neighbourhoods and communities?"

Every day we are grappling with ways to be flexible, to look at schools for the future, to look at preserving what's important about neighbourhoods and to look at how we deal with rural schools in this province. It's a complex issue. I think we've made some steps in the right direction with some of the new processes that we've put in place.

We're continuing to work closely with communities and boards to make sure that values are captured which are simply beyond what the fiscal imperative is. We recognize the importance of those buildings as places for people, and we'll continue to work on improving our process.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for the comments. I guess I might want to end up on the note that these

are in fact public lands, and as the minister has said, they have been paid for by taxpayers. They are also often lands that have a degree of community investment in them because municipalities have cooperated with school districts in assembling the lands, in managing the lands, sometimes in landscaping them or putting the playing fields together on lands, or they have negotiated access through the lands for community trails and the like. Those are very important things.

To me there's a kind of issue in…. This may be just where I'm coming from, but in a communitarian perspective, the public already does own the lands. Why is it necessary for a portion of the public to rebuy the lands at development values in order to retain an access to them, given that the public already owns them? To me, that's a translation of the value into a benefit that is abstract, where it has been concrete and is in a local stewardship of some kind.

The minister said that we need to be good stewards. Well, I think we do need to be good stewards, but it needs to be in the fullest sense of the word, respecting the full value these lands have to the community and not simply looking at an opportunity to catalyze the value through development. That is how wealth is made for a great many people — through developing lands — but it can't be the future of all lands.

Hon. S. Bond: I think we've canvassed this. The member opposite is thoughtful in his comments. I have suggested that together we need to work on a way to capture the full value. As I've said, it is about more than a fiscal imperative. It is about places where people are connected and attached. As I've suggested, we're also working, as we speak, to find ways to look at how we can create that kind of flexibility to recognize that value.

Ultimately, we have $8 billion worth of assets in British Columbia. Some of those are owned by boards of education. There are very different views about how to dispose of assets and when to dispose of them, if at all.

I think the most important message, from this section at least, is that we are not asking anyone to rush to the disposal of either land or buildings in British Columbia. We are asking and expecting boards to be good managers, to be able to look at the future, to look and assess accurately what is required in the shorter and the long term. As a ministry we are committed to working with those boards to ensure that the best use — community use, in many cases — that we can find is being realized.

Again, I have to reiterate that there are just countless success stories where organizations, municipalities, health authorities and others have come together to say, "We want to preserve the value beyond just the fiscal value," and they have done precisely that.

D. Cubberley: I will try to move into another area of discussion. I want to go back, because we kind of jumped into the lands issue. I wanted to ask a couple of short questions around funding before going on to some questions on school closures. Just so the minister is aware, I'm sure there will be other members who want to talk about particular school closures. I want to talk in a more general sense about it and try and illustrate some concerns that I have around a particular school which has been selected for closure, to see if I can use that to illustrate a problem.

Back on the funding thing, just some quick questions. In the budget the new money that's going to private schools or independent schools — what's that money for?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, when block funding increases, there is a parallel increase in independent school funding. That would be the primary amount of increase of the $20 million. There is also full funding now for children with special needs in independent schools, so that of course would be reflected. That began in a commitment made in a previous year, but that would also be reflected there. There would also be some enrolment growth.

So enrolment growth — block goes up; independent school funding goes up — and, also, the recognition of children with special needs at full funding.

D. Cubberley: I might ask there, as an add on to that. The enrolment growth in independent schools — can you give me that relative to the decline in enrolment in publics, just so I have a sense?

Hon. S. Bond: I can give you the number of actual growth in independent schools for '07-08. I don't have the projection for '08.

It was 1.5 percent. If you look at the decline in enrolment on the public side, it would have been around 1 percent. Obviously, you have to be thoughtful about how you transfer those numbers, because in independent schools we have 60,000 kids, and in public schools we have 550,000 kids.

The member opposite also needs to recognize that the decline in enrolment is also the number of students graduating out that we're not replacing on the other end. There's not a direct correlation.

D. Cubberley: I wanted to also ask, and this is just a pop up, but in looking at library funding, it appears to be the same year to year, so no increase in library funding in this year's budget. I'm wondering if that's accurate.

Can you tell me, approximately, how B.C. is doing on provincial funding to public libraries relative to other provinces?

Hon. S. Bond: We're going to come back with the numbers on public libraries, because the staff I have with me…. We'll change at some point and bring that back to you, perhaps this afternoon, if that's all right with the member opposite.

I want to wander into this area of school closures. It's obviously one of the areas most fraught with ten-

sion at a community level, because no community wants to lose an asset like a school.

There are, I think, some challenges, which we started to canvass a little bit in last year's estimates process. I'm kind of still stuck back in the middle of that, so I have to find a way to bring it back a little bit.

I began trying to talk about what I think is, perhaps, a failure on our part collectively to recognize the full impact of the decision to enable parents to choose where they wanted to send their kids, which is something that I personally support. In my own life my wife and I have exercised that option with regard to which school our son goes to.

That created a whole new world for schools, because, as the Progress Board remarked — and I think they're absolutely correct — de facto, especially in a time of declining enrolment, it put all schools in the public school system in competition with one another for a declining stock of students. Whether one likes that image or not, it is the reality that a school has to maintain its share of the new students coming along, and it may have to offset a decline in new kids in its immediate catchment area by drawing kids from elsewhere if it hopes to survive.

Of course, this new world of competition of trying to attract kids in comes at a time when, for a whole variety of reasons, families are choosing, in increasing numbers, to send kids to independent schools, which sharpens the conflict for these schools in the public system.

The system works, currently, more or less. I'm not an expert in this, because I'm not inside it. As a layperson looking into it, it works that with declining enrolment it becomes inefficient, relative to funding made available, to maintain all the school apparatus you have. Therefore, a device is used, a threshold of some kind, to indicate a minimum threshold level of utilization of the school under which the school would be considered as a candidate for closure.

One of the challenges that I think is arising as a result of this is there are schools that are winners and schools that are losers and are positioned to be losers, not because they couldn't be winners, if they were given the tools to compete, but because, for a variety of reasons, they don't get those tools, whereas other schools have them.

Some may just be lucky. They're in a situation where they're located in an area that's wealthy or relatively well off, that has a less differentiated school population than other schools might have and that has more young kids coming along in the immediate area. So it's just nourished, and it doesn't have to worry about it. But a school that's in an area that has a more complex situation and, in order to maintain itself at the heart of the community, needs certain assets in order to be able to attract people in is in a position where, if it doesn't get those, it's on the X list.

I want to concretize this a little bit so that we can get into it. I believe the minister or her staff will be aware of this. I want to raise the instance of Stave Falls Elementary in Mission, British Columbia. I know the minister received the same letter that I did, but I don't imagine for a moment she gets to read all of the letters she's sent. I'm sure those around her have had a chance. I'll give lots of opportunity for people to get up to speed.

In a nutshell, Stave Falls is a relatively new school built in the '90s in a relatively small community. It slipped beneath that threshold level by dint of being short 11 students of meeting it. It was evaluated, along with a group of other schools, for possible closure and then was selected under a scenario that the school district felt would be the likely outcome of closing the school and that would enable it to get the savings that it was hoping for from closure.

This is one of those processes that's fraught with problems because, as it turns out, the rationale for closing the school, which was the savings, didn't materialize after the decision was made. The reason it didn't materialize is that numerous families chose to send their kids to schools out of district. The school district, instead of getting a more efficient utilization at a school within the district from closing this school and getting more kids to go to one of its schools, in effect, sent the kids over to another school district and lost the revenue stream that it would have gained for efficiency.

So the community lost the school, the school district lost the revenue stream, and the parents in that community are asking: "What's my avenue of appeal from this?" This was a wrong decision that was taken because the premise for the decision didn't hold. It was a faulty premise. There were no savings. The savings were eaten up by the kids going out of district.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the member opposite is certainly correct. I'm not specifically familiar with that particular school circumstance.

You can imagine that in British Columbia we're facing a number of challenges as boards deal with what is a global problem. As simplistic as it might sound to the member opposite, if we were in this alone and if it were a policy-based decision that was requiring or forcing or somehow incenting the closure of schools, we'd be in this by ourselves, but we're not.

The circumstances around the world are clear. Governments and jurisdictions across the world are grappling with school closure. It's based on the principle of where would you rather have your resources be going? In this case, I don't know the specifics of it, but I can assure you of this. I do know boards of education, and I know that they would have grappled with a very complex set of circumstances before they'd made a decision to close that school or any school.

The outcomes may have been somewhat different than anticipated. But to simply pull a school closure out of a whole package, I'm sure, of very painful discussion for a board of education, is, first of all, difficult and, I think, far too simplistic.

I guess my comment is that boards grapple with this across British Columbia because we have 50,000 fewer children, and they don't leave in convenient school-size groups. Boards grapple with how do they take the resources that they have and make sure they're going into classrooms today?

I'm not aware of this particular circumstance, but I can assure the member opposite that boards would have grappled with a number of circumstances before making the decision to close that particular school.

D. Cubberley: Welcome, Mr. Chairman, to our little colloquium on school closures. It's a….

The Chair: The committee will recess to respond to the call of the House for division.

D. Cubberley: I understand that the minister can't comment on specifics she doesn't know about. I think what I'm trying to do is illustrate a couple of challenges that we're facing in dealing with school closures.

One of the questions is that here we have a community with parents very actively involved in the school attempting to save the school. In fact, two and a half years before it got to the point where the school was identified for possible closure, the parents engaged with the school because they saw a problem. The problem they saw is not an uncommon one at public schools. There was a lack of preschool program at the school. There was a lack of child care spaces at the school, but most importantly a preschool program.

What the parents saw happening was that prior to parents within catchment ever making the choice to go to Stave Falls Elementary or go somewhere else, they chose another school because they could get preschool at that school. This happens all over the place, and it happened to me personally, which is why I know it happens all over the place.

If your local elementary school doesn't have a preschool or doesn't have child care in the kindergarten year, people choose another school. Once their child starts in another school, if it works there and they like the providers and the atmosphere, they continue at that school because they don't want to disrupt relationships that are working.

Stave Falls Elementary and the parents that make up that school found themselves in the position where their requests to initiate a preschool were declined. The phenomenon kicked in, and the new parents coming along chose other places to send their kids to school. Then, when it came time for them to come to Stave Falls in the kindergarten year, they didn't come. They continued in those other schools. So Stave Falls, in that sense, became a victim of a circumstance.

The irrationality of it really shows forth. It has the longest capital life of any of the schools in the school district. It was built in the '90s. It's an award-winning and acclaimed school. It was 11 students short of the threshold level, and it was one of the schools picked for closure, off a list with about six schools on it.

One of the challenges there is the inadequate recognition, I think, of assets that enable schools to compete with one another. Some schools have those assets that enable them to compete effectively, and others have an arm tied behind their back. I guess part of the question is: is the minister aware of how large a problem this is for schools winding up on the axe list? I'll leave it, and we can have a bit of dialogue on that.

Hon. S. Bond: As I have said earlier, the reality of the situation that we are facing in British Columbia is that if we were to look at every single school closure, I'm sure there were parents attached to just about every one of them in terms of a decision to even contemplate closing the school. Families get attached to the place where their children go. I was very attached to my children's schools, and I'm sure the member opposite is.

I can assure you that in the process that boards of education — including this one — would have undergone, they would have contemplated all of the circumstances. Certainly, it's our indication that, in fact, there were savings as a result of the closure of that school — and not insignificant savings, despite the fact that children chose to go elsewhere with their families.

I'm not certain how the member opposite would actually address this issue. We have 50,000 fewer children in education in British Columbia, and in fact, that's going to continue.

When you look at what's best and how you serve students, obviously neighbourhood schools are one of the considerations, but the other one is how many resources you can put in a half-filled building, which currently — or at least previous to the school closures — exists across this province.

It's not as simple as saying that Stave Falls could have had this or should have had this. Boards of education take very thorough looks and try as best they can to actually work through a process that is never easy for a board and much less easy for those families.

D. Cubberley: I am under no illusion that it's easy — absolutely not. But I'm very mindful of what occurred here with Cloverdale Elementary, which is not in my constituency but which I was involved with.

Just to refresh the minister's memory on that one, Cloverdale was a school that was struggling and was at the threshold or below it. It did two things, one of which it got permission from the board for. One was to become a traditional school, and the second, which it went ahead with on its own initiative — which it could — was to establish a preschool program.

When it was considered for closure, the board had to back away from closing that school. Within a year of getting the designation for a traditional school and

before it had moved into its first year of being a traditional school, its enrolment went up. It began to pull from its catchment people that it wasn't pulling before. That had to do with the background of the people in the constituency. They were looking for a more structured process for their kids.

The other thing that was fascinating was that through their not-for-profit out-of-school care provider, they started a preschool. They started the preschool using surplus space within the school. They immediately filled the first unit of it and had to open a second unit of it in the first go-round. That immediately translated into a growth of population at the school.

I guess, in that case, the school was enabled to compete. Guess what. It couldn't be closed, because it bumped up over the threshold. I guess the board could have done it, but it would have had a great deal of difficulty justifying that to anybody.

I've just characterized Stave Falls for comparative purposes. It's a much newer school with a group of parents motivated to keep the school open but denied the possibility of a preschool, not afforded that possibility. It was precisely because of erosion for not being given that asset that the school eventually wound up being the one that was chosen for closure and mothballing — whatever.

I think it is significant that the scenario that the board put forward, which was the premise for making the decision in choosing that school — the financial scenario — was not realized through the closure. Even if they saved money, they didn't save the money that was the premise for picking that school. A substantial number of those kids did go into another school district.

There are two questions here. One is that we are not distributing assets in such a way that we are enabling all schools to compete with one another in the sorting-out process of which schools get to keep going. This happened to me personally with my own neighbourhood school, which I recounted to the minister last time around. We had to choose another school, because in the kindergarten year my neighbourhood school did not provide any out-of-school care. With two parents working, you cannot choose to go to a school of that kind.

That is one reason why so many families are choosing independent schools. They provide that service, and it's not provided in public schools. In my case, it didn't come down to a choice between a public and a private school. It just meant that I didn't choose my neighbourhood school. Now we drive more, which is another outcome of the unequal distribution of assets at schools.

I guess the more pressing thing for the parents at Stave Falls is that there's no appeal from the decision. I know that you may be loath to open this up in any way, shape or form. But for most decisions that a board might make, there's some level of appeal, some ability to say: "Look, they said they were doing it for these reasons, but it wound up not being for those reasons." An avenue of appeal around the closure of a school — is that an inconceivable option?

Hon. S. Bond: If you were to follow the argument being built by the member opposite that even if you were to provide programs, you were to enhance, you were to change or you were to look, you could avoid the issue of the closure of schools. We can't.

You have to put it in the context that there are 50,000 fewer children. That's larger than many communities we live in. There is going to be an adjustment required to take place. I think that our responsibility and boards of education's responsibility is to actually put all the pieces on the table.

It's not easy. I have been in those circumstances. At the end of the day, all of the circumstances around Stave and other schools are placed within the context of that decision-making. As a government, we're looking very clearly at programs that are trying to do exactly what the member opposite has suggested. We're very excited about the results we've seen in StrongStart, for example. That is about using excess space to provide services to families.

Having said that, in Prince George a hub centre recently opened in a school that had closed, which is providing multilevel day care. It is providing health services. It is providing YMCA services. So communities are looking at how they take that asset and provide resources to families.

Even if we were to provide all of the things the member has suggested to schools — to use his analysis — to compete with one another, we still have to grapple with the issue of 50,000 fewer children. Families are different today than they have been previously, and we have no sense that that will even change in the next decade.

So we do in fact have to adjust. It is painful; it is difficult. We expect boards to actually do that as best they possibly can.

D. Cubberley: In view of the time, Mr. Chairman, I move we rise and report progress.

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


	YEAS — 31

S. Simpson	Fleming	Farnworth
James	Kwan	Ralston
Cubberley	Hammell	Coons
Thorne	Simons	Puchmayr
Gentner	Routley	Fraser
Horgan	Lali	Dix
Trevena	Bains	Robertson
Karagianis	Evans	Krog
Austin	Chudnovsky	Chouhan
Wyse	Sather	Macdonald
	Conroy

	NAYS — 40

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Richmond	Bell	Krueger
van Dongen	Roddick	Hayer
Lee	Jarvis	Whittred
Horning	Cantelon	Thorpe
Hagen	Oppal	de Jong
Campbell	Taylor	Bond
Hansen	Abbott	Penner
Neufeld	Coleman	Hogg
Sultan	Bennett	Mayencourt
Polak	Hawes	Yap
Bloy	MacKay	Black
	Rustad