Hansard — Wednesday, April 16, 2008 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Statements		11439
	Shooting at Virginia Tech
	Hon. M. Coell

Introductions by Members		11439

Tributes		11440
	Penticton ValleyFirst Vees
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	L. Krog

Introductions by Members		11440

Tributes		11440
	Penticton ValleyFirst Vees
	R. Cantelon

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		11440
	Resource Road Act (Bill 30)
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 29)
	Hon. B. Penner

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		11441
	Cythera Transition House Society
	M. Sather
	Port Moody Festival of the Arts
	I. Black
	Len Shepherd
	H. Bains
	Women of Excellence award recipients
	M. Polak
	Burnaby Children's Centres Society
	R. Chouhan
	Tai chi
	R. Lee

Oral Questions		11443
	Funding for child protection services
	C. James
	Hon. T. Christensen
	L. Krog
	N. Simons
	Victim services in domestic violence cases
	C. Trevena
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	D. Thorne
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Handling of domestic violence cases in justice system
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Bountiful and polygamy issue
	C. Evans
	Hon. W. Oppal

Tabling Documents		11447
	Chair of the board of directors of ICBC, letter

Petitions		11447
	R. Chouhan
	N. Simons

Committee of the Whole House		11448
	Public Safety and Solicitor General (Gift Card Certainty) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 17)
	G. Gentner
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	M. Farnworth
	L. Krog
	M. Karagianis
	H. Bains

Report and Third Reading of Bills		11464
	Public Safety and Solicitor General (Gift Card Certainty) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 17)

Second Reading of Bills		11464
	Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 14)
	Hon. K. Falcon

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		11466
	Estimates: Ministry of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy (continued)
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. S. Bond
	S. Simpson
	J. Brar
	D. Chudnovsky

Hon. M. Coell: One year ago today 27 students and five faculty members lost their lives on a campus at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia. Campuses across Canada and the United States and around the world are today mourning the terrible and tragic loss of life on April 16, 2007. Students, faculty, university administrators and all citizens mourn this senseless incident of violence on a campus.

We have come to know campuses of higher learning as safe havens against threats from the outside. We know that in this day and age, that is not necessarily true. We as communities must do everything in our power to keep our campuses safe. I ask all members of the House to join me in reflecting upon those lives lost and to commit to maintain our efforts to ensure a safe education system for all our citizens.

H. Bains: From the best constituency in the province, Surrey-Newton, there are 31 students from Cornerstone Montessori joined by their teachers Jenny Petropoulos and Catherine Mahoney. They are visiting this hall here to watch us and see how we do our business. I ask this House to please extend our warmest welcome to them all.

M. Polak: Today in the gallery we are joined by my constituency assistant from Langley, Cathy Gibbs, and her parents Roy and Doreen Purssell. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Bloy: It's my pleasure to make an announcement to the House today. My wife and I became grandparents for the first time earlier this morning. I do know my wife's name is Anita, but they haven't named the baby boy yet. He weighed in at 10 pounds, 7 ounces.

Hon. G. Campbell: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Roy and Doreen Purssell of Hope, who are visiting the Legislature today. It's a very auspicious day for them, and their behaviour is exemplary. They are celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary. I'm sure today they will be reflecting on 60 years of experiences with their family. They'll be sharing stories — most of them they won't share with us in the Legislature — but we hope they have a great day and have many, many more days of celebration like this.

Hon. C. Hansen: I had the pleasure this morning of meeting with 26 students from the Anchor Point Montessori School on the front steps. They had some great questions and some great ideas. They are joined by several of their parents and also two of their teachers, Victoria Lowry and Heidi Wilson. Will the House please make them welcome.

J. Yap: It's a real pleasure to introduce a wonderful group of British Columbians who are visiting Victoria from various parts of Metro Vancouver. Many of these fine people were close colleagues of mine in my past business career.

Today in the gallery are members of the TD Bank retirees association. They are in Victoria for their regular retirees luncheon meeting. With us today are Jack and Donna Savenye, Bill and Marnie Hennan, Joan and Richard Whitman, John and Yolande Fulton, Sheldon and Diane Johnson, Duncan and Lorraine Humphries, Lee and Anne Atwater, Les and Beatrice Starheim, Ward and Norma Redditt, Dan and Marion Gallant, Gloria Sweeder, Judy Smith, Dave Ballentine and Herta Krause. Would all members extend a warm welcome to all of them.

Hon. B. Penner: It's my pleasure today to introduce Craig Daniell, Laurie Chortyk and Sara Dubois from the BCSPCA. They're joined in the gallery, I'm told, by Chris Hamilton and Scott Black of the Ministry of Environment, who collectively have provided valuable input as we've worked to update the Wildlife Act over the last year. I will have more to say about that in a few moments. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. McIntyre: I also enjoyed a school visit today with the students from Myrtle Philip Community School in Whistler. They've actually been here since Monday, having a wonderful tour of Victoria. They had a great tour this morning of the building. Same as the Minister of Economic Development, I had excellent questions, including questions about my earrings.

It's always a great, great privilege to have the students here to learn more about the history and what we do as MLAs. I hope the House will make them welcome too.

R. Lee: In the gallery today we have five visitors from the Taoist Tai Chi Society of Canada. They are the director of Pacific region, Rod Edwards, and also the director of the Victoria branch, Lesley Davies, and members Miles Ostler, Arthur Bates and Grace Bates. Will the House please join me to give them a very warm welcome.

K. Whittred: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf, I am pleased to welcome and introduce 17 teachers from across British Columbia who have been selected to participate in the sixth B.C. Teachers Institute on Parliamentary Democracy. They are with us today in the gallery. They will be with us for the remainder of this week, expanding their knowledge of our parliamentary and political systems. They are joined by three of their peers who are acting as facilitators: Ms. Beverley McEwan, Mr. Kirk Longpre and Ms. Erika Moser.

I trust that many of you will have the opportunity to meet with them during the institute, specifically at a luncheon hosted tomorrow by the Minister of Education. Would you all please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: We're joined in the gallery today by Jennifer Burnett, who is the CEO and registrar of the College of Dental Hygienists. I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

B. Bennett: I'd like to introduce to the House two gentlemen who are here from the Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association: Jim Hackett, who is the executive director, and Mark Semeniuk, who operates in the West Kootenay. I don't know if Mark is the president or not. If he's not, he should be.

This is an industry association made up of the little guys, mostly value-added operators from the southern interior of the province. They're great people, and we're glad that they come and visit us every now and again. So please help me make them feel welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm pleased to rise in the House today, on behalf of the Speaker and myself, to acknowledge the rich hockey history in Penticton. Penticton is the home of the B.C. Hockey Hall of Fame and is well known for its 1955 world hockey champions, the Penticton Vees. Adding to this rich history is their recent victory over the Nanaimo Clippers. The Penticton ValleyFirst Vees Junior A hockey club is now the Junior A British Columbia champions.

This week they will be facing the winners of the Alberta Junior Hockey League. I would ask all members of this House, including the members from Nanaimo, to join with the Speaker and myself in wishing Penticton ValleyFirst Vees the best of luck in their quest for victory at the Doyle Cup.

L. Krog: In the spirit of great sportsmanship that characterizes the Nanaimo Clippers and on behalf of the member for Nanaimo-Parksville, we congratulate the Penticton team and wish them well.

L. Mayencourt: I, too, would like to welcome the 30 students and six adults that are here from Anchor Point Montessori under the direction of Miss Aubrey. This is a very wonderful Montessori in my riding, and I'm very glad that they could join us today.

R. Cantelon: I, too, would like to congratulate the team from Penticton. They wrested the championship from the Nanaimo Clippers, and as the famous sports words say: wait until next year.

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Resource Road Act.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 30 be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased to introduce the Resource Road Act today. This act will enhance the safe use of resource roads for workers in all industrial sectors by developing common standards for road construction, maintenance and deactivation. The act will encourage resource road permit holders to communicate with each other about their use of resource roads and will enable restrictions on high-traffic roads.

This act will also provide a standardized, consistent approach to regulating resource roads across the province using results-based regulations. Right now operators in different industrial sectors such as forestry, oil and gas, and mining comply with five different acts and regulations. Given that these industries often use the same roads, there has sometimes been conflict and confusion.

To address this, the Resource Road Act consolidates road-related provisions into a single statute and will result in a single permit system for industrial users. This act will also support our industries with a predictable, fair and cost-effective framework.

Finally, the act will preserve the public's right to use resource roads on Crown lands.

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

Bill 30, Resource Road Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Penner presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that Bill 29 be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm pleased to introduce the Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. This bill contains amendments to the Environmental Management Act and to the Wildlife Act.

I'll begin by noting a few of the amendments to the Wildlife Act. Amendments to that act will provide the government for the very first time with new authority to regulate the possession of alien species such as large carnivores, venomous snakes, primates and other animals and fish that can harm British Columbians and our native wildlife and wildlife habitat.

In addition, authorities in the Wildlife Act are amended, along with consequential amendments to the Park Act, to increase the number of wildlife officers protecting wildlife and wildlife habitat in British Columbia. Park rangers will be given new authority to authorize and monitor hunting and fishing activities to ensure those activities are being done in compliance with the act.

Other amendments will provide improved authorities concerning the feeding and attracting of wildlife, doubling the fines for most offences — in fact, raising the maximum penalty up to $250,000 for a fine and two years in jail on first convictions and up to $500,000 and three years in jail for subsequent convictions for illegal activities such as poaching. There will be additional changes to regulations in terms of authority for the guide-outfitter industry and changes to hunting rules and regulation-making authority for limited-entry hunting and other issues.

This bill also contains amendments to the Environmental Management Act. These amendments include confirming the government's authority to respond to spills that can affect wildlife and wildlife habitat in the short or long term and recovering costs associated from the party or parties responsible for the spill. Other amendments to the act concern improvements to regulation-making authorities to enable comprehensive codes of practice and other results-based regulatory regimes under the legislation.

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

Bill 29, Environmental (Species and Public Protection) 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.

M. Sather: Abuse is not simply physical violence, and it is not just a conflict between two people. It is a systemic pattern of behaviour used to establish power and control over another person. Many women and children are not abused in just one way. They are physically, emotional, sexually and economically abused over and over again in many different forms.

Cythera Transition House Society is a non-profit organization providing services to abused women and children in Maple Ridge and the surrounding area. Established in 1983, Cythera House provides the basic necessities for up to 30 days, with staffing 24 hours a day, and provides emotional support in a safe, secure and non-judgmental environment.

Residents of Cythera House are provided with practical help and information, linking them up with services such as housing, legal rights, income assistance, child care and other community resources. In addition, a children's support worker is available to assist children in dealing with the very traumatic changes in their lives. Cythera House also offers an off-site counselling centre, second-stage-housing program and thrift store.

Women who seek out the services of Cythera House are survivors of trauma, sometimes with a lifetime of abuse issues. Very early in life they have learned that it is not okay to have needs and feelings and end up focusing on the needs of their abuser at the expense of their own identity.

Funding for programs and places of refuge is imperative for women and children to transition out of the cycle of abuse. With support, women and children will have a place to go to heal like Cythera House.

I. Black: One of the four municipalities that I so proudly represent is Port Moody, which prides itself as City of the Arts. Today I congratulate the work of the Port Moody Arts Centre Society, specifically for last week's 11th annual festival of the arts.

Led by society president Lynne Murray, executive director Brenda Finlayson and festival chairman Darryl Tolentino, the festival offers a spectrum of visual, media and performing arts and a variety of forums for participation. The festival allows Port Moody to proudly showcase its belief that arts, culture and recreation are integral to creating healthy communities.

I've received a lot of letters from artists across B.C. since our government announced the $150 million arts endowment fund, which stands to take the B.C. Arts Council up over 50 percent. We celebrated this yet again last Friday, when I helped open the festival, and the Tri-Cities arts community is thrilled. Moreover, one of the e-mails I received, thanking us from the bottom of her heart, was from a terrific young Canadian singer–guitar player, Nelson's Aspen Switzer, who also performed at the festival.

The festival also allowed the community to tour studios of 33 artists and experience music ranging from Canadian soul singing sensation Divine Brown to Will Millar, founder and lead of the legendary Irish Rovers.

I attended the sold-out Will Millar show. He has not lost any of his charm, wit or showmanship. When

you reflect, as many of us here can, on the magic of Will and The Irish Rovers, their top CBC television program and their famous unicorn song that we still sing to our children and grandchildren, you can appreciate the depth and diversity of the talent that the festival attracts.

Thanks to Port Moody for once again playing host to emerging and established talents alike and for reminding us of the timeless lessons of our youth: "There were green alligators and long-necked geese, some humpty-back camels and some chimpanzees, some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born, the loveliest of all was the unicorn."

H. Bains: For me, every trip to the Newton Seniors Centre is a learning experience. My last trip was no exception. I've had many conversations with Connie Cleaver and her husband Al over the years. The other day in conversation, I was absolutely astonished to hear that Connie's father was Leonard Alec Shepherd.

Len Shepherd was a Surrey municipal council member from 1932 until 1937. In 1937 he was elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly serving the Delta riding, covering the area of Richmond, Delta, Surrey and Langley. In his very first term as MLA, Len Shepherd presented a petition to this very House with over 3,100 names from the people of the Fraser Valley, asking that the new Pattullo Bridge be free of tolls. Very quickly, he became an avid advocate for the working people.

I'll read some quotes from the daily press of the day. The Province read: "This government's budget may be good for the bond holders but is billed largely at the expense of the municipalities and the misery of people." The Times reported: "Shepherd wants aid for municipalities and said the Fraser Valley farmers are working themselves to death trying to pay their taxes."

Watching this House operate for the last three years reminds me of the French proverb: the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Len Shepherd was awarded Surrey's first Good Citizens Award. Len Shepherd Secondary School and Len Shepherd Lions Manor were named in his memory. It is an absolute pleasure for me to remember Len Shepherd's contribution to our province and to the cities of Surrey and Delta and pay tribute to a local son who played his part to make this province a better place to live and work.

I would like to thank Connie and Al Cleaver for the informative conversation we had a couple of weeks ago.

M. Polak: Last Wednesday the 11th annual Women of Excellence Awards were held in at Newlands Golf and Country Club in Langley. Organized and sponsored by the Valley Women's Network, the awards recognize outstanding women in a variety of categories: in the arts and culture category, Marika Siewart, CEO of Emerton Records; in the sports and recreation category, Sheryl McIntosh, founder of the Fort Langley Canoe Club; in the community and humanitarian service category, Marilyn Piticco, coordinator of the Stroke Recovery Association; in the women of vision category, Rachel Cram, director of Wind and Tide Preschool.

Woman of the Year 2008 was awarded to Dr. Karen Parmar. Karen, along with her husband Gurdev, is a co-founder of the Integrated Health Clinic in Fort Langley. Karen was recognized for her tremendous commitment to her practice as well as her volunteer work in Thailand. Together the Parmars have established a foundation in support of a health clinic in Thailand, where she travels annually to volunteer.

But the most important winner is a person who is close to my heart and well regarded throughout Langley. She is known for her office skills and her sense of humour, her strength of character and her easygoing manner, her ability to speak in public and her unflappable nature in the face of sometimes troubled constituents.

Cathy Gibbs is the Women of Excellence Employee of the Year. The fact that she is also my constituency assistant makes me one of the world's luckiest employers. I'd ask this House to please join me in acknowledging these incredible women of excellence.

R. Chouhan: On Thursday, April 10, I had the pleasure of accompanying my colleague the member for North Island on a tour of child care centres in Burnaby as part of her Raising B.C. child care tour. Included in the tour were the two centres run by the Burnaby Children's Centres Society.

BCCS was created in 1995 in partnership with the city of Burnaby to provide child care in two facilities. The Hanna Court facility was built by density bonus funds, an initiative that was pioneered by the city of Burnaby, while the Taylor Park centre was built by B.C. Hydro, which gave it to the city of Burnaby in 2003.

For the past 13 years, the BCCS has maintained a high level of child care services, having serviced upwards of 800 families. Currently, the BCCS services 94 infants, toddlers and three-to-five-year-olds. However, despite maximum capacity at the two current facilities, the ongoing wait-list between the two facilities is over 400 children.

Another issue facing the BCCS is a space issue in regards to transitioning children. Currently, children turning three and moving from the toddler room to the three-to-five rooms are unable to be accommodated. This problem may directly affect 25 families and may result in families losing their child care. This situation could become critical as soon as September of this year.

The BCCS is looking towards the future and their role in providing child care services to Burnaby fami-

lies. Currently, the board is pursuing the building of the third facility to address the three-to-five space issue while addressing wider child care. This proactive planning will alleviate current wait-list needs as well as expected community needs due to the increased population in the area. The BCCS is excited about this prospect and welcomes any new partnerships.

R. Lee: Last Saturday I attended the Festival of Health and Longevity organized by the Taoist Tai Chi Society of Canada, Pacific region. In attendance were representatives of other levels of government, including Secretary of State Jason Kenney, Vancouver city councillor Suzanne Anton and Prof. Jean-Paul Collet of the department of pediatrics at UBC and the director of clinical research at B.C. Children's Hospital. Attendees of the festival were treated to a vegetarian meal, tai chi demonstrations and a free lesson in tai chi.

Tai chi as a form of soft martial art has a long history in China. The ancient Taoists were renowned for their study of the arts of health and longevity. The founder of the Taoist Tai Chi Society of Canada, Master Moy Lin-shin, introduced tai chi to Canadians in 1970. This society has since developed into an international organization with member associations in 25 countries. People of all ages can learn and benefit from the gentle turning and stretching movements of this art, and the form can be adapted to match any level of ability.

It's a self-regulated form of exercise that lends itself to the needs of all participants. Tai chi is becoming recognized in the medical community as an important complementary therapy for people with multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, head injuries, strokes as well as other chronic illnesses.

Events like the Festival of Health and Longevity provide valuable outreach to the community to make tai chi available to all and to spread the knowledge of the many associated health benefits. Would the House please join me in acknowledging the efforts of the Taoist Tai Chi Society in promoting health and well-being through tai chi.

C. James: Today B.C.'s Representative for Children and Youth released a devastating report into the government's progress to protect vulnerable children. The report comes after the representative reviewed the tragic deaths of four very young children in northern British Columbia. This report is about seven years lost — seven years of lessons lost, seven years of children at risk being put more at risk, seven years of front-line workers having to face constant reorganization while dealing with cuts to services, seven years where services could have been improved and weren't because this government failed.

My question is to the Premier. Will he commit after seven years of neglect to actually provide the resources, the supports and the leadership to help front-line workers do their job that they want to do?

Hon. T. Christensen: I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition's question. Government welcomes this report from the child and youth representative. I think it's important that we have critical analysis of the child welfare system in the province and that we learn from reports such as this.

This report did review four historical deaths in June of 2005, August of 2002, January of 2001 and November of 1999. I think we need to remember that in each of those cases, a family lost a very young child, and that this report will bring back a good deal of the emotion and, hopefully, will help to answer some questions for those families. Our thoughts and prayers need to be with those families today.

As I said, government looks at this as a learning opportunity. We welcome the report, and I would remind members that in the province we have thousands of employees in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. They have committed their professional lives to helping children and families, and they, too, very much look forward to how this report will help us to improve the system.

C. James: The minister talked about learning lessons. Sadly, this government has had many opportunities to learn lessons. They've had many opportunities to improve services for children and youth in this province. The Hughes report was the most recent report, and this report today says that the government has made very little progress in supporting child protection workers who work on the front line.

It was the Premier who called for transformational change. That was his big idea, and it's very clear from this report that it has failed. The result is a troubled disconnect between the ministry and front-line workers. The system is plagued by high levels of secrecy, a lack of training and a lack of support for front-line workers. Those very workers who are doing an extraordinary job aren't getting the leadership that they need.

My question, again, is to the Premier. When is he going to get the social workers the real resources and the real supports they need to do this very difficult job?

Hon. T. Christensen: I think it is important that we learn from history. I think if we look at what has changed in the north, in particular, over the course of the last number of years since 1999, we see significant additional resources and significant improvements.

In 1999 only 59 percent of the ministry employee positions in the north were full; 40 percent were vacant. Today we're at a 98 percent complement. We have increased from 187 social workers in 1999 to 243 today. We have increased from 43 supervisors in 1999 to 53

today. We have three newly developed clinical supervision positions to provide additional support to team leaders across the region. Those are all steps forward.

That is not to say there is not more that can be done. We look at the representative's report as a basis for additional learning. We welcome the recommendations, and we look forward to working with the representative and the select standing committee on how it is that we can continue to improve child protection practice in the province.

C. James: The minister said we need to look at history. This report is a very important piece of history — history around how child protection has been dealt with. We must remember that this is the first report on child deaths since the Liberals shut down the Children's Commission in 2001. It's the first comprehensive child death report that we've had in this province since 2002 — seven years lost of lessons we could have learned, of history that we should have learned from to protect children at risk.

The government threw all of that away. They had to be dragged back to this point to actually put back an independent voice for children once again in this province — all those years wasted. Again to the Premier: will he admit that his cuts, his decision to shut down the Children's Commission and to shut down the child death reviews, are a wasted opportunity to improve lives for children at risk?

Hon. T. Christensen: I know that the opposition leader wants to characterize everything as cuts. The budget for the Ministry of Children and Family Development today is 30 percent higher than it was in 2000-2001. The number of staff in the north is dramatically higher. We know that you actually have to have staff on the ground in communities if you're going to make a difference for children and families. We have focused our efforts on ensuring that we get a full staff complement.

We have heard, through a series of reports, that information-sharing is a critical issue. We are investing $107 million over the next number of years in a fully integrated case management system so that information-sharing is as active and robust as possible, so that our front-line social workers have the tools they require — information being the first one — to do the best possible job.

We have appointed a new assistant deputy minister for quality assurance, in March, to focus on the types of issues that are raised by the representative in this report, so that we can all be confident that we have the most robust and rigorous child protection system available.

L. Krog: I want to remind the minister that he can brag about an increase, but this government started its term with a 23 percent cut to the ministry. They introduced significant policies and shut down the Children's Commission.

The report points out what the Liberals were told for years. You cannot cut services to children and expect improvements. Government cannot bring forward massive change without providing new resources, but that's exactly what this government did.

My question to the Minister of Children and Family Development is simply this. What did this government think would happen? Did they think they could actually slash programs and maintain adequate service levels for children?

Hon. T. Christensen: Actually, the member should read the report, because it makes no mention of resources. The report is focused on the events in terms of these four deaths and what we can learn from those.

What the ministry has focused on, I would say to the member, is actually filling the staff positions in the north so that we have people on the ground that can do the work. We have focused on a very significant discussion with staff within the ministry about how we can improve practice and how the ministry can better support them.

There's more to be done there. I will be the first to admit that, but we see this report as a tool that will assist us in that work. We welcome the recommendations. We look forward to working with the select standing committee so that we see these recommendations actually make a difference in improving services to children and families across our province.

L. Krog: Changes this government, this Premier, brought forward drained resources from the front line, from the social workers and communities who were trying to protect children. The Premier pushed massive change. He called it transformative change, but he didn't provide the resources to get the job done. It was another failed attempt at sloganeering and no resources — in fact, and indeed the minister knows this, fewer resources.

Will the Premier admit that it's time to put the slogans away, get the front-line workers the resources they need to do their important work, and protect children?

Hon. T. Christensen: I would remind the member that he was a member of a government that thought that a 59 percent staffing level seemed to be appropriate. We have addressed that most fundamental of needs. The most fundamental thing that any vulnerable child or struggling family needs is the ability to have a social worker available to meet with them. You do that by ensuring that you have full staffing.

That doesn't mean there won't be recurring challenges in the north. I think all members of this House, particularly those from the north, are aware of the challenge of recruiting and retaining staff.

I believe that the representative has made some helpful recommendations about how we can focus

some of our human resources planning on ensuring that we are retaining the people we have and recruiting more, particularly more aboriginal social workers, to be working in the north. We're committed to following that path. I would hope that the members opposite would join us in that commitment.

N. Simons: There are social workers across this province today that are hoping — they are hoping against hope — to finally hear a commitment from this government that they will resource the ministry properly so that children across this province get the services they need when they are in vulnerable situations. All we hear are numbers that are picked out of thin air.

Talking about positions in the ministry is not talking about child protection social workers in the ministry, and this minister needs to make that distinction. There are social workers in this province right now who are concerned because they are not even getting to the investigations within two weeks. They're being referred to a caseload called triple-zero — no social worker available.

What's the minister going to do today to put exactly the right number of social workers in every office so that children and families are properly served?

Hon. T. Christensen: I don't doubt the member's passion about these issues, but passion alone doesn't get the job done. We have added 315 FTEs over the last two years to child and family services. Those are positions that are being filled around the province so that we are increasing the human resources available to children and families. We've seen a 30 percent increase in the ministry's budget since the year 2000-2001 so that resources have increased and are available to serve children and families around the province.

We're going to work hard to keep children with their families and to address those vulnerabilities early. We're going to provide the resources necessary. We're going to ensure that we're improving in sharing information. We're going to ensure that we are adding staff, as we have over the course of the last two years in particular.

We're going to support children and families to build on their strengths and ensure that we have the most robust and effective system possible. Is it going to be there next week? No. It's going to be a continuous process of improvement that engages communities and that engages our service providers. We have set forth a framework to do exactly that.

N. Simons: The reason that it's not going to be there next week is because the ministry has wasted seven years. Seven years — and this minister knows very well that the needs in that ministry have been outstanding for those seven years. It's about time they quit blaming situations beyond their control.

This is about social workers, and it's about children they serve. Their social workers go home late at night; they get to work early. Many of them can't sleep because of the workload that this government is imposing on them.

On behalf of those families, of those children — on behalf of all the children who've suffered in this province because of this government's irresponsible and ill-conceived cuts — will the minister commit to the social workers in this province today that he will fund and adequately resource their offices?

Hon. T. Christensen: I do wish that the members opposite would actually listen to the answer. We have, in a very concerted way, been adding FTEs to the overall numbers that the ministry employs. We have been working hard to fill vacancies to ensure that there are people on the front lines to do that work. That will be a continuing effort. We have hired more, and we have added resources.

As I said at the beginning of this line of questioning, we welcome the representative's report and look forward to working with her and with the select standing committee to ensure that the recommendations she has made assist the ministry in improving services to children and families across our province.

C. Trevena: Another report was issued today. The critical components project advised by Judge Josiah Wood issued a report on the toll of domestic violence. It's sadly timely, after the killings in Oak Bay and Merritt.

The report has more than 60 recommendations but one simple message. The cuts and attacks on women's services and the community-based victim assistance by this government are hurting women and are dangerous for families.

I'd like to quote from the report. It says: "Closely related to lack of coordination is a lack of government leadership. There is no lead ministry at the provincial level and no government coordinating body to ensure provincial leadership." This is dangerous.

I would like to ask the Solicitor General when he will reverse his government's decisions to cut back on community-based victim services to ensure there is protection for women and all victims of domestic violence.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I thank the member for the question. I confirm that we did receive the report today. In fact, my ministry funded — substantially — the report, and we welcome the recommendations. The recommendations are detailed and comprehensive.

We will be reviewing the report, working with all of the stakeholders in the justice system — the police, Crown counsel, judges and community organizations. I confirm to the member that we will take all of this under advisement and work together to build a better system to protect victims of domestic violence.

C. Trevena: There was a system in place that tried to protect women from domestic violence and tried to protect families in situations of domestic violence. Sadly, that system was cut to the bone in 2002 by this government — as it cut victim services, as it cut women's centres, as it cut all the aspects that women could go to.

There are just 62 community-based victim assistance programs for the whole of the province. These are the programs that have a special mandate to deal with violence and sexual abuse. There are only 62 of them, but the victims of crime surcharge fund has approximately $35 million in it.

I will ask the Solicitor General: why will he not prevent more abuse now, prevent the dangers now, and put some of that $35 million into the system that so sorely needs it?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I confirm that this issue is a serious issue for our government. I don't accept the characterization by the member opposite of the changes that were made in 2002. There were a number of changes made that integrated the work of the various victim services organizations, and we continue to put more money into supporting victims of domestic violence.

Just recently we announced and confirmed $17 million in additional dollars over the next three years, and the Attorney General and I announced $1½ million targeted specifically to the victims of domestic violence.

D. Thorne: My question is for the Attorney General. Today's report from the critical components project team on domestic violence has reported that incidents of spousal assault have risen 9 percent between 2004 and '05. Spousal assault has accounted for more requests for victim services than any other offence in British Columbia, and domestic violence accounted for one in eight prosecutions in B.C.

This government has dealt with this growing problem by cutting services and programs that deal with domestic violence. Most dangerously, the government has abandoned the previous mandatory zero-tolerance approach to domestic violence.

I ask the Attorney General today: when will he take this problem seriously and provide the proper funding and top priority for domestic violence, as called for in today's report?

Hon. W. Oppal: I thank the member for raising that question. I don't think there's any more compelling issue in the criminal justice system than the issue concerning violence against women. I know that because I've been there. I was on the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal for 23 years. I dealt with these cases. I dealt with the cases as a Crown prosecutor. I witnessed evidence concerning acts of violence against women. I know how serious this issue is.

This is not a new issue. It's been with us, regrettably and tragically, for many, many generations. It's a societal issue that we all have to deal with. Regrettably, there are no easy answers, but I think that we as a society have to take these issues seriously.

I can tell you that one reason I came here is to work on these issues, and I can tell you that we as a government are committed to working on these issues, because they mean a lot to us.

D. Thorne: I thank the Attorney General for the work he has done in the past around domestic violence as a Crown prosecutor, and I take very seriously his promise to do the same kind of good work in his current job as Attorney General of the province of British Columbia. But I would just like to read a couple of the serious omissions in the Attorney General and the justice department that were mentioned in the report today.

The report is recommending that the government must enhance their efforts to address systemic factors that affect victim safety, and these kinds of factors include the lack of timely justice system responses, the lack of interpreters and services in immigrant women's own language — and this includes police services — the lack of resources and training that we have for people who are dealing with victims and offenders with mental health issues, and the total lack of enforcement of protection order breaches.

The Attorney General obviously knows what I'm talking about. We definitely need a whole new approach. We need a major change in policy. Little one-time grants and funding $1.5 million into Lower Mainland services…

D. Thorne: …will not help British Columbia. When will the Attorney General take a major move to help the victims of domestic violence?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, we commissioned this report. We commissioned this report because we care about what's happening to victims. I can tell you that the criminal justice branch is now involved in a creative, innovative approach wherein Crown prosecutors are working with the police, with social workers, with community outreach workers, with corrections officers and with judges so that we can have a coordinated approach.

You see, historically, the criminal justice system has worked in silos. That's regrettable. But I can tell you that we as a government are taking this issue very, very seriously. The criminal justice branch, with its coordinated approach of sharing information so that victims can be assisted, is a route that we're taking now.

M. Farnworth: The Attorney General says that he attaches great importance to this issue and that every-

My question to the Attorney General is this. Does he not now recognize that there is an opportunity here, today, for him to recommend that it's time we have a full review of how the justice system deals with issues of domestic violence in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I appreciate the interest of the Opposition House Leader on this issue. It's an important issue, but it's somewhat regrettable that he's politicizing this. It doesn't need to be politicized. I think we need to deal with this matter on a particularly higher level than he suggests.

I can assure the member that we are reviewing these matters. We're reviewing them on an ongoing basis. We continue to do that. This issue is important to us.

You know, it might interest the member to know that spousal violence was with us in the '90s as well.

M. Farnworth: I didn't realize that asking a question around a serious generational problem was politicizing an issue. I'll ask again to the Attorney General….

He said that he believes very strongly in this issue. One of the things we need to recognize is that there are times to look at an issue on a broad basis, in depth, and that now is one of those times. So will he commit to this House that now is the time to undertake a broad review of the justice system and how it deals with issues of domestic violence in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I think that's what this report does. We commissioned the report; we wanted the report. The report does deal with these issues on a systemwide basis. That's the advice that the report gives to us. We'll seriously consider those recommendations and all the advice that the authors of the report have given to us.

C. Evans: My question is also for the Attorney General. This theme today of accusation and blame and going back to history seems to be endemic here. I've been reviewing the questions last week about Bountiful, and it seems that the opposition says: "Can we now do something about Bountiful?" The Attorney General has a report asking for a referral. The Attorney General says: "Well, these problems were made worse in the '90s."

I understand the principle of political accountability that works here. I was the MLA in Creston in the 1990s — and in 1993 when the RCMP asked for a referral, and the government's lawyers said that was the wrong thing to do. Let me say here that I accept responsibility for everything that's gone wrong in the past.

It's a brand-new slate. There is now someone who is responsible. Could we start from today and actually ask for the referral of the legality of polygamy in Bountiful? I've read the Attorney General saying: "I would rather do something tougher and have a criminal charge."

That's fine, but in the absence of a complainant willing to testify, a criminal charge has been unable to go forward for 20 years. We now have a report asking for a referral to a court to find out if what's going on in my constituency is legal. I beg the Attorney General: start from today and ask for the referral.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I think we've made it clear that this matter is of considerable importance to us. The issue regarding the abuses that are alleged to be taking place in Bountiful is something that should concern all British Columbians. That's why we sought the advice of two different lawyers, Mr. Peck and Mr. Doust. I have a meeting scheduled with Mr. Doust at the end of next week. I want to assure the member that we will do something, but I need to talk to Mr. Doust one more time.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I rise to table a letter from the chair of the board of directors of ICBC, which I received earlier today. This letter is in response to a request that I made to the board for a summary of the investigation into the operations of ICBC's research and training facility. The letter reaffirms my belief that the board and the executive of ICBC take this matter seriously and acted expeditiously to deal with the unacceptable situation at the facility.

I know that the public continues to have questions, as do members of this House, on this matter. Accordingly, I am tabling this letter so that this information is available to the public and all members of this Legislature.

R. Chouhan: Nine hundred seniors in Burnaby have signed this petition to restore the funding for Burnaby Partners in Seniors Wellness now.

N. Simons: I'd like to present a petition on behalf of residents of the Gibsons area who are concerned about the misguided policies with respect to B.C. Ferries.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate in this chamber on Bill 17, Public Safety and Solicitor General (Gift Card Certainty) Statutes Amendment Act. In Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, we will be continuing with the debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Education.

PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL
(GIFT CARD CERTAINTY) STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 17; K. Whittred in the chair.

G. Gentner: Just very quickly, under section 1, relative to "prepaid purchase card" and its meaning, definitions, etc. To the minister: can he explain to the House the consultative process to arrive at this? Was it through the B.C. retail association? Or was it through the B.C. Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In response to the member's question, the consultation was done by the ministry. There were responses from approximately 30 consumers, and consumer organizations included the Consumers Council of Canada. Business organizations that responded included the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, British Columbia and Yukon Hotels Association, Retail B.C., Better Business Bureau of Mainland B.C., Telus and the Multi-store Gift Card Coalition.

G. Gentner: I understand that there was a survey conducted up until the early part of last summer and that that survey was on line. How many actual consumers were consulted — not just retailers, etc., but the public? And did the public engage in this process?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The 30 consumers that I mentioned have responded to the on-line survey. Then there were approximately ten further consumers that contacted the ministry to make their views known about the issue of gift cards.

M. Farnworth: I wonder if the minister could comment as to why funeral contracts and interment right contracts or preneed cemetery or funeral services contracts were not included in the changes there.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm advised, in response to the member's question, that funeral contracts, interment right contracts or preneed cemetery funeral services contracts are dealt with in another part of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. They're dealt with specifically in another section. So it was felt that to avoid confusion, it not be included in these amendments.

G. Gentner: On subsection 3, subsection 56.1, just on the definition "prepaid purchase card." This is all-encompassing, I'm assuming? This includes phone cards and gas cards?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm advised that the telephone cards are under federal jurisdiction — telecommunications is federal jurisdiction — and that these amendments do include gas cards that are being given as gifts.

G. Gentner: What other cards are under federal jurisdiction that will be exempted from the ministry's definition of prepaid purchase cards?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The main other area that is not within the jurisdiction of this legislation…. They are things like preloaded credit cards issued by the financial services sector, most of which are under federal legislation as well.

G. Gentner: So all telephone cards are exempt, and of course, what the credit card companies do…. I'm assuming we'll maybe reach that in a subsection relative to the user fees, etc. — service fees.

What about gift cards that have been purchased out of province? There are expiry dates there, but someone wants to redeem. This could be a franchise in the province. How will that system work? Will the retailer of that chain have to honour the fact that, even though there is an expiry date on the card, that gift or that purchase will be honoured?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The law in the province where a gift card is issued would apply to that particular card because the jurisdiction would be the province of issue.

I can say to the member that there are a number of provinces that have already implemented gift card legislation and made expiry dates illegal, Ontario and Manitoba in particular. Also, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are working on legislation. The Retail Council of Canada has worked actively with its members to seek a harmonized approach across Canada on this.

So I think that the prospects are good, through the consultations that have taken place between provinces and through organizations like the Retail Council, that

we will be moving towards a harmonized system across Canada on this legislation.

G. Gentner: It brings to mind…. We're now well into the Internet on-line purchasing, and a consumer may believe that he or she is buying a prepaid purchase card with no expiry date, but of course, the head office at the other end could be somewhere else. I was just curious as to what the answer would be here. In particular, I am somewhat buoyed by the fact that the minister is looking at encouraging a harmonized approach throughout the country on this issue.

Under the provision 56.2, "issued or sold with an expiry date in contravention of subsection (1) is redeemable as if it had no expiry date." I just don't know when or how to introduce this. I know that the minister has made mention through the press that this would come into effect probably at the end of this year. Could he explain when that is and why that is?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The answer to the member's question is that, subject to passage of this legislation through this House, the ministry would embark on further consultation with all interested parties and draft the regulations that are enabled by these proposed amendments. As a ministry, we're targeting the fall of 2008 as a target implementation time.

G. Gentner: I'm a little confused by that. Last year at this time we — this side — proposed a private member's bill. We're happy that the side opposite picked up our good intentions and came forward with a bill similar to ours.

However, a year has transpired since then. I believe that probably the fourth-busiest retailing season is Father's Day, believe it or not. I hate to tell you that it takes precedence over Mother's Day, but flowers don't seem to be as expensive as drills and tools and everything else that dad needs. It would have been a wonderful opportunity to have had this ready at least by Father's Day — all due respect to moms.

I just don't understand how it is that there has to be further consultation. The bill is coming forward here today. It should be ready and up and running very shortly, yet we're going to wait until before Christmas. There will be some hope for consumers then, but some people do their Christmas shopping well into fall.

I don't understand it. This is free money. Gift cards with expiry dates were really gift cards for retailers. It's now part of their bottom line. There are accounts set aside, either in reserves for that retailer to come forward and spend it…. That money is already sitting aside. I don't know why the ministry…. Could the minister adjust his time line, streamline it somewhat, so that this legislation could be effective immediately — if not, let's say, with a time frame of this summer?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I appreciate the member's enthusiasm and share his enthusiasm for getting this legislation implemented as soon as possible in the interests of consumers.

A couple of comments. It is important that regulations be drafted appropriately and correctly and in consultation with stakeholders. I think that's an important principle.

I can confirm that a number of retailers have started to move forward and are going through the necessary changes to remove expiry dates. At the same time, there is a need for government, in a timely way, to provide appropriate notice to all of the retail sector as to the implementation date for this legislation and to allow sufficient time for conversion of, possibly, programming and cards, equipment, etc.

My commitment to the member in this House is to implement expeditiously but in a way that gives appropriate consideration to the matters of consultation and notice to the sector and those sorts of things.

G. Gentner: Well, I appreciate the minister's response. I suppose that at this time half a loaf is better than no loaf, so to speak.

I'm also interested to know what notice to consumers there will be. Many consumers have heard this information. They're quite excited about it, and maybe they're not able to read the fine line or understand that full implementation of this won't happen until maybe Christmas.

What is the ministry doing to let consumers know that there's still an expiry date in effect until maybe Christmas?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority will be administering this act. This is an independent authority charged with responsibility for these types of consumer protection initiatives, and they will be providing information and notice on their website for both consumers and the business sector. They will also have additional information explaining example questions and answers and explaining some of the details of these changes.

G. Gentner: I'm wondering exactly how the retroactiveness, if you will, of this card is going to work. For example, let's suppose that a person bought a card on January 1, 2008, and doesn't want to redeem it until January 1, 2009. The bill is totally in effect as of December '08, yet there's still an expiry date. Will the merchant or retailer have to honour that card?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In response to the member's question, the critical date will be the day that this legislation is enacted. Again, subject to approval by this House, it would be enacted once the regulations are drafted and enacted by order-in-council.

Further, any cards issued after that effective date will have to be in compliance with the new law. Any cards issued prior to that, as part of the transition provisions of these amendments to the act, will be subject

to the requirement, the law, that the issuers of those cards cannot change the provisions of those cards. So in other words, if a retailer issued a card before the effective date of this legislation, once this legislation is enacted, the retailer could not change the provisions of that card. That would be part of the transition provisions.

M. Farnworth: I just want to follow up on this. I just want to make sure we're clear. So what I heard the minister say was that once this act and the regulations are enacted by order-in-council, it then comes into full force. So any gift card after that date is governed by this act, and there's no expiry date on it.

But prior to that, like today, what I hear the minister saying is that if a gift card does not have an expiry date on it, you could not put one on. You could not change those conditions of it not having the expiry date. You couldn't put one on. If that's correct, then, what I'm hearing is that the converse of that is true — that is, if there is an expiry date on today, then that expiry date continues to stay in place. Is that what I'm hearing?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I just want to quote from section 4 in response to the member's question, which is a good question. If a card has no expiry date, it must remain valid until it is "…fully redeemed or replaced." So if it has no expiry date, it can't be changed. After the effective date of this legislation, a retailer, an issuer, can't change the provisions.

The question he asked is: if a card issued prior to the effective date of this legislation has an expiry date, can the retailer remove the expiry date? The answer is yes, they can. So they can voluntarily choose to remove the expiry date. They can change that condition, but they can't do it the reverse way.

M. Farnworth: But the other question, then, that comes in is that again…. After the regulations and the order-in-council are passed is one thing. But prior to that, then, if a gift card has an expiry date on it today, that expiry date remains in force even after the new regulations are brought into effect by the order-in-council. Is that correct?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can confirm that the member is correct in that scenario.

G. Gentner: Regarding 56.4, what must be on the card itself. "All restrictions, limitations, terms and conditions imposed in respect of use, redemption or replacement of the prepaid purchase card, including, without limitation, any permitted fee or expiry date."

I'm wondering at this time: what has to be on the card that you purchase? What are its limitations? What is the retailers' responsibility here?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In response to the member's question, I want to confirm that everything is set out in 56.4(1)(a) — that the terms and conditions, any restrictions or limitations have to be shown either on the card or the packaging material that the card is attached to at the point of sale. So any conditions, any fees as set out in the section have to be disclosed there, and they can be on either the card or the packaging material.

G. Gentner: Well, I asked the question because there's a standard practice now in British Columbia where the restrictions and limitations of a card are provided on the website of the retailer. So the minister is assuring us that the details of the card you're purchasing will, hopefully, be just strictly on the card itself and/or the packaging, and that does not include the website. I see a yes-and-no head nod that that's correct. Okay.

What also concerns me is that we're providing this provision here, which is a good thing, but it also again mentions any permitted fee or expiry dates. Well, we're getting rid of expiry dates, so why are we suggesting we're going to put that on the card?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The issue of a possible permitted fee or expiry date…. I'll deal with the issue of expiry date first. The regulations may allow the expiry dates on promotional cards. For example, cards that are issued as part of a promotion would be issued free to the consumer. So the legislation contemplates the possibility of allowing cards issued in that way or for charitable purposes to have an expiry date, the principle being that the consumer did not lay out any dollars of any kind for that card.

Similarly, the legislation enables the possibility of consideration under the regulations for a small fee for something like providing a customized card that may have the picture of the holder of the card on it — that would be one example that is being contemplated — or the possibility of a small fee to replace a card, for example, that has been lost by the consumer. So if the consumer has a gift card and they've lost it and they're seeking a replacement from the retailer, the legislation would allow us, in designing the regulations, to contemplate the possibility of a small fee in a situation like that.

G. Gentner: I ask the question again, because under the definitions…. Maybe the minister could shepherd me along here. Section 56.4 specifically talks about prepaid purchase cards, and sub-subsection (a) refers to prepaid purchase cards. Does that also mean a promotional card that isn't paid?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I would refer the member to the definition under section 56.1, where it gives a specific definition of a prepaid purchase card. I think the operative word there, which is also repeated in section 56.4, is the word "issued" followed by "or sold."

I can appreciate the member's question because of the use of the word "prepaid," but that is intended to denote the fact that a card is being issued in a promotional situation to a consumer with a prepaid value of, let's say, $10. That card will have been issued at no cost

to the consumer. So the definition here does include both cards — promotional ones and ones that the consumer actually laid out their own money for.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister tell me how the legislation deals with the issue of fees and fees being charged on gift cards?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I would refer the member asking the question to subsection 56.3(1), which is entitled "Fees prohibited except as permitted by regulation." This section sets out that: "A supplier must not charge a fee to a consumer for anything in relation to a prepaid purchase card, except as may be permitted by the regulations under section 56.5…." Section 56.5 is the one that sets up the authority to provide the exemption for a fee.

M. Farnworth: I just want to make it clear. That's important, because one of the things that can happen is that you could do away with an expiry date. Let's say you bought a $100 gift card at, I don't know, one of my favourite stores, Holt Renfrew — not that I get to go there that often. A hundred bucks probably wouldn't get me that much, in fact. Okay, let's make it $500, because we're talking about Holt Renfrew.

You could have a series of fees that would come in. Let's say that after a year it might lose half its value. In a subsequent year it loses half its value. I want to make sure that what we're not going to allow is a sort of backdoor expiry date by a sliding scale of fees coming in that would render a gift card useless.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can assure the member that if he wants to offer me a $500 gift card to Holt Renfrew, I would be happy about that.

The issue that he raises is one that is being directly addressed in this legislation, and the technical term for it is "dormancy fees." It is certainly our full intent through this legislation to ensure that those cannot be applied.

I think his question strikes at the heart of the intent of this legislation — that that kind of backdoor erosion of the value that the consumer put up in terms of buying the card will not be able to happen. That will be illegal under this legislation.

G. Gentner: In the same vein, where does that put us with credit cards like Visa, which are regulated federally? They tack service charges on buying purchase cards. Or it could be TicketMaster. What happens then?

Hon. J. van Dongen: If I understand the member's question correctly, I think we have dealt with that in the answer that I gave — that Visa cards and bank cards are generally all federally regulated, and they would not be captured by this legislation.

G. Gentner: Well, I raise it because I think we have this sort of counterculture when every time we go to an ATM machine, we pay $1.50. You're going to buy a purchase card, a gift card, which is for a friend, and here we're going to go again. I had to raise it for the record.

The minister mentioned earlier about how we're going to regulate this. We're going to regulate it through the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority, which I think now is a little more arm's-length than it used to be, when it used to be called…. It was changed under this government.

Hon. J. van Dongen: In response to the member's question, the compliance and enforcement provisions are already built into the existing act. It does involve a progressive approach to achieving the proper outcome for consumers under the act.

If consumers can't resolve complaints directly with the businesses themselves, they can contact the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority. The authority will, in the first instance, assist them with mediation and referrals. They will investigate the consumers' complaints. They will seek redress for consumers who have been treated improperly by a business, and they will work to ensure that businesses are complying with the consumer protection legislation.

The act then further establishes a number of enforcement mechanisms available to the authority, including some of the following. They may investigate complaints about violations, including enter a business, take copies of documents and hear witnesses. They may, under the act, request written undertakings to comply, to make compliance orders, leading in some cases to freezing property or injunctions. They may impose progressive administrative penalties up to $10,000 for an individual and larger penalties for business, and they may recommend charges in criminal courts.

So there's a whole progression of services and enforcement that is available to consumers in the event that they feel there's non-compliance by an issuer of these gift cards.

G. Gentner: So the short of it is that compliance is dealt with sort of on a complaint basis, I guess.

My next question there is: who can issue a card? Do you need a business license? Are there going to be permits issued by the province? Is there going to be some type of inventory? How is this going to be regulated? Can I, tomorrow — I have a fruit stand — issue out certificates and say there's no expiry date? Can the minister explain how this is going to occur?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I thank the member for his question. This is consumer protection legislation, so it is by nature consumer-driven. If consumers feel that they've been inappropriately treated under the law, then this provides the redress mechanism for them.

These amendments do capture not only cards but also other documents. Whether it's a certificate or a letter — the common element being any document that promises a future good or a service to a consumer for dollars laid out by the consumer today — that would be captured by this legislation.

If it's a paper certificate issued that promises something in the future, a good to be available, then it is included in the legal scope of this legislation.

G. Gentner: Well, it's a recent phenomenon in many ways. I understand that the way to find your patronage and get people into your business was the reason why we had gift cards. But here we are today. These intricacies are certainly technical in nature, but they do have vast implications, because again we're talking about a multitude of millions of dollars in unredeemed cards per annum.

I just need a little further explanation on renewal fees. You can join a membership for, say, Costco, and there could be a gift card attached. It's not promotional, but you can belong to clubs, etc. Will this legislation deal with any type of renewal fee necessary to update your gift card?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The legislation is enabling and will provide the authority to consider the kind of circumstances that the member raises, where a consumer buys a membership in a buying organization such as Costco, for an example, where it may be time-limited. There may be a gift card issued with that membership, which may or may not be part of the fee.

The legislation may be used — and I stress "could be used" — to allow a card that is deemed to have been issued free for promotional purposes…. It may allow a small fee. On the other hand, it allows government in drafting regulations to not allow a fee on that card. So there may be a range of circumstances that the regulations will attempt to deal with and ensure that the consumer gets a fair treatment from the issuing retailer.

M. Farnworth: We're just about finished, I think, on the issue of gift cards. But I do have a question, and that is around certificates.

If one were to attend, for example, a charity auction or a benefit auction…. Quite often in silent auctions you bid on an item. For example, it may be dinner at a restaurant. It could be Ducks Unlimited. It could be any number of great events — right?

I do it on a regular basis, and sometimes I take them home and I say: "Hey, why don't we go for dinner here?" And it's: "Nah, not tonight." Then it gets stuck in a drawer, and you forget about it. Then later on, you're going: "You know what? I'm going into Vancouver-Kingsway, and I should take my colleague the member for Vancouver-Kingsway out for lunch. This restaurant is near there." I go, and I find the….

M. Farnworth: Okay, maybe that's the wrong member to use. That's right. He always pays.

You get the gift certificates. In the case of charitable, will it allow expiry dates, or does the legislation cover that? When you get something at a charity auction, and let's say it's a gift certificate at a restaurant, will it not have an expiry date into the future?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The regulation-making authority, under the amendments being proposed, will allow consideration of a possible expiry date where something is issued by a charitable organization. So the scenario that the member mentions can be dealt with under the authority of this act.

Again, he raises a good example of where due consideration needs to be made as to what is the appropriate action in the kind of scenario he mentions. We're certainly open to advice from the member on those types of situations. I've had the same experience at fundraisers for charitable organizations. Whether or not it's appropriate to require them to not have an expiry date is a valid consideration to be made under the legislation.

M. Farnworth: I had to ask that question. It is a reality of our occupation and many others.

I wonder if the minister can outline exactly, in terms of section 5, how that changes from the current definition and, in particular, deal with the issue of including property that is likely to cause serious bodily harm — how that has changed — and the issue of removing the element of intention.

Hon. J. van Dongen: If we start in responding to the member's question with section 5(a), the change is the addition of the words "or was likely to result in."

This is really dealing with past behaviour that's already proven, but the intent of this amendment is to ensure that the act will apply to actions that have occurred — crimes that have been committed using these particular assets or property — where not only did it "result in," but it would also widen the scope to include "likely to result in" certain outcomes.

Again, under section 5(a)(ii) the addition was "or was likely to cause" serious bodily harm to a person.

What it means is that in the new draft, the actual bodily harm would not have had to happen for the act to apply. It would apply even if it was only likely to apply. That amendment is being made so that — in the example of a street racer — the act would not only apply if someone actually caused bodily harm, injury or death by street racing, but it would apply if the actions

of that individual in operating that vehicle were likely to cause serious injury or death.

It clarifies and widens the legislation a little bit so that it still applies when there's dangerous behaviour that didn't necessarily, at that particular event or particular incident, cause bodily harm. Then, in answering the member's question fully, under section 1(b) there's a slight change where we're removing the words "is intended to" and substituting the word "may."

This is simply to ensure that we're not treading on a test that really involves criminal law, that it simply reflects a person's actions without trying to ascertain the intent — which is really one of the key elements of criminal law as opposed to civil law.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that explanation. I would want to look at it from two perspectives, and I think the street-racing analogy is a very good example of one.

Is it the minister's intent that this section is…? Is it a discretionary section in the sense that if you are caught street racing and it's your first time, then your car automatically will be seized? Or is it the minister's intention that this is an option — to seize a vehicle?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to respond to the member, first of all, by explaining the process. Under the act, the director of civil forfeiture, who is an individual with responsibility for this legislation in the ministry….

He or she would make a determination, first of all — under the specifics of the act and what the ministry has learned through previous cases and in consideration of the specific facts of any individual case — whether or not it's appropriate to make application to the court for a decision to seize the vehicle and have that individual forfeit that vehicle under this legislation.

What I want to stress is that in any decision around forfeiture, the actual decision is the decision of an independent judge in our court system. The decision to move a particular case forward would depend heavily on the facts of the case and on what we've learned through this legislation to date.

It's possible, based on what we've learned, that on a first offence with a certain fact pattern, the director might decide it's inappropriate to forward a request to the court for consideration of forfeiture, simply because the experience has shown that that would be inappropriate use of public resources. Or it's possible that the actions of an individual, even in a first offence, are so horrendous and created such a risk for the public that the director may decide to put the case forward to a judge for consideration.

It would be up to the director to act in a manner that he or she feels is in the public interest, with due consideration to all the issues that I've mentioned.

M. Farnworth: So what I can take from the minister's explanation is that yes, that discretion or that ability is there.

Can he also confirm that one of the effects of this particular change — and I'll give you an example — is that if someone was street racing and killed someone, it would be easy under the old act to seize the vehicle — to forfeit the vehicle. If they were repeatedly caught street racing but did not injure anybody, it would be very difficult, or more difficult, to seize a vehicle. I'll let him answer that first.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I think the member raises a relevant question in that under the old act, if there was no serious injury or death caused by the actions of that individual, then the director would not be able to make an application. But that's the heart of the amendment — if it's likely to cause. If in the director's judgment — based on the reports from the police and all the information from the police — the actions of the owner of the car were such that the public were at risk, then under this new act the director has full option, full scope, to take that forward for a court decision by an independent judge.

M. Farnworth: I think this is a really important point that I want to make sure is absolutely right, and I want the minister to know that I think this change is important. One of the things we're concerned about and one of the things where I think there has been a weakness in the past has been that inability to target a repeat offender who is engaged in dangerous behaviour that is likely to cause injury or death to other people, because of a narrowness of the act.

What I hear the minister saying is that if someone is a repeat offender when it comes to street racing, for example, and they've been caught a number of times but haven't done any death yet, this act will allow for a process for that vehicle to be seized and for it to be confiscated from that individual, who clearly has a reckless disregard for the rest of the general population.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The member is absolutely correct. That is the intent of the legislation — to provide the opportunity to present to a B.C. Supreme Court judge a situation where, in a repeat offender situation, the actual serious injury or death hasn't occurred.

I'm advised that this legislation, this amendment, was developed in consultation with the superintendent of motor vehicles. It is clearly the intention of the government to be in a position to allow the director of civil forfeiture to use this section more aggressively to deal with the kind of conduct he describes by an owner of a motor vehicle. This will be part of our overall street safety program.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, I'll take this opportunity to raise one of the questions that I asked in the second reading debate. If this is not quite the right section, you can tell me what the appropriate section is. But I think this is the appropriate place to raise the issue, which is: if a vehicle is seized, then how is it disposed of? Is it sold at auction, or is it destroyed?

This is one of the questions I had or one of the issues that I want to flag for the minister. I think it's important. How does the minister intend to deal with…? A vehicle is used in street racing, and then it's sold.

I mean, it may be one thing for a standard, regular vehicle that has been driven at a high speed and ends up being confiscated. Then it could be sold to a responsible driver. It's quite another if the vehicle that has been seized has been modified specifically for street racing. Really, the only person who would buy that would not be a regular driver but rather someone who would be using it for street racing themselves.

Hon. J. van Dongen: In the example that the member has given of a vehicle that was seized under the Civil Forfeiture Act on an order by a judge, our branch would sell that vehicle. But any vehicles that are sold can only be sold lawfully in the province of British Columbia if they are in compliance with the Motor Vehicle Act.

Where a vehicle has been modified to such an extent that it is not in compliance with the Motor Vehicle Act at the time of seizure, then it would be…. The consideration or the duty of our ministry would be to decide whether that vehicle can be economically reinstated to a legal condition under the act. Where that cannot be done at a cost that is recoverable through the ultimate sale of that vehicle, then that illegal vehicle would be crushed. That vehicle would go to scrap.

I think the member raises a very valid question, and there are provisions under the law to deal with that situation. If it can be modified appropriately and economically, then it would be the decision of the director to make those modifications and sell that vehicle to recover the cost and for some additional dollars that would go into the fund.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the response of the minister. I understand what the minister is saying about modifications and the vehicles that are modified outside of what the act allows, but there are modifications that are allowed within an act. They're legal, but they clearly take a vehicle from what may be just driving to and from work or for pleasure to where the primary focus of the vehicle is a different use. You know, it's designed for speed.

There's nothing wrong with that if it's used in the legal way. But what about those vehicles that are within the law and…? In essence, what you're doing by putting them up for sale is basically inviting somebody else who wants to use them for a street-racing purpose. How do you deal with that situation, or do you?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I think the member, in raising the question, may be getting a little bit beyond the scope of the Civil Forfeiture Act. I will confirm to him that the legal test for the director is that if he or she decides to put up that vehicle for sale, it has to be in compliance with the Motor Vehicle Act.

Having said that, the director has discretion, if they feel it's in the public interest and appropriate, to make any other changes to the vehicle that they think may be appropriate and that may in fact contribute to the ultimate proceeds from the sale of that vehicle. So there is discretion that the director could apply in other changes they may make to the vehicle, beyond what is legally required in the Motor Vehicle Act, for it to be in full compliance.

M. Farnworth: The question may be beyond the scope of the act, but I ask it for a specific reason. That is, we're widening the scope of civil forfeiture. We support that, and we think that's a good thing, particularly when it comes to dealing with issues such as street racing.

Also, I think it can apply to other types of vehicles that may be captured by this legislation — for example, vehicles used in gang violence or by criminal gangs. A lot of those vehicles tend to be high-end vehicles, so there is a real incentive to look at being able to buy those vehicles when they come up for sale.

The point I'm trying to make here is that we need to recognize that this will be one of the consequences of expanding that, and it's something we need to pay attention to. I don't want to see us in a situation where we are either putting vehicles back on the street to be bought by people engaging in illegal street racing or where high-end vehicles can be seized and then sold and put out on the street for people engaged in criminal activity to pick up at a lower price and be able to continue their illegal activity.

One of the questions I have is: when property is disposed of, has the minister looked at…? Do we, for example, do background checks on individuals? A vehicle that has been used in street racing may be legal. It has been modified legally. It could still engage in that activity. Do we do anything to ensure that the prospective owner…? Do we check their background to ensure, for example, that they have not been charged nor have a record of street racing — or with vehicles that have been seized in relation to the illegal drug trade, that we're not, given the nature of those vehicles, selling them to people who have a criminal record engaged in, for example, illegal drug activity or gang activity?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I think I understand the member's concern in raising the question, where he's suggesting the possibility of a vehicle that has been modified for a specific purpose may be legal under the Motor Vehicle Act but may be modified in such a way that would predispose the use of that vehicle to commit another crime. I think that's the scenario that he is speaking to.

In answer to that, the director of civil forfeiture has full discretion to make a determination, if a vehicle is legal under the act, whether or not it is in the public interest to sell a vehicle with certain modifications. It is certainly my view that he would make that consideration if that possibility existed.

The disposal of assets that are seized under court order through the Civil Forfeiture Act is done through the asset investment recovery branch of the provincial

government. This is an on-line auction to sell to the public surplus government assets, and all of the normal rules would apply there.

I think the member was asking whether or not under the system we have we could do background checks on people bidding through that system. I think that all of the normal legal constraints we operate under through that system would be applicable for assets seized under the Civil Forfeiture Act, in selling through that asset investment recovery auction.

M. Farnworth: I'd just like to ask the minister for the specific reasons for changing this. Is it on the basis of court decisions that have already come down, or is it some concern on the part of the ministry that there is an area of the legislation that needs to be strengthened? If he wishes to take his time in consultation on this particular question, I'm more than happy. If he were to take two or three or four minutes, I think it would be most appropriate.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The answer to the member's question is that the basis for these changes comes from comments made by judges and legal advice from our own legal counsel. I want to be clear that the basis for these changes did not come from legal decisions of the courts.

L. Krog: I just want to confirm the response of the minister. There have been no court decisions that have impacted on section 8(5) as it exists that has led the government to bring forward section 6, which will have the effect of repealing section 8(5) as it exists? Is that clear — that no judge has said: "This is what I think. This is a case I've heard. These are the facts"?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can confirm for the member that there have not been decisions by judges that have caused us to make these changes, but there have been comments in the courts by the judges about this section. These changes are simply intended to clarify section 8(5) to ensure that the original intent of a civil test is met for this legislation.

L. Krog: If I can remember, I think, what I learned in law school, this is what we call obiter dictum as opposed to ratio decidendi, or whatever it is. I'm sure the Attorney General remembers his Latin better than I do. He was in court more often.

Is that what we're talking about? In other words, the comments that are not central to the decision of the court in a particular case?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I didn't even go to law school, but I'm advised that the answer to the question is yes.

L. Krog: I want to congratulate the minister, because I understand tuition is up to about eight or nine grand a year, so he saved himself considerable expense and trouble by coming to that conclusion without the necessity of law school.

With respect to this section, I'm very curious to know…. As the minister well knows, the Hell's Angels clubhouse in Nanaimo was seized, so to speak, and is the subject of an ongoing action. I'm not asking the minister to comment on that case. I appreciate that this is before the courts, which I will cheekily say is an answer we've heard many times from the government benches in the last year or two.

What I'm getting at is: are the comments of the judges such that they don't believe the section will be effective or that they can enforce it? Is it lacking in clarity, per se? Exactly what is the problem that has been identified by judges speaking about this section?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The comments by judges that we considered are not considered huge issues but relevant to the legislation. It's our judgment that we wanted to make these relatively minor changes to clarify the original intent of the legislation.

L. Krog: The phrase that commences both the existing subsection 8(5) and the new section, which is section 6 of this bill, talks about: "Unless it is not in the interests of justice…." I'm just wondering. Has the court interpreted what that phrase means within the context of this section?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Could I just ask the Chair to confirm. Are we on section 5 or section 6?

L. Krog: What I'm referring to is…. We are on section 6 of Bill 17, which has the effect of repealing existing subsection 8(5). What I'm talking about is that subsection 8(5) as it exists now commences with the phrase: "Unless it is not in the interests of justice…." Likewise, the new proposed subsection 8(5), which replaces the old one….

I'm just asking: has the court provided any interpretation of what is a circumstance that would be not in the interests of justice?

Hon. J. van Dongen: No, the court has not given any indication of the nature that the member requested.

L. Krog: I'm wondering if the minister can outline what advice he's received from ministerial staff or the Attorney General's ministry or lawyers. What is the situation or an example of a situation where it wouldn't be in the interests of justice to make the preservation order?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm advised that this section in the amendment is drafted in such a way to ensure that

it respects the ultimate authority of the court to make the decision. That's the way this is designed and intended to respect that authority.

M. Farnworth: Under section 7, the change, as I understand it, is that it clarifies that indirectly engaging in unlawful activity includes having knowledge of the unlawful activity and receiving a financial benefit from the activity. I just want to outline a scenario for the minister and see if my understanding of what he's intending to do, or what this legislation will do, under what I'm about to outline to him….

You are a criminal gang member; you're a drug dealer. You're living at home, and you just tell your parents that you're a business person. That's why you seem to be flush with cash. Your parents are asking questions about your business or what have you. You decide…. "You know what? I'm going to buy my parents a BMW or a Mercedes — buy them a nice, brand-new car." You do that; you buy them the car.

This individual has not told the parents that they're engaged in illegal activity, and the parents have not asked. I mean, one would think the parents might ask where…. Or if they did ask, it's that "clearly your business is being successful." No one has mentioned or talked about the fact that it is an illegal activity that this individual has been engaged in.

In subsequent criminal proceedings, would this section apply to that? That vehicle that was given to those parents is, in fact, the result of criminal activity and could therefore be seized under the act.

Hon. J. van Dongen: First of all, in the example that the member raises, there would have to be evidence that the parents knew of the unlawful activity.

This amendment is designed to deal with the kind of a situation where a landlord is knowingly allowing illegal activity to take place in a house that they have rented or leased to tenants, who may be growing illegal plants. There are those situations. That's what this amendment is intended to deal with.

M. Farnworth: I think that's a great example, and I would support the minister's explanation as a reason why this section should be here and changed.

So then, this brings me back to my question. What about that circumstance, that example that I just shared with you? In other words, that proceed of criminal activity, which was a gift, would then be outside the bounds of the legislation — would not be able to be seized. Is that correct?

R. Sultan: It gives me great honour to introduce three great British Columbians who are in the galleries today. We have Margaret Birrell, who's the executive director of the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities, and she's accompanied by Jane Dyson, who is president of the Coalition of People with Disabilities. Accompanying Margaret and Jane is Gordon Adair, FCA, one of British Columbia's most distinguished accountants and the chief financial officer of the first SkyTrain, which he says really did come in on budget and on schedule. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can advise the member that in the circumstance he described, where an owner of a vehicle that was used in a crime that would be under the scope of the Civil Forfeiture Act transferred it to his parents, the director of the civil forfeiture office could still make application to a court for the possible seizure of those assets under another section of this act. So that decision would depend on his assessment of all of the facts of the case. But he has the avenue to make application to the court even in that circumstance.

M. Farnworth: That wasn't quite the question I asked. I guess the example I'm using is that this vehicle, for example, was a gift, not a transfer. It was a gift to the parents. The point I was getting at was: is one of the intended consequences of this particular section that it puts an onus on individuals, in this case parents, for example, to ask questions about the origin of property such as an expensive vehicle, for example? Does it put an onus on parents to ask more questions of the type of activities their kids may be engaged in? So one of the results is the potential to lose property that you may have obtained from a family member who's engaged in criminal activity.

Hon. J. van Dongen: In the scenario that the member mentions, he distinguishes a gift from a transfer. In fact, whether or not the vehicle in his example is a gift or a transfer, the director of the civil forfeiture office, both under the previous legislation and under the legislation as amended, could still proceed to a court to seek a seizure order for that vehicle under the proceeds-of-crime section.

I'm advised that that does not necessarily depend on whether or not the parents knew or didn't know. That particular property is considered proceeds of crime under another section of this act, and the director could act on that to make an application to the court.

M. Farnworth: One question before we take a five-minute break at 4:30, and that is: has that ever happened? Has that circumstance occurred, and has that ever happened under the act?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I am advised that that has not happened with cars but that it has happened with other property, where assets or property has been transferred and the director was successful in getting a decision from a court to seize those assets.

M. Farnworth: I just want to explore this particular section a bit further, because I think one of the issues…. I want to make sure that the minister fully understands the point I'm trying to get at, and I want to make sure that I get this on the record.

I've accepted and understand the minister's explanation about the grow op and the use of premises for illegal activity, but in terms of expanding this definition…. What I read is that it clarifies that indirectly engaging in unlawful activity includes having knowledge of the unlawful activity and receiving a financial benefit from the activity. Does it also include the conflict of wilful blindness to an illegal activity? Is that captured by the change in this section?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The member asks whether wilful blindness would be intended in this section. The finding of wilful blindness would be up to the judge. But the director, in making their decision to move the application forward to a court, would simply ask themselves if, in presenting the evidence, they believe they can prove knowledge to the judge.

Wilful blindness is one potential finding that the judge could make, which may or may not reflect on the ultimate decision by that judge of whether or not the seizure would be granted. So that is a specific that the judge could find.

Obviously, the director would make best efforts to make the determination that he or she had a prospect of getting a supportive decision from the judge, but ultimately it would be the judge's decision.

M. Farnworth: What I hear from the minister is that this section is not specifically intended for that particular situation.

I'll just outline again how I see the scenario and why I'm focused on this, because we're expanding the definition of unlawful activity so that it includes having knowledge. I guess the focus is on that question of having knowledge.

If you're the parents of a kid who's working at a minimum-wage job or of a young adult who's at home and working at a minimum-wage job in a restaurant, for example, and he gives you either an expensive car or a very expensive watch or some other expensive item that common sense would tell you he clearly did not buy this on the wages at this minimum-wage job. Does this section capture that type of activity — which is, in essence, wilful blindness? Does this section capture that?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to confirm for the member, in answering, that this section is not intended to deal with a gift or any other type of transfer, as we discussed in the earlier questions. The example that he raises can be dealt with and is dealt with under another section of the act.

This amendment is intended to deal with a situation where an individual both had knowledge and derived financial benefit from the use of property in the committing of a crime. It is quite specifically intended to deal with the kind of situation which has come up a number of times, in the original implementation of this act since 2005, where landlords clearly had knowledge and clearly derived benefit in the way of increased rents from illegal grow-op situations. That is the intent of this section.

The gift section. While it's actionable by the director, it's actionable under another section.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's explanation. I ask the question because whenever we're expanding the powers of a section, I want to make sure exactly what it is able to catch. And is it able to do more? Are we sure that we're looking at all of the potential consequences of it? So I thank the minister for that clarification.

I would ask the minister: what section would deal with the situation I described? I believe that type of activity occurs far more than most people would expect.

While he's getting me the information on that section, I just wonder if he could also answer this question. How would that section come into play? For example, could a member of the public contact the director, who would be able to launch proceedings that might result in that section coming into enforcement? I'll wait for the minister's answer.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm going to take the second question first. The civil forfeiture office does not deal with members of the public. It takes its advice from the police and other regulatory bodies, regulatory agencies. If the public has information about a criminal activity, then we would advise them to take those to the police.

In terms of the member's first question, which is again dealing with which section of the act empowers the director to apply to a court to seize gifts that are the proceeds of unlawful activity…. The applicable sections really are section 1, which is definitions, where it defines "proceeds of unlawful activity" — in his example, we would presume that the car or the watch would be proceeds of unlawful activity — combined with section 3, which is the general section that empowers the director to make an application for forfeiture to a court. So those would be the two sections that come into play in his question.

M. Farnworth: Could the minister clarify…? Where it says "bestows immunity on the director…." By that, does he mean the director of a civil forfeiture, or is that a reference to directors of organizations, for example?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The answer to the member's question is in the definitions directly in the act. "Director" means a person who is designated as director under section 21(1). By advice from the legislative counsel — that includes staff of the director.

M. Karagianis: I would ask, first of all, why this recommendation has come forward — it is in this bill — to list these particular exclusions from the bill. Can the minister please explain why we are laying them out? What is the difference between this and the previous existing language in the bill?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The basis for the changes proposed here in the Commercial Transport Act is to align the legislation with longstanding licensing practices and ensure that owners of recreational trailers are safeguarded against higher fees and regulatory requirements that are designed for commercial trailers.

The amendment will also align the definition of "house trailer" with that provided for in the Motor Vehicle Act regulations. It is intended to align the law with what has become a longstanding licensing practice, in the interests of citizens who own recreational trailers.

M. Karagianis: In subsection (b) where it says "a trailer that is (i) designed, constructed and equipped for human habitation…." I think that is what the minister has referred to. Point (ii) under this: "designed, constructed and equipped for human occupancy for industrial, professional or commercial purposes…."

Could the minister explain why those particular commercial applications or commercial uses are being excluded from what is ostensibly the Commercial Transport Act?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The basis for the inclusion is the common element of trailers that were designed and constructed for human occupancy. So the actual use of the trailer is for someone to live in, and the actual use of the trailer itself is not for a commercial purpose.

M. Karagianis: In the case of a construction site where they might be using a recreational vehicle to house workers or to enact business throughout the day on a construction site, would they be then considered excluded from being considered as a commercial vehicle?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The decisions around what was included here, in addition to what I've mentioned about human occupancy on a construction site, were already based on a definition in the regulations under the Motor Vehicle Act. This same definition applies there.

It's intended, as I understand it, to distinguish between a trailer that is being used for human occupancy, which may be moved from site to site on an occasional basis, as opposed to a trailer that is constantly on the road for commercial purposes.

M. Karagianis: I think earlier the minister mentioned that this is really putting in clear language what already exists in the way of action or the way these vehicles are treated right now.

Is this going to cause any specific change in insurance premiums or insurance and licensing on any of these vehicles? This is the first time this has really been enacted and specified in the act. What are going to be the consequences of that for licensing and insurance?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The answer to the member's question is that we wouldn't expect any change in the practices around licensing and insurance, because this amendment is really intended to reflect what has been common practice based on existing regulations under the Motor Vehicle Act.

M. Karagianis: Just one final question. In the case of a business or an individual who is using a recreational vehicle as their commercial transportation, both to live in and perhaps to travel around the country or to do business — do trade shows or things like that — does this actually alter their designation from a commercial business use for their vehicle to a recreational use for their vehicle?

Hon. J. van Dongen: My understanding is that if a recreational trailer is being used for commercial purposes, then it would still be licensed under the Motor Vehicle Act as a recreational trailer, but the insurance would have to reflect the commercial use of that trailer. It's licensed as a recreational trailer, but if there's any commercial use of it, that would have to be reflected in the insurance that owner would get for that trailer.

M. Karagianis: The subsection here that says this act does not include "a trailer that is designed, constructed and equipped for human occupancy for industrial, professional or commercial purposes…." In fact, that particular exclusion under this does not apply through to its licensing and insurance. Is that what I'm hearing the minister say?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The inclusion of the trailer under (b)(ii), "designed, constructed and equipped for human occupancy for industrial, professional or commercial purposes" — which is the member's question

— doesn't affect the licensing. The licensing is under the Motor Vehicle Act as a recreational trailer.

The insurance for a trailer like that, which is being used commercially and is going to be insured by the owner through ICBC, will probably fall in a different class because of its use. So the licensing is consistent under the Motor Vehicle Act with similar trailers that are being strictly used personally. But if a trailer is used commercially, then that affects the insurance side of it, and that owner would have to reflect that in the insurance they get from ICBC.

M. Karagianis: Then perhaps I don't understand why, specifically the language here…. It does say, under this section, "does not include" these following categories. It very specifically spells out here trailers that are designed "for industrial, professional or commercial purposes."

I'm not entirely sure if I understand why this is being spelled out here if, in fact, it doesn't have any kind of reflection on insurance on any of these vehicles. If they are used for commercial purposes, either they're included under the Commercial Transport Act or they are not, it would seem to me. I'm a bit confused by the answers that the minister has given.

Hon. J. van Dongen: If we focus on the licensing issue, the way this section is drafted — and as amended — confirms that these types of trailers are not captured under the definition of trailer under the Commercial Transportation Act. They are in fact captured under the definition of trailer from a licensing perspective under the Motor Vehicle Act.

So this simply confirms that these types of trailers do not come under this act, but they're already captured under the Motor Vehicle Act from a licensing perspective.

M. Karagianis: Just to clarify for the purposes of insurance. A vehicle that could be used for commercial purposes, which is a recreational vehicle that an individual lives in and perhaps travels around in and does business from, is excluded from being considered a commercial vehicle under this act and the amendments here today, but is considered a commercial vehicle for the purposes of insuring. It's really up to the owner then to determine….

Is there a way for someone to determine that their vehicle is not a commercial vehicle and that, therefore, they should not pay commercial vehicle insurance because, in fact, they're excluded very specifically under the amendments to this act? They could then determine that they don't have to pay commercial insurance, which I would expect is slightly different than just standard personal use of a recreational vehicle.

Hon. J. van Dongen: In my earlier answers I was attempting to be broad in scope, but I want to confine my comment to this specific legislation. This legislation does not deal with insurance. The issues of insurance raised by the member come under a separate act, which I'm told is the Insurance (Vehicle) Act. So the insurance questions would come under that legislation.

M. Karagianis: Therefore, could my previous question be determined as an unintended consequence of the changes here — that an individual could certainly make a valid argument that they are not a commercial vehicle if they fall within the definition laid out here?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm advised that there is no connection between insurance and licensing. Hence, we believe there would not be any unintended consequence from this change.

M. Farnworth: I would ask the Chair that we stand down section 16 for a few moments, which deals with liquor control and licensing, as well as section 17, and that we would continue to deal with sections 18 through 23 inclusive, which also relate to Motor Vehicle Act issues. That would allow for a very speedy resolution of the bill, because we have the critic here who can deal with that section.

M. Karagianis: In this section it stipulates that registration number plates are not required to be displayed on towing dollies from jurisdictions that do not issue registration number plates for that type of trailer. Could the minister inform the House how many jurisdictions this includes?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm advised that about half the provinces in Canada do not require licences on tow dollies. Alberta is one of those. It's about half and half, and Alberta does not require them.

M. Karagianis: So in this case this very specifically addresses out-of-province vehicles. Towing dollies — is that what I'm to call them?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The member is correct that if the tow dolly originates from a province that does not require a registered number plate, then it would not be required in British Columbia under the law. If the tow dolly comes from a province where it is required, then it would also be required, under this law, to have it on in British Columbia. So the legislation or the act supports whatever the law is in the originating province, or the province of origin, of the tow dolly.

M. Karagianis: The oversight of this is provided by regulation? How is this provided, and how is notification sent out on this for oversight for those who are doing the towing?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The oversight for this is provided under the regulations of the Motor Vehicle Act in the normal course of events, which would involve police checking the compliance issues.

M. Karagianis: This lays out that henceforth anyone who has changed their name needs to make that known to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia in person. Can the minister explain what has triggered this specific change in the process for ICBC notification?

Hon. J. van Dongen: This change will ensure that the legislation is consistent with established business practices which require information to be provided to ICBC in person. These practices have been implemented in order to help prevent fraud and to improve accuracy and reliability of drivers' licences.

The government is engaged in initiatives to really deal with fraud issues and identity theft and these sorts of things. This is part of an overall effort to improve the reliability of drivers' licences that are issued.

M. Karagianis: Have there been some issues where there has been a loss of identity through this process, which have actually triggered this? Have there been any incidents of notification by letter or otherwise that have resulted in any kind of loss of privacy information or stolen privacy or stolen identification?

Hon. J. van Dongen: This change is being made not as a result of any specific incidents that we know of but to reflect in the law what has already been an established practice for a significant number of years. It's consistent with initiatives that our province is working on with other provinces to improve the general standard of practice with respect to the issuance of drivers' licences.

M. Karagianis: One final question. The in-person submission of this information can be done at any ICBC outlet, any insurance or Autoplan outlet anywhere in the province, so it's not causing undue stress on someone who lives out in the country or in a rural area or perhaps in a more remote location. It's fairly easy for them to access Insurance Corporation of B.C. agents.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The points of access would continue to be any place where a citizen could get their driver's licence renewed. That would include all existing driver's licence service centres. In more remote areas in rural British Columbia, government agent offices also currently can renew drivers' licences. That would be the point where they would have to go to present themselves and their information in person.

M. Farnworth: I understand the zeal for some people to pass the section, but we do have a few questions that we need to ask.

Can the minister explain the general purpose about what he's trying to accomplish with this and, in particular, what sort of consultation process has taken place?

My understanding is that this is to allow for temporary licensing of venues within the games areas themselves both in Whistler and Vancouver and, I would also assume, Richmond and other areas where there are other Olympic venues. It would in many ways be similar to Expo 86, where you had licensed premises at that time on the Expo site. It would allow temporary restaurants and, I would imagine, the athletes village and things like that to serve liquor or have licensed establishments. If I'm correct, please tell me. If it goes beyond that, please let me know.

Also, it comes back to what kind of consultation process has taken place. Who was consulted, when were they consulted, and what sort of reaction has the minister received?

Hon. J. van Dongen: This proposed amendment will allow the provision of a temporary licence category. Right now we basically just have two licence categories. This would be specifically designed to reflect the needs of the Olympic/Paralympic Games.

This section is enabling. It would further allow exemptions from provisions of the act if it was found that there are specific requirements for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. It's intended that this licence would only be available to VANOC, to Olympic organizations and to Olympic sponsors. It's a fairly narrow group.

There have been some preliminary consultations with local government, but we would propose, with the passage of this legislation, to consult with local governments, to consult with the hospitality industry and to consult with the public in terms of the draft regulations that would be put out. It would be time limited — very specifically, a limited time before and after the Olympics.

M. Farnworth: It wasn't quite the answer that I was expecting. I guess the Attorney General would know, being a former judge, that it might trigger some additional questions — chief among them being that we've known for quite some time now that the Olympics would be coming in 2010. I'm wondering why we are,

in essence, putting the cart before the horse and why we have not been out and done consultation, knowing there would be a need for this type of licence. Why has that consultation not taken place before now?

Why are we coming with a piece of legislation that is in effect saying: "Give us the power to do something, and then we'll go out and ask people"? Why haven't we recognized the fact that we know this is coming, and we know that we want to deal with this type of issue? Perhaps we should go do some consultation. Why is it happening this way? Why has the consultation not already been done?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The decision whether or not to consider a special licence has been the result of consultation with communities that have previously hosted the Olympics — for example, Sydney and Salt Lake City. Our ministry staff did consult with them.

There is a fundamental decision on the basis of their advice to have the capability to do something like this — issue a special licence. All of the detail, in terms of the regulation that may directly affect communities and the hospitality industry, will be the subject of full consultation with all of those parties before any decision to implement any aspect of it is implemented.

M. Farnworth: I understand going to talk to other cities that have hosted the Olympics and dealt with the issue of special licences. I still find it strange that you would bring legislation and say, "We're going to go out and consult; we really will," when, in fact….

It would strike me that you would go out — you have been to Sydney; again, this is not like this happened last week or even last year — to Sydney, and they would go: "You know what? You may want to look at having special licences."

"Well, here's what we did, here's what we did, and here's what we did. Here's what it means."

Okay, so we need legislation on this. Again, why was there no consultation done with local governments before coming here to ask for the House's blessing, in essence, to put in place enabling legislation that basically gives the government carte blanche to do what it wants?

I understand the minister saying: "Trust us. We'll go out and talk to local government, but we want the House to give us the authority to do this." Why didn't you go talk to local government before we came and asked? So you'd be able to say: "Exactly. Here's the type of issues that we know local government is concerned about."

Hon. J. van Dongen: In answer to the member's question, I can advise him that there was discussion with a number of local governments and with VANOC about the possibility of considering special licences around the Olympics. I'm advised that the comments of local government indicated that they would be prepared to work with the province to look at the details of that. I'm also advised that there was no outright objection to the idea of the province looking at the possibility of a special licence to reflect Olympic activities.

M. Farnworth: Could the minister advise which communities were consulted or had the initial discussion? I think initial discussion is a lot different than consultation. Asking, "What you think of this? We want to do a temporary licence. Would you be open to that?" is a lot different than: "We're going to do temporary licences. Here's what we want to know, and we want your official input." That's consultation. The other is sort of: "What do you think?"

Hon. J. van Dongen: To the best of my information, the communities and the local governments included Vancouver, Richmond, Whistler and possibly West Vancouver.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister tell me whether there's been any consultation — I don't mean a "what do you think?" question, but actual consultation — with the industry itself and organizations representing the industry, and if so, which organizations and which branches of the industry?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can confirm for the member that we did inform members of the hospitality industry that this enabling legislation would be tabled. We're committed to working with them in terms of consulting with them on all of the details around the regulations.

M. Farnworth: I'm glad they've been informed. Informing is not consultation. I understand, and I take the minister at his word that there will be consultation. I can't emphasize strongly enough….

Given where we are in terms of Olympic planning, I really do think — and we're supportive of what you want to do — that we should have done the consultation work prior to this so that what we'd have in front of us is a bill that's much clearer, not only to the House but also to the industry itself. It may be fine for big players, but small businesses that wonder if they're going to be impacted really shouldn't have to wait for the legislation to be introduced.

It's enabling legislation, so that means uncertainty. It means that we're going to have a consultation process after. I really do think that that should have taken place, and we would have had a much better product here before us. I want to make sure that's on the record.

Having said that, what type of consultation process, then, is the ministry envisaging? Will it involve public hearings? Will it involve public input? Will it involve

communities outside of the primary Olympic ones — you know, Richmond, Vancouver, Whistler? Who in the industry is going to be public…? What is the nature of the opportunity for inputs into the consultation process?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In response to the member's first comments about impacts on existing licensees and others in the region where the Olympics will take place, I can't help but think that the impacts will all be very positive. We certainly will work with local governments and everyone in the region to deal with the consultative process. I just want to confirm for the member that we don't necessarily see the kind of negative impact that he suggests might be possible.

In terms of the consultation process, if this legislation is passed by this House, we would propose to consult, in the first instance, with local governments and with members of the hospitality industry who would have a stake in these regulations. Then we would do a draft of the regulations, and then those drafts would be posted for comment by all parties — local governments, the UBCM, any interested players in the hospitality sector and members of the public. That's how we intend to proceed in terms of acting on this legislative change.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that explanation, because I don't believe…. That's what we want to make sure of — that there are no negative impacts.

I agree that hopefully, most if not all will receive a positive impact because this will bring a lot of people into the region. But we also need to remember that the best of intentions sometimes lead to unintended consequences, and it's best to get them resolved early so that things go as smoothly as possible.

I know one thing. What is it? The Olympia Pizza restaurant down on Denman may have a completely different view than the minister does about changes, particularly as they relate to the Olympics.

What we want to ensure is that in the hospitality industry, the people who have been here for a long time, who have invested here over the long term, are not inconvenienced or don't suffer because of temporary changes. What we want to do is ensure that people are consulted well ahead of time. They know what the rules are going to be, and we're able to mitigate or deal with any adverse impacts that people may identify. I take the minister at what he said, and I look forward to seeing those discussions and the results of those discussions.

The final question I would have on this particular portion — then I'll turn it over to my colleague from Surrey-Newton — would be: what's the time line that the minister is anticipating for getting out the discussion process and the input process and coming back with a final product?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I appreciate the member's comments on potential impacts. I should add, in response to that comment, that the enabling amendment will give flexibility for the government to even provide exemptions or temporary amendments for existing licensees. It's with a view to providing access for consumers and with a view to ensuring fairness, equity and reasonableness with existing licensees who — as he has stated — are fully invested and are here in the normal course of business.

In terms of the expected time frame on the consultative process and the drafting process, we would expect to do initial consultations and drafting this spring, with a draft to be completed late spring or early summer. That would then be available for public comment, with a view to finalizing the regulations sometime in the fall.

H. Bains: The Attorney General said that the scope or the area to issue these licences would be quite narrow and, the minister mentioned, be issued to VANOC or to the VANOC sponsors. So my question is: will the licence be issued directly to VANOC, who would be allowed to then sublet those licences to the sponsors?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The applications for these special licences could be made by VANOC, they could be made by national Olympic committees, or they could be made by sponsors of the Olympics. Or they could be made by contractors, caterers that are serving these types of parties. I'm talking about those organizations.

They could be for quite a limited period of time, like a one-time event or two weeks or three months or whatever is considered appropriate within the ultimate resolution of the time frame. But they could be of varying lengths of time.

H. Bains: If I get it right, the sponsors or those other entities who may apply for these time-limited licences must have a contract with VANOC, or a specialized arrangement made with VANOC. Any existing establishment who may have their establishment in Squamish or Whistler corridor — a restaurant or other establishment — and who may want to take advantage of this…. Can they apply also?

Hon. J. van Dongen: One of the overriding governing considerations for the consideration of applications would be some kind of direct linkage to the Olympics. I'm going to read the member a list that has been provided in terms of the intent.

The following would be considered as eligible to apply for an Olympic/Paralympic licence. It would include VANOC or an individual partnership or corporation under contract with VANOC to supply food and beverage services or facilities for the Olympic/Paralympic Games.

Then an individual partnership or corporation which is an official sponsor of the games under contract with VANOC; or federal, provincial and territorial

governments of Canada and Crown corporations or agencies under those governments; or national and federal governments and subordinate governments which have a relationship to a national or federal government similar to that of a province or to the government of Canada; and local governments that have a direct connection to the Olympic and Paralympic Games — the example given here is London, which is hosting the 2012 games; or national Olympic committees and national Paralympic committees of a country which is an official participant in the Olympic/Paralympic Games.

It's fairly tightly confined to the people who are putting on the Olympics, VANOC, national sponsors, national Olympic teams, and caterers or contractors that are providing services to them. This is intended as a special Olympic/Paralympic licence and wouldn't be available for much broader purposes than that.

H. Bains: What I take from that list is that those individual small businesses — small business establishments who have been waiting for this opportunity to take advantage of the Olympics during that period and who may have their establishments located anywhere between Richmond and Whistler — are ineligible. They are not able to apply and take advantage, except that they have to have an official contract or a special arrangement with VANOC. Is that correct?

Hon. J. van Dongen: It would be our expectation, in considering a special licence, that existing licensees would be very concerned if we made these special Olympic/Paralympic licences widely available to people who might choose to only operate in the provision of these beverages on a temporary basis. So the intent of this amendment is to enable specific regulations directly related to the Olympics but in fairness to existing licensees — who, as the member's colleague reflected, are there invested in their businesses on an ongoing, long-term basis in our province.

H. Bains: One of the themes that the government, VANOC and IOC have been promoting to host the Olympics is that these Olympics are Canadian Olympics, that they are B.C. Olympics and that everyone would benefit. Now what I'm hearing….

The intent behind this legislation is that the people who have been anticipating…. Those who have businesses already established in this corridor between Richmond and Whistler will be left out. They may not have licences now, but they anticipate that they may want to take advantage of this for that restricted period of time. So the small businesses are left out, if I read that list correctly. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. J. van Dongen: This proposed special Olympic/Paralympic licence is really intended for purposes specifically around the needs of countries and Olympic teams around the Olympics. But the fact is that any small business that wants to be able to take advantage, in a general way, of potential business around the Olympics is still free to apply to the branch for an existing type of licence, whether it's a food primary licence or a liquor primary licence. Those options still exist for people who want to participate in a general way in the increased activity around the Olympics.

H. Bains: I guess what the minister has said is that this act would allow the outside entities to come in and compete directly with the existing establishments, but the existing establishments — which may not have a licence but would like to have a licence just for this short period to take advantage but have no contract with VANOC — are not able to apply. All other entities that the minister has mentioned and read out are able to do it, but locals are not allowed to take advantage.

Hon. J. van Dongen: No, that is absolutely not what I'm saying. Locals can apply today, tomorrow, a year from now for existing licences under the act. Under the existing act they can apply for a food primary licence or a liquor primary licence and establish themselves at any point in time if they see fit and want to participate in what they may believe to be additional business due to the Olympics.

I should also say that our intent under this amendment in creating this special licence is also to encourage Olympic activity and people involved with the Olympics to patronize existing licensees. It is certainly not intended to be a licence that will provide the exclusive provision of services to people involved in the Olympics to the detriment of existing licensees.

There is lots of opportunity under the existing act, irrespective of this amendment, for people to apply for a licence through the branch and participate in the additional benefits of the Olympics.

H. Bains: I get the message that those who have official contact or the contract with VANOC or the suppliers or the sponsors, and they are…. Then all the others that the minister has read out can apply. The existing establishments which may want to take advantage have to go through the regular route of getting the liquor licence. They cannot take advantage. They are in this corridor where the Olympics are being held, but they are not entitled to apply under this special licence.

Hon. J. van Dongen: In answering the member's question, I want to confirm that one of the reasons the Olympic/Paralympic licence is even being considered is to ensure that we as a province can accommodate the Olympic and Paralympic Games needs where they will not fit and cannot be serviced in the existing licensing structure. So this is intended to accommodate needs that cannot be accommodated in the existing structure.

The existing licensing structure will still provide the predominant services around the Olympics. As I said to the member, anyone can apply at any time to be part of the existing licensing regime, and the same kind

of provisions that would apply to them would apply to longstanding licensees during the time that the Olympics is happening. There will be every effort made to ensure that the interests and potential benefit of the Olympics, in terms of business, be available to all of the existing licensees at the time.

This amendment is intended to deal with the special requirements for the Olympics, Olympic sponsors, Olympic organizers and national teams that cannot be met under the existing regime.

H. Bains: I will move on to the next area. Perhaps the Solicitor General can define the geographic area and the effective starting and end dates for these licences.

Hon. J. van Dongen: In answering the member, I want to emphasize that the information that I'm providing him is our current thinking on what would be proposed in the regulation when it comes out in draft form.

Our current thinking is that the outside parameters of the time limit would be October 15, 2009, to March 31, 2010. That would form the outer limits in the regulation, based on our current thinking. Individual licences could be issued for varying time limits within those outside constraints. So a licence would not necessarily extend through that complete period. It could be as short as a day or a week or a month.

In terms of, again, the proposal for the draft regulation, the municipalities that we're contemplating are Whistler, Vancouver, Richmond, YVR, West Vancouver, UBC and Squamish-Lillooet regional district.

H. Bains: Would there be any special circumstances under which these dates…? Once those dates are established under the regulations and the geographical area is determined, will these licences be able to extend beyond those established dates?

Hon. J. van Dongen: No, there would be no circumstances under which licences would be issued outside the dates that would be established in the regulation and, as I think the member asked, beyond the final date established in the regulation. In fact, the whole amendment, not just the regulations but the amendment that we're looking at today, will be repealed and terminated by an OIC decision immediately after the final date in the regulation.

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

PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL
(GIFT CARD CERTAINTY) STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Bill 17, Public Safety and Solicitor General (Gift Card Certainty) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call Bill 14, intituled Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm pleased to rise and speak to Bill 14, Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008. In January of 2006 Premier Gordon Campbell announced the province's $3 billion Gateway program, which will open up the province's transportation network and improve the movement of people, goods and transit throughout the Lower Mainland.

The Gateway program reflects the pressing need for a balance of transit, road and bridge improvements necessary to keep people and goods moving, our economy strong and our region livable. When completed, the Gateway program improvements will help create a comprehensive and effective transportation network that will improve the movement of people and goods and provide transportation choices and better connections to population growth areas in the Lower Mainland.

Indeed, much work has been done on the new South Fraser perimeter road, which will provide an important connection from the very busy Deltaport up to the Trans-Canada Highway and the Golden Ears bridge and, of course, ease up the terrible traffic pressures on Highway 17 and local roads in Delta, like River Road.

The new Pitt River bridge, on the north side of the Fraser River, is already actively under construction, with a scheduled opening of the summer of 2009.

Another important component — indeed, the centrepiece of the Gateway program — is the Port Mann/Highway 1 project itself. This project includes widening Highway 1, building a new bridge at the Port Mann crossing, upgrading interchanges, and improving access and safety from McGill Street in Vancouver

Highway improvements will include adding one lane to Highway 1 in each direction on the west side of the Port Mann Bridge, the Vancouver side; and two new lanes in each direction east of the Port Mann Bridge, on the Surrey side. Of those lanes, one on each side will be a high-occupancy vehicle lane.

The Port Mann/Highway 1 project improvements, when completed, will allow reliable transit service to cross the bridge for the first time in 20 years, as well as expand networks for high-occupancy vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.

As indicated in the recently released provincial transit plan, the province and TransLink are partnering to implement a $180 million RapidBus operation along the Highway 1 corridor to connect key service areas and further integrate communities south of the Fraser River and in the Fraser Valley through a very effective transportation transit option.

The Highway 1 RapidBus service, combined with additional transit improvements, will address congestion, support economic activity and increase density in designated growth areas. These improvements to the region's transportation network will increase transit and transportation choice and provide better intermunicipal connections.

The Port Mann/Highway 1 project will be tolled, not only to pay for the project, but also to reduce congestion and moderate traffic growth over time, extending the life of the improvements.

Now, to make all this happen, amendments are needed to the Transportation Investment Act, and these are largely contained in Bill 14. The amendments include the establishment of the Transportation Investment Corporation. The Transportation Investment Corporation will be a Crown corporation which will deliver the Port Mann/Highway 1 project.

The corporation will be a distinct, commercial, self-sustaining entity that will enter into a concession agreement with a private sector partner for designing, constructing, financing and operating the project, including the collection of tolls on the Port Mann Bridge. The creation of a separate entity to deliver the project will result in additional due diligence and transparency, as the corporation will be a commercial, self-sustaining entity.

Now, there have been some critics who suggest that by the creation of the Crown corporation we're abandoning our deregulation efforts and creating an unnecessary Crown corporation. I want to, with the greatest respect, provide them with an important history lesson.

The use of entities separate from transportation departments is used all over the world and has, historically, been used in British Columbia to provide for transparency and accountability for the construction and operation of facilities built through the collection of tolls.

In British Columbia the B.C. Toll Highways and Bridges Authority was created by statute in 1953 by W.A.C. Bennett for the express purpose of constructing and operating toll highways and toll bridges. Projects that were undertaken by the authority included the Oak Street Bridge, the Nelson Bridge, the Kelowna bridge, the Agassiz Bridge, the Massey Tunnel and the Second Narrows Bridge. In the United States you have numerous similar authorities that exist for similar purposes.

As was the case for those other entities, the Transportation Investment Corporation will offer a transparent, arm's-length mechanism for highway construction and management. The corporation will be an agent of the Crown and as such will be exempt from taxation to the same extent that government itself is. The corporation will have a board of up to seven persons appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and the initial board members will be deputy ministers from the province of British Columbia.

Amendments in the bill also provide for tolls to vary on the basis of vehicle, vehicle size, class of vehicle, class of user, time of day and payment method. That is very much consistent with much of the feedback we received, in large part from our very extensive consultative process that we've gone through as part of the Gateway transportation program.

I would urge the members of this House to support this bill and in doing so support long overdue and critical improvements that the Gateway project will bring. As mentioned, it will help create a needed and effective transportation network that will improve the movement of people and goods and provide real transportation and transit choices for the benefit of all British Columbians.

I would welcome comments from the members of the opposition and look forward to hearing input and the position of members of opposition on this very important project, but noting the hour, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully move adjournment of debate.

Mr. Speaker: Before we move adjournment of the debate, just a reminder to the minister not to use the names of people in the House.

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
(continued)

D. Cubberley: It's a pleasure to be here this afternoon with such a sense of comedy in the room. I hope that we can entertain the members throughout the afternoon and hold everyone riveted on our debate about public education in British Columbia. We're not quite ready to terminate that debate.

I wanted to begin this afternoon in an unusual manner. I'd like to congratulate the minister. I was reading Today's News package this morning. I'm not always impressed by what I read in Today's News — it's not often good news — but I came upon the story about the teacher registry and the employment registry. Just for those who are watching, I think this is something that comes out of legislation which the government brought in last year.

We had considerable to-and-fro in debate about the implications of establishing an employment registry and a discipline registry through the College of Teachers of British Columbia. I think that it was a good debate, but there were questions raised at the time about the resourcing for this and the kinds of costs that might be imposed by it. I just note from the story in the newspaper today that the Education Ministry has acceded to a request from the college and sent it a contribution of $400,000 to pay for the public discipline registry and the employment registry.

That, I think, is a very wise move for the ministry and for government to have made, and it's one that we're supportive of. I think it will enable those registries to get created and to come into service more quickly. I simply want to thank the minister for that, and I would give her an opportunity to comment, if she would like one, prior to my passing on to anything else.

Hon. S. Bond: Before I comment on that, I do want to recognize the staff that are here with me today and just make reference to the fact that together they've worked very hard to move our agenda forward. I'm always proud of the work they have done. Today I want to make sure we have on the record that we have my deputy minister, James Gorman, here; Doug Stewart, who is our assistant deputy minister of the resource management division; and Rick Davis, who is the superintendent of achievement.

I do, first of all, appreciate the comments of the member opposite. I think we did have a vigorous debate about this not only in the Legislature but in the province. In fact, it's still being looked at across the country. British Columbia has taken the lead in terms of being clear that unacceptable behaviour is not tolerated. We need to make sure that our children are protected. I think teachers themselves feel that way, so it is a step in the right direction. There's still much work to be done, but I do appreciate the member's comments. That initiative will be moving forward.

D. Cubberley: I'd like to move on to something I was intending to ask, which was a topic that came up in question period today — the matter of Bountiful.

This is the first time that I have asked a question about it, and I wanted to raise with the minister the matter of public funding that is supplied for the school system in Bountiful, simply to ask the minister whether we are certain that children are receiving the type of education that moves them towards the kinds of mandated outcomes we have for public education and for independent private schools receiving grants from the government of British Columbia.

This, obviously, is an issue of considerable importance, and more so as these kinds of sects continue to prove controversial around North America. I just want to open that up and allow the minister an opportunity to tell me what kinds of things we do in order to ensure that children there are receiving appropriate teaching.

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, it is an issue of concern for everyone, I think, in the Legislature. Each year the member for Nelson-Creston comes to have that dialogue with me, and I appreciate it.

We have been very vigilant with regard to Bountiful. Bountiful does receive public funding, and it is based on the criteria set out in the Independent School Act. The only way that you would be able, with the current law, to remove that funding is if the institution, whichever it might be, in the independent school system did not comply with the expectations of the Independent School Act.

I wanted to just reiterate for the member opposite that in fact Bountiful Elementary has been inspected by our ministry seven times in the last seven years, including two unannounced visits — one in February and one in November of last year. We do unannounced visits and then evaluate whether or not the authority is meeting the requirements in group 1 certification. I can tell the member opposite that Mormon Hills Elementary Secondary has been inspected seven times in the last five years — a very aggressive and rigorous monitoring.

There have been some actions taken as a result of that, and some of the programs offered in those particular schools are not receiving funding. We have looked at the circumstances very seriously and will continue to do that.

D. Cubberley: Just following up on that…. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the commitment to be

vigilant around this, because it's obviously an issue of importance to British Columbians and to the children of Bountiful.

The question of removing funding from some of the programming. I guess the question that that raises in my mind is whether that programming in particular is not supportive of the outcomes or contents mandated by the regulation normally. I would just invite the minister to elaborate a little bit, if she will, on that.

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, it is directly related to that. In fact, as we did the evaluations…. As I said, we've been very aggressive. That would be a far more rigorous inspection schedule than one would have expected under the Independent School Act. I'm certain that other schools would not be visited as frequently.

In particular, as we looked at the unannounced external and program evaluations, particularly in November 2007, certification at Bountiful was denied in grades 11 and 12, for example. So there is no funding being provided for those particular programs, because course time requirements were not being met and course planning and delivery could not be sufficiently verified. It was absolutely based on the fact that, up against the expectations in the Independent School Act, there was lack of compliance. They weren't doing what was expected.

Secondly, when you look at Mormon Hills, certification for grades 8 through 10 was actually denied as well, for similar reasons. There were some issues with course delivery, some planning, etc., but very much related to lack of compliance with the educational standards order. As soon as we found that there was a lack of compliance, we were able, in essence, to decertify those programs and then not provide funding in those areas.

D. Cubberley: I don't want to put words in the minister's mouth, but we are on the horns of a dilemma here, I think, in this regard because, of course, our objective is to see the children of Bountiful have the same opportunity that other children have to achieve independence and maturity in the sense in which we understand a commitment to that through the public education system and through our funding to other private and independent schools.

I'm wondering if the minister can tell me what the graduation rate is out of these schools relative to other private and independent schools. I suspect, given what I have heard, that it is in fact lower. I'll let her give that to me.

What's in my mind is what we do about it if in fact it's substantially lower, because in the broadest sense our commitment, through supplying funding to other independent and private educational institutions, is to achieve the objective of high school graduation. I would just ask her to comment on that.

Hon. S. Bond: We have spent, over the last number of months, as I'm sure the member opposite can imagine, a lot of time working through this issue and making sure, first of all, that we have some degree of confidence that there's compliance with the Independent School Act. We do not have data on graduation rates for either school because neither of the schools is certified by us beyond grade 10.

We do not have the data today, but we would have the ability, if those students, for example, were to transfer to another independent school or a local public school or were to register as home-schoolers in a home-schooling program, to track those results.

But we don't certify the programs. They don't have programs under the ministry — the law, actually — that qualify. In fact we don't fund, and we don't track, so we have no graduation data for either of those two schools.

The Chair: Member, I just wanted to remind members to not be using their electronic equipment during estimates debates.

D. Cubberley: Madam Chair, if I could just ask on a point of order. I had an opposite indication that I could not read notes from it, but I could use my electronic equipment for prompts throughout estimates and that I'm simply not allowed to make a speech by scrolling it down and reading it from my computer.

The Chair: Thank you. The Clerk has confirmed my comment that during debate electronic devices are not to be used.

I apologize. I was not in the chair yesterday, so I'm not privy to what went on yesterday, but the Clerk with me today confirms my understanding.

D. Cubberley: Perhaps I might ask for one further clarification. When I am sitting, am I allowed to look at my electronic device? When I'm sitting; when I'm not speaking?

The Chair: No, I think…. My understanding, too, is that if you're engaged in debate — which you are, back and forth — it doesn't matter whether you're sitting or not, you're not supposed to be using electronic devices.

D. Cubberley: I would just ask for the record that — not at this moment; after this deliberation— there be a further consideration, because that was clearly not the direction that was given yesterday with other representatives of the Clerk's office present and others in the Speaker's position.

Hon. S. Bond: Do you want to take a minute and have that sorted out, or are you all right?

The Chair: I'm not trying to be difficult. It's definitely my understanding, and the Clerk is supporting what I said.

D. Cubberley: Back to Bountiful. I guess the concern in my mind is if…. We've taken a step which is an incremental step to move away from funding a part of the program that isn't meeting the expectations. I don't want the minister to take this in the wrong way, but in a sense it's self-defeating, because our objective, really, is to make sure that these kids have an opportunity to graduate.

I wonder what the clear message should be. Should we be trying to create an opportunity for them to complete graduation in some other fashion, or should we be considering a method of sending the message to the school, in this case, that they're not going to receive funding unless they offer children the opportunity to complete the requirements?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the member does point out a valid dilemma that we face. Obviously, our number one priority is ensuring that children are receiving a top-notch education in British Columbia and that when public resources are being invested, either publicly or independently, we are sure that there are certain standards being met.

I should be clear that before we decertify or withdraw funding, for example, we make it clear that if the funding is to continue — and there is a big debate, as the member can imagine, just generally speaking, about funding — there are criteria that have to be met. The gaps would be pointed out to the institution.

Let's just set Bountiful aside for a moment. No matter what the independent school would be, if the criteria were not being met, there would be a clear communication of that information, to say: "This is not being done; that's not being done; this is not being done. In order to actually qualify, you need to meet those standards." We certainly do point that out, because we're required to by law and by the process.

It is also important to note that even though we might not certify a program, a parent is required to enrol their child, up to the age of 16, in a program. They would either have to register as a home-schooler….

It's fair to say that we are incredibly cognizant of the challenges here. We want to be sure that children are being well served, and the test we use is by taking the practice and matching it up against the expectation. If there's a gap, it needs to be addressed. If not, funding is removed, and we have moved to do that in two cases.

I should also point out that we have had very thoughtful presentations by the B.C. Teachers Federation. A great deal of work has been done by them on this issue. We've met with them recently to walk through some of the things that we're doing, and we will continue to dialogue with them about ideas that they may have as well.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for that. I understand the complexity of it, and I appreciate the interest that's being taken in the matter and the fact that there is a watching brief on this issue, because it's significant.

I wanted to move into another area for discussion. This is a combination of things. Looking at the challenges in meeting the outcomes that we hope for and improving the outcomes from public education, there are, obviously, a number of groups that are at much greater risk than other groups for failing to achieve in the way that we would hope they would. We spent some considerable time yesterday talking about early childhood development and early learning and how various approaches might be used in the future to improve that readiness to learn of children presenting for kindergarten.

I think we agree. We can't really deny that we have a significant challenge, which is not substantially different from other provinces in Canada but has some peculiarities that are unique to British Columbia. The number in the provincial health officer's recent report An Ounce of Prevention, which they suggest is drawn from Hertzman, is 30 percent who are developmentally not ready for kindergarten when they arrive. Three in ten is a significant number.

It's a very interesting report. I'm sure the minister has had some chance to look at it or has had a briefing on it. It's well worth reading the report. There's good news for government in some parts of it, so it's not one of those reports which is hammering on government for what it's not doing. There are some very interesting directions in it.

One of the directions which is really strong, and it jibes with what I think personally about the world, is that education is clearly identified in the report as a determinant of health. In fact, it's identified as pretty much the key determinant of health and a central leverage point for young individuals making their way in the world.

Fail to get that high school education, fail to succeed in that manner, and your risk of living in poverty, of having a broken family, of having a higher incidence of disease, of incarceration, of early death all rise dramatically. In that sense, in reading this and thinking in that manner, you couldn't see a more important program than public education for making a difference in people's lives.

One of the interesting things that is embedded in the report is a discussion of risk factors. Obviously, readiness to learn is a principal risk factor, and I want to go into that a little bit further later. One of the interesting ones that came out in the report, which I thought about a little bit but which the report mentioned five or six times, is that, with completion rates hovering around 79 percent, female students continue, on aver-

age, to outperform male students. This is a thread that runs through the whole report.

Most students would be seen to be progressing well, but females consistently do better than males in most aspects. On school connectedness, female students have a better outlook on school than male students. Turn it on its head. Males are more likely to suffer from bullying behaviour than females.

Anyway, the interesting thing here to consider is that gender is a risk factor in this scenario. I simply want to open that up a little bit. I want to see what she does with this. In fact, gender would appear to be a risk factor in the education system at the present time. I'm interested in what the thoughts are about why this is occurring. It's clearly a pattern, and we need to look at those patterns in order to make changes that allow us to address these things. So I'll open it up that way.

Hon. S. Bond: Very interesting, and I appreciate the work the member opposite has done. It is a challenge as we look across the system. As I've travelled to districts across the province, it's been really interesting to see how some districts are addressing this challenge. There are districts, for example — and it's certainly not widespread, but it is being looked at in some parts of the province — where they are actually creating gender-based classrooms. I'm sure there would be as many people on one side of that argument as another, but in some settings that is working for those particular students.

Another thing that's been really compelling is looking at, for example…. We've got an enormous focus on literacy and, of course, on reading. One of the things that I've learned as I travel is to look at what boys read compared to what girls read. So often we assume that they'd be interested in the same thing. In fact, we're seeing classrooms now that are focusing on non-fiction reading for boys.

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, non-fiction for boys, because they are much more interested in something that is geared in that direction. I've also experienced opportunities where computers are playing a major role in the interest level of boys, in particular — not that girls aren't interested.

I think there are some really innovative approaches being explored across the province — certainly not at the ministry's direction. We don't pretend to be experts. I think it is our responsibility to look and respond to reports as they're presented. I can assure the member opposite that across the province in various settings, there are a lot of innovative teaching practices being used to try to narrow that gender gap.

D. Cubberley: As the minister says, there are folks on both sides of any proposal about gendering teaching. But there are obviously some underlying issues of fit with the way the existing classroom is set up and the way in which curriculum is developed and designed.

This is at a superficial level, but clearly some elements of it seem to be more attuned to the way in which girls are — whatever that is. I'm not commenting on it. I'm simply observing that it appears to….

There would seem to be some indications that for learning style, it appears to work relatively better for girls and somewhat worse for boys. There are some obvious things. A couple of schools in B.C., as you've mentioned — at least a couple — have gone down the path of separating the streams.

The one I have a bit of information on is Glenrosa Middle School, where a part of the school is having this opportunity. Another one, I believe, is in Trail. It may be another community, but one community has tried the whole school in separate classrooms based on gender. The results have proven quite interesting from the point of view of the boys. The girls are not doing any worse or are doing equally well, but the boys are doing better, as I recall from what I had read.

A couple of things about it. I think that with the all-male classroom, there's more of an ability for boys to achieve the movement levels that they appear to need and that the classroom sometimes denies them, the way that it's currently structured.

There's also in the later years — and this is a curious thing — a relief from the necessity, as kids enter into puberty, to be concerned about what the other sex thinks of them, which from the point of view of public performances in a classroom…. As they go up through the years, increasingly, there's more and more public performance, public presentation in a classroom. It's perhaps not surprising that that's the case — that there's an element which is extrinsic to learning, which is entering into how well people do.

I know I'm venturing fairly far down the path, but what I'm hoping to do is elicit an interest on the part of the minister and the ministry in looking further into it, because it is such a struggle for an array of boys in the school system to make their way. We really do need to improve the outcomes because, as we agree, it's a determinant of health, and for their entire life it matters for their progress. So I'm looking to gauge whether there's an openness to investigating this further.

I always think that while there's lots of opportunity for innovation at the local level, you really need central agency engagement involved in the sorting-out process of what kinds of things work and what sorts of things we should be endorsing and recommending to other schools.

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, we do engage and work with districts to be supportive. But I think one of the most significant things is that there is a great deal of research going on about this very topic. I think what we need to do is be cognizant of what the work is showing us and then be prepared to be responsive to that.

I should point out that that is, obviously, taking place at the post-secondary level and, I think, in terms of the research. Some of the things they're looking at are learning styles, and that is an issue that isn't gender-based necessarily. There are a variety of things. We also know that work is being done on the fact that…. For example, is there any impact based on the fact that the majority of teachers are female? So there's a lot of work being done.

But I think that inherently, we're all concerned about the same thing: how do we find individual student success? The best place for that innovation and creativity and for actually assessing how we should move forward is in classrooms, with the professionals that teachers are. We should be there to be supportive and to look at how we encourage and perhaps even incent some of those different models to ensure that we have those opportunities for success.

I think there is a lot of innovation going on, and not simply based on gender. I think gender is one of the issues — and rightly pointed out by the member opposite. But certainly, there are other challenging groups, in essence, when you look at how we find success.

I've been very impressed by the work being done, and obviously, we will continue to be supportive. We are certainly not directing teachers or classrooms in how they should model their teaching or learning styles.

I'd like to move towards talking about some of those other groups who are clearly more at risk than individuals are based on their gender, although there's probably a compounding factor if gender is in fact a risk factor.

Just on the foundation skills. I'm just working off the numbers in the provincial health officer's report here — overall for the province, for participating grade 4 students who meet or exceed expectations: 77 percent for reading comprehension, 90 percent for writing and 86 percent for numeracy, respectively.

In looking at this, I'm interested in knowing what the possible explanation is for the fact that comprehension is so much lower than the other scores — why it's so low relative to math and writing. I'll just open it up that way.

Hon. S. Bond: When we look at foundation skills assessment, one of the things we have to remember is that these are curriculum-based standardized tests. So in essence, in the writing part you'd be marking it basically against itself. It's not comparative. You know, we'll look at our numbers at 77 percent — or whatever it happens to be for comprehension. You can't compare that directly to a writing score. It's measuring a student's success against the curriculum.

However, what foundation skills assessment allow us to do is actually to say to ourselves: "Well, when I look at writing and when I look at numeracy, obviously we're in excess of 85 percent in both those areas. We obviously have to spend some time thinking about why the reading comprehension scores are lower, generally, than in the other two areas."

It doesn't mean that students aren't capable. But I think what it does, and this is the critical piece of information that foundation skills assessment allows us, is not only do we have a number here generally; we have very specific numbers for children. What this would allow us to say is that if I'm in a classroom or in a school, the part I need to be concentrating on is the comprehension piece.

I think this is the information that drives the planning and the thinking about how to see not only the system numbers improve, but individually. They are marked individually, because in terms of those categories, they're marked against the curriculum. So you can't really look at them one against the other.

Having said that, we can see that we need to be spending more time on the comprehension scores. I should point out to the member opposite that as I look at them over the last number of years, typically…. I say that, and it's hard to sort of look at a summary and then suggest it happens all of the time. But the comprehension scores since about 2002 have typically been lower than we would have seen in writing and numeracy.

D. Cubberley: Yes, it's one of those things that obviously jumps out at you, and it does lead you to ask the question why that is happening. I think in discussions about foundation skills assessment…. It's a highly charged discussion, and I don't want to get into the highly charged part of it. Let's just accept that, for the purposes of our discussion, it exists, and it offers up some information.

One of the directions I inched into last year in discussion with the minister was around the kinds of things it would enable the minister and the ministry to decide to do by way of beginning to generate some intervention directions that would allow for improvement in the score. While certainly that information allows an individual school to do something, there's obviously an interest, if there's a way to address it, in discovering that intervention, templating it and making sure it's available in all schools, rather than waiting for a process of osmosis or synergy or something to make that happen over time — find a way to accelerate it.

It's certainly what we would do in it other spheres — try to develop an intervention of some kind that could allow us to affect the situation.

In that regard, I had spent some time in a two-minute statement a week or so back lauding the efforts of my neighbourhood elementary school, Ecole Marigold, to enhance the reading capacity of students. That was a program to read a million pages of text collectively by the end of the school year, which they are well on their way to doing. They will exceed that goal. That was simply a device to get people excited about collective reading, to support the idea of learning about reading.

Within that, there's an embedded program which they're attempting. Reading Power — I believe the

name of it was — was an intervention tool that's been developed by Adrienne Gear. I believe I'm correct there. She's a Lower Mainland educator. It's dedicated to improving comprehension.

Ecole Marigold went and used the scores in the way the minister hopes they'll be used. They realized that comprehension was a weakness in their schooling techniques, and they tried to build in some additional capacity to try and have an impact on it. One of the things that we should do is see what happens over time with Ecole Marigold — whether they actually come up as a result of using the program.

I guess my question to the minister is: is there an appetite on the part of the ministry for looking at these kinds of interventions so that we discover what's working and what can be used and begin to bolt that into school programs right across the province?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, first of all, I thought the member's two-minute statement terrific, and it was very exciting. When you're challenging kids to read a million pages…. I think people totally underestimate the power of the ability to read and what impact that has on a student's ability to be successful, which is why we really have to not only invest in the early years, but we need to help parents understand that reading to and with children is probably the most important thing they can do to guarantee their success as they move through the school system and life, in fact.

Yes, we do look for ways to incent and encourage. I think the member opposite's point about Ecole Marigold is the fact that, if those children, for example, who are now in grade 4…. We've seen a concentrated plan based on the results that were looked at by teachers. By grade 7, at the latest, we'll be able to have another look, using foundation skills assessment, to say: "Did it make a difference?"

The beauty of things like StrongStart programs now, which are starting from zero to six…. Those children will have an education number attached to them and, as they enter kindergarten, will have other touchpoints along the way to be able to say: "Are we making a difference? Are the programs we're investing in" — we're investing literally millions of dollars in early learning programs — "the right programs? Is it making a difference?" Tracking is essential.

Another way we would do that is by…. We now have superintendents of achievement in place. One of the things that the superintendent would do with a particular board or district is sit down, go through their foundation skills assessment scores, for example, and say: "Comprehension — we need to work on that a little bit. Tell me about what it is you're doing." In many cases we're able to provide innovation grants in terms of literacy, in particular, to districts, to say: "Let's try something new here."

I think we are interested in being supportive and finding ways to support innovation, but I think the critical thing is that there needs to be those touchstone places along the way that identify areas just like this one and then concentrated effort put in place to actually deal with those.

D. Cubberley: That's just a great segue into exactly the direction that I wanted to go, which is towards asking some questions about the kinds of things that we do by way of screening upon intake when children come into the kindergarten level.

I know that we apply in some fashion the early development instrument, and that there's a screen around that. I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of kindergarten children go through that and whether there are plans to make that universal so that it can be a more useful tool in guiding the things that we do subsequently.

Hon. S. Bond: We do use the early development instrument in the school system, and yes, we are looking right now at expanding the use of that. One of the criticisms…. I'm not even sure if it was in An Ounce of Prevention or somewhere. Recently there's been a comment that it needs to be applied every year in every school at kindergarten so that we have that base data. We are exploring that opportunity as we speak, and as soon as I have the update on that I would be happy to share it with the member. I'm just waiting for the status of that.

I think that there are some other important programs that are making a difference, and those are the universal screening programs. It's interesting, because the member and I also have a link in that we've both been involved in health as well as education. The universal screening programs are also making a difference, when you look at things like dental, hearing and vision screening. Those now take place in the early years. Those are also very critical factors in how a student can be successful.

So yes, we're looking at the tool. We're looking at how it's applied. We're also having a very significant discussion about the nature of EDI. We've had discussions with first nations leaders, for example, who have a concern about the cultural applicability of it. I think that's also a very important consideration that we are looking at as we speak. If the test in itself is not culturally appropriate or if there are some issues with that, we need to deal with that. We are having an ongoing discussion with the First Nations Education Steering Committee about the tool itself. For example, is it the right measure for aboriginal children?

It's an important tool. Yes, we're looking at expanding it. We're also doing that in collaboration with the universal screening programs that have been put in place.

D. Cubberley: I agree completely with the minister about the importance of screening. We know that early detection is advantageous from every angle and necessary in the case of some of the problems that show up through screening, because it gets more difficult over time to intervene and correct a problem which is detected later. In some instances — in the case of autism, in particular — I understand that the likelihood of being able to attain positive results may hit an absolute wall if it's not detected early enough. Certainly, the

ability to go further and the speed with which positive change can occur are affected by when detection occurs.

I want to talk a little bit more about…. The minister mentioned universal screening. I want to know if we screen systematically for dyslexia.

Hon. S. Bond: I will work to get more information. We don't have a universal program that would screen for, that I'm aware of, and we'll double-check that. The programs that we have that are universal are dental, hearing and vision. Vision is, you know, making sure you can see properly. It isn't about dyslexia.

As we canvassed briefly yesterday, the issue of assessment, testing and evaluation is an ongoing discussion. One of the things I'm very interested in, as I said yesterday, is looking at how those evaluations that take place in the community before a child hits kindergarten can actually be used more effectively when they're entering the public school system.

I don't have a specific answer to the issue of dyslexia. We'll certainly work to get that for the member.

D. Cubberley: I appreciate that response, and I won't press the minister around that. I do want to spend some time on dyslexia and just open it up a little bit. I think it's potentially a very fruitful focus for efforts to improve literacy outcomes.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that without a conscious focus on dyslexia, the likelihood of catching a significant portion of those kids who will not achieve high literacy and will not graduate…. There is virtually no potential to correct the outcome, to catch them and to lift them.

Dyslexia, I am learning, is a much more widespread condition than I had understood. I have some experience of it in my own family background. Through friends, I know what a challenge that is for people. Up until recently, I didn't understand that much about it, and I certainly didn't understand that perhaps as many as 10 percent of kids have some form of dyslexia.

What strikes me as so important about this is that it is a neurological disorder, and it manifests itself…. Typically, people who have dyslexia have above-average intelligence, but they have a neurological challenge with symbol recognition. They see twisted symbols. So where you and I might begin to engage in the normal pattern of coming to understand and recognize letters, syllables and vowels — the whole process of putting words together — they see jumbles.

It does not mean they don't develop auditory ability with language, but it may mean that spoken language and reading are challenged. Especially, the development of spoken language through the reading medium is a challenge for them. Of course — and I know the minister won't disagree with this — how well children read, how well they're taught to read and how well public education does in identifying those who are struggling to read and intervening in some fashion to catch and lift them…. It's not just an equity issue for individuals. In fact, it is a public health issue, for all those reasons we were talking about.

If they struggle in the early going with reading, the likelihood is that, unless they're caught and they're lifted, from that point on they will struggle throughout — much greater likelihood that they will not complete. Dyslexics find themselves in a real box if there isn't some form of recognition and help available.

I've got more to ask and more to say about that, but I'm going to pause there for a moment to see if the minister or staff would like to respond to any part of that and if there's any information on what percentage of people we think there are who suffer from dyslexia in the student population.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I just want to back up momentarily to EDI. We are looking at making sure that every student is screened with EDI entering kindergarten, and we're hoping to do that next year. That's a significant expansion.

Again, the other piece that I am concerned about and want to continue to work on is: is it culturally relevant and are there challenges for first nations children by the nature of the tool? There's a bit of a debate happening about that, but we are looking at that. I think it's an important piece of work.

I want to capture what the member opposite is talking about by looking a bit more broadly than dyslexia, because we would capture that under a learning disabilities umbrella, basically. I understand the importance for the member of singling that particular piece out. The numbers we have…. The best we can give the member opposite is about 3 to 5 percent of the school system. It's about the best number that I've been advised in terms of dyslexia specifically.

We are doing two things at the moment that would be helpful. We are currently working with researchers to actually develop a guide to provide information to educators about how best to support these students. We're looking, first of all, at dealing with students that are in the system and looking at how we support them, but we need to do that with the best research we have available.

The second piece is that we're contemplating at the moment a provincial resource program that would look at early intervention for learning disabilities. So that would be a very significant step to address the early pieces.

We're very aware of the issue, and those two pieces of work could significantly shape how best practice is utilized more consistently across all of our schools.

D. Cubberley: When we were doing the Standing Committee on Education report on literacy, we heard from a lot of presenters with a lifetime of experience who work in the area. I think it's a true measure of the use of these committees when you hear from people who know so much.

We had a number of presenters who impressed upon us the importance of a focus on dyslexia because of the prominence of it and because of the pattern in modern societies of not picking it up and the consequences of that, which are different from the consequences of a lot of other special needs that might show up where there's a learning challenge.

Part of the reason for it being so important is because it is a neurological disorder. It's not a measure of intelligence. It's literally that some of the wiring is different in a dyslexic's brain. It's entirely possible in virtually 100 percent of the cases to retrofit their brain capacity to manage symbols in the normal manner. But in 100 percent of the cases it will not happen if it is not recognized as dyslexia and is not addressed promptly.

There are a couple of elements to this. One of the reasons it won't happen is because in short order, the dyslexic child will see himself or herself as completely different from other children. They will internalize the fact that they can't learn. They will be set apart from other learners. It happens almost immediately, because the language trajectory is so profound once they start in a lesson-based program.

They can't perform in the universe of symbols that are emerging for other kids. It's not a question of being slow; it's a question of no. It isn't the same thing for them. They see twisted symbols. So for those kids, they're in a box from the day they start.

A whole bunch of consequences flow from that, and if there is not intervention early…. It doesn't mean it can't happen, but there's so much psychological damage done to those kids that the rescue has to go through a personal evolution. It's not a question of simply helping them get to grade level. It's overcoming the negative self-image that they've internalized.

One of the things we heard in the committee — and we heard it from more than one presenter — was that the test for dyslexia is dead simple. We had one fellow tell us: "Give me 15 minutes or ten minutes with a universal test, and I can tell you whether a person has it or not." So the screening for dyslexia is easy to do, according to the experts, but it isn't typically done.

Now, I just want to throw that out and ask the minister…. I'm not trying to trap you or commit public policy here, but this is an area that I think we could very easily engage with, where we could begin to make progress relatively quickly.

Would there be an appetite on the part of the minister to initiate some work to determine what instruments are available for doing this kind of screening to see if they can be bolted into the existing process?

Hon. S. Bond: We have not at this point contemplated mandating a universal screening for dyslexia. I don't think that means it's off the workplan that we continue to have. I think it's a good reminder from the member opposite today about the significant impact that has on a student. As we build the resource kit that we're putting together on learning disabilities, it's certainly something we can go back and at least have a look at. But it's not something we've considered mandating.

What we would like to do is provide this guide and also, potentially, a provincial resource program to support school districts in their assessment processes. So we hadn't contemplated mandating it in a universal way, but certainly the team has done a great deal of work trying to put together best practice in order to share that with school districts.

D. Cubberley: I want to try and spend a little more time gently persuading that we move in this direction and not be timid about it, because I think it can be done quite easily. Anything we can do that will yield knowledge, which will allow us to tailor interventions to get better outcomes as far as reading goes, we should be doing, because we have a shared goal to improve literacy. Whether one looks at it from an individual, social or economic vantage point, we have a huge interest in doing that.

I want to urge that we look at that and see what that would look like. But there's a reason for it. It's not just to have that knowledge and then hope that the existing infrastructure that deals with special needs will be able to bolt in something that will allow dyslexics to come alive in the classroom, because it is more complex than that to actually recover. Early intervention really does offer huge possibilities. Late intervention, from what I have learned, can work as well, but it's far harder to accomplish for an adult.

There's apparently a program out there which has had a fair amount of fieldwork and which produces fantastic results. It's called reconstructive language. It's based on phonics and teaching phonograms in connection to sounds. It shows amazing results with both adults and kids when it's done in a sustained manner. That's even with adults who have been dyslexic for their entire lifetime and decide at 55 or 60 that they want to face the demon. If they pass through this program, they can actually acquire….

The program is so good, and we have such amazing tools available today. I saw a little documentary on this recently, and it was very, very exciting. They do a normal brain scan of a person reading, and then they do a brain scan…. You see this live, with the active areas of the scan coloured.

They show a brain scan of a dyslexic person trying to read, and different areas of the brain are working. Then they show a brain scan of a person who has done six weeks of reconstructive language, and new areas in the brain show up on the brain scan that are analogous to the ones in a person who doesn't have this neurological problem. So it literally activates the delinquent or lazy areas of the brain, and it gets them to do that job.

These are frequently people of higher than average intelligence, so there's a tremendous gain in being able to do this kind of thing. I don't want to suggest for a moment that it's easy to do, but I think it's worth investigating the area, because we can't really get to this group of people. The program I saw — I kind of

stopped at this number; I thought it must be a bit high — said that as much as 10 percent of the population may turn out to be dyslexic.

It sounds as though we need a tool of some kind. It sounds as though this isn't something that we can just give to a special ed teacher and hope they'll be able to cope with it. We need a specialist capacity, and for a period of time these kids need to go through that in order to get to grade-level reading.

I'll give the minister a chance to react to that, but I just want to put in a pitch. Let's look at these things at the centre. I think it would be a very long time before a school district got to this kind of stuff, especially if there wasn't a history of noting that we have dyslexics and starting to track. That would be a very long road to go down to say: "Okay, we'll start to try and decide if we have them. Then we'll start to try and track them, and we'll see how normal reading interventions work with them. Then if they don't work, we'll try something else."

What would be good, I think, is for us to jump in at the deep end and grapple with the problem up front.

Hon. S. Bond: I think members of my staff have found that information very helpful — aware of the program, but certainly not intimately familiar with it. It is very cutting edge, and it is new. I'm not sure how new it is, but it certainly is something we have perhaps not spent a lot of time looking at. So I think that's helpful, and we will certainly look at that.

I think the member should be reassured by the fact that we are trying to look at a variety, a range of tools. I think we can agree on this in a significant way. Early intervention is key.

So we have a couple of challenges that we have to face. First of all, we have to figure out how we can have assessments happen more quickly. How can we determine how many kids are really waiting for them? How do we deal with community assessments in an education system setting? So there are a lot of pieces to this.

But I think we can absolutely put this on our list. And any information that the member would like to share with us, we'd be happy to look at.

I know that across the province, many school districts are looking at implementing new kindergarten screening tools. All of us realize the importance of those first four…. When you're looking at grades K-to-3, boy, you want to get on those issues really early. As the member opposite has pointed out, if we can make a difference in those early years, there's clearly a whole lot more chance that that student will be successful.

If they get into intermediate, it's very difficult. The member opposite described it as a rescue, and in many ways that is true. It becomes much more complex.

So we will add this to our list. Any information that the member would like to share, we'd be happy to look at. We are in the process of developing the kinds of resources that we think would be supportive for school districts as they look at their early years programming.

D. Cubberley: I appreciate that response. If in any way, shape or form I can be of assistance in that, I'd be happy to. I'm not an expert. I'm just an assembler of things, like most politicians. We pull stuff together and try to make something out of it. This impresses me as an area for focus, where there could be a very big yield.

I remember the minister's enthusiasm last time we were going through estimates, I think coming off some session or other in Vancouver. The minister had the opportunity to meet Jacques Demers, the coach. He was coach of a number of teams — I think the Montreal Canadiens for a while. I don't know how he characterized it. I wasn't able to go to the session, which was most unfortunate, but I suspect he was dyslexic. He may or may not have managed to grapple with this.

I read some things that he said. One of the things these kids do very early on, because they can't make the symbols make sense to them and they're so smart, is that they start guessing. They're very good guessers. As much as they can, they try to mask it.

Of course, that strategy doesn't work out in the end, because in a universe that's constructed entirely of symbols, you can't really make your way guessing. It's too complicated a world.

I think it's a very important thing and that if we could find a way to go down that path, we could restore a lot of potential to people. It would be a huge gain for the individuals, but there would be an enormous gain for communities and for society as a whole. I think we would all feel very good about an intervention that would work.

I think it's true with any complex system, whether it's education or health care, that there's a lot going on. There's a lot of complexity within the system, and there's diversity of locale and history and ethnic background and all of the factors that are in flux and find themselves in the classroom showing up in the form of new kids.

Local initiative and local autonomy are things that I think we agree are tremendously important. A great deal of positive change comes about that way. At the local level, people identify a challenge. They begin to formulate a response, and by whatever process, they come upon something that's serviceable and that can be used.

But one of the things that I think we have a collective interest in is a mechanism of some kind that allows us to discover those things, centrally, that are being discovered and have been proven to work, and to look at the potential to generalize those across the system in applicable ways. Obviously, you can't simply generalize things, or you risk failure, because they're going to be adapted to locale.

We obviously have a portion of the student population who is non-dyslexic but struggles with reading as well. The teachers do the best they can to try to catch those kids and bring them up within the classroom, using the instruments available to them. But there are also other interventions that can be mounted. I know of one, which I won't go into immediately. I don't know

But my question is: are we looking at those additional instruments? Are we looking at trying to identify one? The program that I'm thinking of is reading recovery.

Everywhere I go, and I don't go anywhere near as far afield as the minister does…. But whenever I'm with teachers or in a classroom or in schools, I ask them whether they have reading recovery programs or whether they have another tool. It's interesting, because in some school districts they have them; it's part of what they do. In other school districts it's not part of what they do.

There's a bunch there. I'll give you a chance to respond to that, and then I'll pick up any pieces that don't get covered off.

Hon. S. Bond: I think one of the things we do try to find a balance with is that…. Our job as the Ministry of Education is to lay out expected outcomes. We want to be sure that when a student graduates in British Columbia, they have a certain set of expectations that have been met. What we don't do is prescribe programmatic responses. We can certainly invest dollars in particular areas that focus, for example, on literacy.

This is a government that is not only investing in literacy; it's actually leading the country on the literacy file. As recently as yesterday and the day before, we brought the entire country together to have a discussion about the importance of literacy, which is unprecedented.

I recognize the interest in making sure that if things work really well…. Should we look at making sure that everyone is doing that? I think there's an element of that, but we do it differently than mandating reading recovery, for example. There would be others who teach in classrooms who would tell you there are other programs that, for them, are more effective.

I think what we're trying to do with superintendents of achievement, for example, is connect districts together to share best practice so that there is a much better understanding of: what are some of those tools? What are the supports that you can actually use in a variety of settings? We know that teachers are professionally autonomous, and they make choices about how best to meet the needs of their children. We're not about to mandate particular programs, but we have said as a government: "Literacy is important, and reading is pretty much the basic skill you have to have. So what are you doing about that?"

Our superintendents of achievement are one of the ways that we actually say: "Here are some things that are working. Demonstrate to us what you're doing, and then we can share that best practice with other districts across the province as well." We are very conscious of a teacher's right and responsibility to make the choices about the programmatic directions that they take with their children.

D. Cubberley: Far be it from me to challenge the right or authority of a teacher within a classroom to determine what they're going to work with. But at the same time, I'm very mindful of the fact that there's a need to cultivate awareness over time. There's a need to renew awareness, and there's a need to grow it into areas that may not have been recognized when the teacher took his or her training.

It's an interesting question to raise, and I will raise it again in the context of English-as-a second-language questions when we get to that, which will probably not be in the next little while.

This whole issue of what comprises a teacher's training and how we try to influence or shape it…. In the area of preparing teachers to develop children in a way that achieves high literacy, are there tools or levers or avenues the minister has and avails herself of to speak to the program that is teaching the teachers — the program that's creating the teachers and creating the awareness and imparting the pedagogy to teachers about how you go about doing these things? What kind of things, if there are those avenues, would it be appropriate for the minister to try to insert into a teaching program?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I think teacher training is absolutely critical. I think one of the things we and teachers themselves certainly are recognizing is that in the changing classrooms that we have today, we have to look at teacher training and how we prepare teachers to be in classrooms.

Let's just take a discussion that the member and I have had already to some degree about school closures and shrinking populations. One of the things that that's driving, and not that they haven't existed previously — split classes, for example….

So split classrooms. In some very remote and smaller communities and rural communities we're seeing that it's not necessarily typically a two-grade split. It can be a three-grade split. I use that as an example because one of the things I think we need to be prepared to do is adapt the way we train teachers more quickly. As we see emerging trends, we need to give teachers the tools they need. Often there's the pressure of having a successful classroom, and yet the classroom is completely different than it was five years ago or even ten years ago. So I do think there is a role.

We dialogue with the deans of education, for example, around those kinds of issues. We certainly do not mandate the content. We work very closely with my colleague in the Ministry of Advanced Education to also have those discussions. But I think it's an extremely relevant topic that the member opposite has brought up.

I think we have to look at other issues — children with special needs and children who are aboriginal. If

we're actually going to see the kind of improvement we require, I think we do need to find partnerships — work with the B.C. Teachers Federation and others — to say: "We need to find more support and professional development opportunities."

I think it does start with a training model that certainly reflects some of the trends that we're facing in education today. We don't directly impact that, but we certainly are in dialogue on a regular basis with a number of groups that could help influence what that training looks like.

D. Cubberley: I'm intrigued by this, because as a layperson it's a mystery to me who actually gets to decide what constitutes a training program that pops out a teacher at the other end.

Is it the institution itself, or is it each of the four universities? Do they have different programs, or are they the same program? Who gets to sign off on what's in the program, what's mandatory and what's optional? How does somebody get their oar in the water around whatever discussion goes on around what that is?

Hon. S. Bond: In trying to answer this…. It is complex, and there is perhaps, at times, a mystery.

First of all, I should say that institutions design their programs, and they are research-based. Obviously, they look at what's best practice and how to do that. So as I understand it — and I'm no expert in this either — institutions design their programs. Funding is provided for those kinds of programs through the Ministry of Advanced Education because they are post-secondary seats, obviously, but the accountability lies with the College of Teachers. When you look at the certification component, that comes out of the College of Teachers side. But programs are designed at institutions. They are research-driven.

I don't want for a minute to suggest that we don't have avenues to have discussion about that. We certainly do, through the deans of education and a variety of other tables and venues. We don't directly say: "This is how you should train a teacher." It's not our expertise, and it's not our mandate. But as I said in the earlier response, I think there's room for work here, and I think institutions are open to that. I have certainly found that in my experience both as Minister of Advanced Education previously and now as Minister of Education.

I think there is a desire to train teachers that are fully equipped to be in today's classroom. Those changes in curriculum and course offerings do take some time. But I think that clearly, the changes need to be driven by the changes we see in classrooms today.

D. Cubberley: Yes, that more or less confirms my impression as well. There is a variety of actors, and it's not absolutely clear who's driving the bus. Maybe it's not one person, and maybe that's actually a good thing, because if it were the wrong person, the bus would go off the cliff.

I guess one of the things that's a challenge we face is to develop a discussion in a collegial way that allows us collectively to shape the way in which teachers are trained. A lot does ride on it. Again, as a layperson talking with classroom teachers, I experienced this at the other end where there's considerable frustration around some of the complexities in the classroom and a sense of inadequacy around the teaching tools available to them to manage it.

The minister referenced special needs kids, which I think is a really obvious area where we want to pay some attention and try to make sure that good things are happening, that teachers get the equipment and that they get the updating required.

I don't know what percentage of the teachers in the province are over 50 years of age or even 45 or 35 years of age, but how we see autism today compared with how we saw and understood autism a decade ago is like a completely different universe. It would be interesting to know whether teachers have had the in-service that allows them to manage that kind of thing.

I've got another questioner, who's going to start in a moment. I do want to embark on ESL in another manner, but it's pertinent to this discussion. I believe it's the case that none of the institutions that can create teachers today equip teachers with a mandatory course in English as a second language.

Teachers who walk out of training and into a classroom virtually anywhere in B.C. now can be confronting an ESL classroom and not have the beginnings of the pedagogy around how to deal with it. A teacher who winds up teaching in Vancouver or somewhere could be in a classroom where 60 percent of the kids or more in their room are notionally enrolled in English as a second language, although there are reasons why we can't describe it as that when they're the majority in the room. But they have had no training for that particular…. They have to fall back on their general training as teachers.

I think that's the situation which, given where we're headed, the diversity of our society, the levels of immigration into the society…. Just as looking at special needs kids, the 10 percent or more of kids that have special needs within the school system…. Teachers need to have skills that are up to date around those things so they have the tools to manage the diverse classroom. I think it means we have to find the way to influence that without in any way telling a university how to teach the subject. But that really needs to be thought about as perhaps mandatory to become a teacher — that you know how to deal with a blended classroom.

Hon. S. Bond: I think there are a number of areas that the member opposite and I would probably agree on. We would want to be sure that teachers have the resources and skills that they require to actually teach in today's classrooms — certainly, blended classrooms. When we look at the number of aboriginal children in classrooms, when we look at children with special

needs, and when we look at, for example, things like rural schools and simply the split that you might have…. I do think it's a relevant and important topic.

I should say that while the initial teacher-training program is essential, so are ongoing in-service and professional development. The B.C. Teachers Federation, I know, works very hard on a very broad and excellent in-service program, and we also provide resources to teachers after they've been trained. I certainly would agree that it's an ongoing development process for teachers, because as the classroom changes, we need to better equip them. That's not at all being critical. They do amazing work in classrooms today.

We do provide, through the leadership academy on assessment for learning…. The BCTF has a quality teach program which actually looks at action research and providing additional tools to teachers. We have our Network of Performance Based Schools. We also, after the fact, in many cases, are providing resources and supports, not to mention ongoing in-service that's done by schools all the time.

It's a collaboration between the partners. I certainly want to agree with the member opposite that ongoing discussions about relevant teacher training is an important issue and one that we engage in, and I think that there continues to be work to do.

S. Simpson: I just have a few questions that relate to two topics. One is issues related to learning disabilities, and the second is a couple of questions related specifically to a school closure situation and some innovation at a school in my constituency. I'll start with a couple of questions related to LD, or learning disabilities.

I've had some of this discussion with the minister previously. I know that she's certainly well aware and, I believe, shares concerns about those kids who have LD problems and the fact that there isn't, as there is for autistic kids or other kids, necessarily a dedicated pool of resources that allows schools additional resources to help kids with LD who are suffering challenges.

The first question I have for the minister is: could the minister tell us again what the thinking of the government is, or the ministry is, about why the feeling is that there doesn't need to be additional resources applied in schools to ensure assessments and IEPs and the necessary resources there for kids with LD, who do face challenges that often affect them throughout their school years and beyond?

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the member opposite's questions, and he is absolutely right. We've had discussions in the past about these issues, and I appreciate his interest.

In terms of learning disabilities, it isn't that there aren't dollars provided. It is that they are not targeted, and they are not attached to a particular student. We've had some earlier discussion about that with other members. I think there is that debate about that.

In the budget every year we roll into the block funding that previously would have been targeted for some of those students. When we moved away from the targeted funding — and there was line after line of targeted funding that said: here's the money, and here's where it has to go — we did leave the money in the block. What it does allow is discretion, and I think therein lies the frustration for some parents and others and probably trustees as well. It is about boards making decisions about how to utilize those resources, because they come as one big block.

The only targeted funding that we have now in the formula is for aboriginal children. For aboriginal students there is a targeted fund. We do receive additional dollars specifically for low-incidence categories, three of them. In terms of the high-incidence ones, which would be the ones the member opposite is referring to, those dollars are contained within the block previously targeted, so now there is discretion about how boards would use those dollars. They're not specifically tied to a child with a particular learning disability.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. Of course, one of the challenges that we see with that is that the levels of assessment that go on sometimes get capped out, or the assessments aren't done as early in a child's academic career, in their school years, as would be ideal. Rather, we see that sometimes those assessments get done much later, just before heading into high school when the requirements are there for that to be done.

What I hear from educators as well as from parents and from people like Diane Sugars, who I'm sure the minister has spoken to numerous times on this, or corresponded with…. I know how often I get to speak with her, and I'm sure that you speak with her many more times. She, of course, is a very strong advocate for these kids and these families.

Is there a concern that because those assessments aren't being done at an earlier time, necessarily, kids are falling through the cracks? I know that I was discussing this with a parent who…. The child has a learning disability, but because the assessment is not done, they're determined to have a behavioral problem. They start to try to address the behavioral problem. Then sometime later on, after the assessment is done, it's determined that this wasn't an issue of behaviour. It was LD, and the approach should have been quite different to help deal with those issues.

Does the minister have a concern, and if so, how do we begin to deal with the issue of getting those earlier assessments done and those IEPs done for these kids so that they can be as successful as possible?

Hon. S. Bond: I think that there is work being done, and I think there is a discussion about the whole issue of assessment. One of the challenges we have, and I mentioned this to another member, is that there isn't a formal mechanism for knowing there's a list. So we're still trying to assess how great the need is and what the challenges are there.

The biggest challenge we face is the lack of school psychologists. There are simply not enough professionals to help do that kind of work. I know there will

always be a demand for more resources, and that's just the nature of education and health and those things that are so important to people.

But one of the very specific challenges we are facing is the lack of the number of school psychologists that we need — a challenge all across British Columbia, incredibly enhanced when you move beyond urban B.C. So you look at some of the more rural and remote districts. Another colleague of the member opposite's yesterday…. In a much more geographically challenged situation, they're facing even greater pressure.

I do think we need to have an aggressive strategy for professional training, and we're working with the Ministry of Advanced Education and others. We have done things like a forgivable loan program to try to encourage people to actually take on those professions — using that as an incentive.

So first, it is complex, and there is undoubtedly a challenge with getting some assessments done as quickly as families, in particular, would like to see that happen.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer, and I appreciate the challenge of having the trained professionals there to be able to do those assessments, particularly in areas where the individuals just don't exist in proximity to those communities to be able to do that work.

Does the ministry have — I realize that this is a guess, and it's hard to be accurate — a sense of how many children we might be looking at that aren't getting that assessment? Understanding the circumstances for why, do we have a sense or a range of the number of children who aren't getting the early assessments they require?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we don't. That's one of the challenges. The assessments are done individually across districts, across the province, so there isn't an official list. It is an issue and a topic that has been brought to the provincial round table by the B.C. Teachers Federation, indicating that they do have concerns about the time and the ease of getting an assessment.

We've previously canvassed this question, and I think, again, that we've said we need to work closely with boards of education. I don't want to simply point to the resource record, but already the total funding for children with special needs — which would include children with learning disabilities, though not specifically targeted — has now approached almost three-quarters of a billion dollars.

Part of the challenge we face is that boards of education support children with special needs — to their credit, I should say; I remember being a trustee myself — and often boards invest far more than they're actually given in supporting children with special needs. That occurred when I was a trustee in the 1990s, and I'm sure that it continues today, because we wanted those children to be successful.

We don't have a formal list. We have been and are working with districts — certainly, through our superintendents of achievement — to look at: what are the barriers to assessment, and how do we help make sure that those students are done as quickly as possible? I think that one thing that encourages me is our emphasis on early learning and looking at where that intervention can take place.

Just minutes ago we talked about, for example, using the EDI, and using it for every child who is entering kindergarten. There, again, is a universal screen that may help us with some of those issues. But there is no easy answer, and certainly, we continue to work to ensure that children are assessed as quickly as they can be.

S. Simpson: Maybe this work has been done or is in progress…. Has there been any research or work done by the ministry, or contracted through the ministry, to do an assessment of what it generally means to be able to get that early assessment done in terms of the success levels of children who have LD who get an assessment, get that support, and their accomplishment or their success in education versus those kids who maybe, for whatever reason, aren't getting the early assessment and IEPs done — or whatever is deemed appropriate by a district?

Hon. S. Bond: In terms of specifically, I think that we can simply say with confidence that research and best practice tells us that early intervention is one of the most important things in terms of determining a student's success. If you look at studies, for example, when you look at investing in the early years, the return on investment is incredible.

For every dollar you invest in early learning, for example, you save $17 in services to that child from some other source of funding later in their life. Undoubtedly, early intervention is absolutely related to a child's ability to be successful, and we need to focus our efforts in making sure that it is done quickly and appropriately.

S. Simpson: I know that the ministry has looked at targeted schools or provincial schools. I know that the minister has been approached by the Learning Disabilities Association around that notion of a school. I know that there's been discussion about it being a public school or a private school of that nature. Has the ministry looked at that question of dealing with a school to deal with a range of disability issues? And if so, what determinations have they made?

Hon. S. Bond: We continue to meet regularly with parent groups and advocates on both sides of that discussion. We have been very candid about that. I think that it can be summed up very succinctly by saying that there are very different views about how to serve the needs of children.

In terms of a provincial school in that sense, we are not at a place where we have a provincial school. What's been really helpful since the announcement

about that concept was that we've had fantastic discussion — as the member opposite has, I'm sure, with members of his own constituency. I think that's very healthy. There has been a lot of discussion, and we meet regularly.

In fact, there's a group of parents who want their own school. They don't want our school necessarily; they want their own school. I think that's important. I think that choice is important. As we look at how to meet the needs of students, we need to do that in as many ways as possible.

There are parents who are very passionate about making sure that we have inclusive schools. Of course we're going to continue to have inclusive schools. That is important. It's fundamental to a great public education. But there are parents who are equally as adamant that the current model isn't working for their children. So we have not designated a particular school.

We are working on a couple of initiatives around technology. We'd love to see a school that was exemplary in the field of technology, for example.

The board of education in Prince George, for example, as a result of a task force that they've just completed, are contemplating an aboriginal school — again, not mandated by the ministry in any way, but work done in that community suggests that that may be an appropriate model. So there are different states of readiness and different states of who is driving that agenda across the province.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that answer, and there certainly are varying different views about that. I certainly am of a mixed mind about the best way to approach this. Just a comment, and then I'm going to move to a couple of questions on a different topic.

My concern is that we do need to find a way to enhance the services to these kids with learning disabilities. I appreciate the notion of block funding and the dollars being there, but I would hope that there may be some assessment done as to whether, in terms of what works best for these kids, the block is getting it done.

I understand all the reasons for the block and allowing the district to have the flexibility to make those choices on where that money is best spent, but I would certainly appreciate some assessment that allowed a clearer determination of how many kids might be falling through the cracks. Is there a better way to get there, and is it by retargeting that money, or is it by doing something else?

I'm not sure what something else is, but I do certainly share the concern of some of my constituents who feel a frustration — the parents, in particular, who feel that their kids have a learning disability that could be addressed to ensure their future is a successful future. They feel a frustration that their kids aren't getting everything they want, and all of us as parents would feel the frustration if we thought that our kids weren't getting every opportunity to succeed. I know that the minister understands that.

I wanted to just ask a couple of questions in relation to a school in my constituency. It's a very small school. It's an annex. It's Garibaldi. I am sure that the minister has heard about Garibaldi too. This is a school that has 40-odd kids in it, K-to-4.

They had been earmarked to be closed. The parents there responded. The community responded. They did a little outside fair, a festival, one day at the school, and 300 people showed up at the school — and it's 41 kids — from the neighbourhood to celebrate and try to save this school.

What's happened is that, through initiatives in the community, the parents, the teachers and others in the community — including Frog Hollow Neighbourhood House, which has been a great resource in looking at this issue — went to the school board. They got a bit of a reprieve to come back with a proposal for how to begin to deal with this and keep their school open.

They have produced a remarkable report that is going, I believe it's next week, to the Vancouver school board. It's called The Small School with a Big Heart. It's a 60- or 70-page report that suggests, in fact, a four-year trial period to keep the school open, which would include continuing with the small community-based school and a distributed learning centre mostly for kids who are home-schooled but want to be able to blend a little bit of classroom time with home schooling — they have a proposal around that — as well as a 3-to-5 day care proposal to go in as well. Part of the thing that they hope will draw is beginning to focus the school on arts, culture and issues around sustainable community.

When schools look to do this kind of thing and they're looking to do something innovative…. I know it's a district responsibility, and I suspect that part of what the district is going to come back and tell them, whether they approve or not, is about the limitations or about how occupancy numbers get assessed in a school through the ministry criteria and whether this works for them. Or does it start to create problems for the district in terms of its other responsibilities so that it gets the dollars for seismic or for upgrades and that?

How does a school like Garibaldi that is working with the community…? I know that the minister has talked about the importance of the role of schools in community, and I agree with her on this.

How can the ministry support those kinds of initiatives that the numbers suggest might actually work to get this school up to 80, 90 or 100 kids, which is where it needs to be? There's certainly the demographic there that allows that to happen in that community. Are there initiatives that the ministry can provide to support that kind of effort by those parents?

Hon. S. Bond: I really appreciate the way the member opposite describes the school, and I think that's what makes school closure discussions so difficult. I'm sure that across this province families and parents and communities feel exactly that way about their schools. I felt that way about our children's neighbourhood

school as well. So I think, to set the context, that's really tough stuff when boards have to deal with that.

In regard to the specific question about capacity and what drives the decisions in some ways to keep schools open or closed, it is about a formula. It's about capacity issues and thresholds and how much excess space we have, complicated by the fact that in districts and places like Vancouver, for example, they have rapid growth in some areas and rapid decline in others. You have half-empty buildings — very complex.

So I can tell the member opposite this, and I certainly wish today I could say that everything is okay for Garibaldi. I can't do that. First of all, as the minister, I can't. It is up to the board of education.

I can say this. We recognize that we're in a very changing world in schools and in education, not just in British Columbia but around the world. We do need to look at our formulas and the way that we design and build and restore and hold onto and shut — all those things. We do need to look at that. I've asked our team to do some work on capacity and asked the question: what gets counted and what doesn't? That's really what it comes down to.

We do have a dilemma already. We're asking schools to house StrongStart centres in excess space, and yet it's not counted against that building's capacity. So I think that right off the start we have to actually address that issue.

Then I think we have to look at other things. If we believe that child care and having a variety of services available to families in the most convenient way possible are important, one would think that we need to address that as well.

So two things: firstly, looking at the existing formula and how that might need to reflect more accurately the decisions around schools today; and, secondly, when we design new buildings, how do we do that? Do we do that with a community approach in mind? Are we looking at things like child care space now being considered as part of the school plan?

We're at a place where we can have what I think will be vigorous debate, but I also think it will be interesting and essential.

Garibaldi needs to go through its process, those parents with the school board. But we, as a ministry, are going to have a look at what exists today. Is it appropriate for the world we find ourselves in, and is it time for us to address some of those concerns?

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer. I know Garibaldi. One of the propositions here is through Frog Hollow. They will be looking at a StrongStart application as well as the three-to-five day care and a number of other pieces, like the distributive learning, that may or may not fit the categories today.

I guess the question I would have in relation to this, then, is that Garibaldi is going to meet with the board of education on Monday, I believe, and have this discussion around their proposal, which is a very interesting and innovative proposal that they've put together. They've asked for a four-year pilot here. They've said: "Look, we're not even sure that this will work, but we think it will work." They've asked the board to give them four years, and they've put targets on the kind of growth that they need to have in the school over that period of time to make it successful, to be deemed successful. It's significant growth that they require to do that.

Is there any vehicle available through the ministry…? If the board is receptive to this and says, "We see it as a pilot…." Whether it's one, two or four years — however long that was to happen — is there a place for the board to come and talk to the ministry and say: "We want to do this with this school. It may be a little bit outside the box, but we think that there's a case here. We think it adds to the academic and opportunity in Vancouver. We think it works and adds to the link to community"?

Is there a place for innovation here? I know that the minister says we're having that discussion now about whether what we do currently — the formulas — works. Is there a place to say: "Okay, let's test fly this. We'll allow this school to do that, knowing that we're going to learn some lessons from this or, hopefully, will learn some lessons"? Is there a place within the ministry for that to be allowed to happen?

Hon. S. Bond: I think, first of all, we're always interested in talking about innovation, but the first and most important process is for the board of education to actually work through this. As I understand it — certainly, from the information that I've been given — the board is working with Garibaldi to look at a business case.

I think that's a really important step in the right direction. But I'm sure that the member opposite can appreciate that, as his colleagues arrive here, we have the same circumstance in Garibaldi. Yesterday I think it was the member for North Coast who had two wonderful little schools there — one that has three students in it. There does come a place where we have to look at the fiscal imperative as well.

We'd love to be able to support the board in a discussion if that's what would be appropriate. We're going to have a very significant discussion with the Vancouver school board because there are a lot of challenges they're facing right now. They have heritage buildings. They have buildings that are too small and buildings that are too big. We have all kinds of situations.

They also have a wonderful concept. I've been impressed by the work the Vancouver school board is doing in its thinking around community education and community schools. We have agreed to engage with them from a big picture to say, "What can we do here?" which will, I think, help to inform our policy decisions and our thinking about how we deal with this problem.

We're always open to having a discussion. We have a terrific capital team in our ministry that would be happy to sit down and look at that, but ultimately, there is a fiscal imperative. Boards have to manage within the envelopes that they have been given, but I am encouraged. The board has said it is contemplating the business case, and I think that's a step in the right direction.

S. Simpson: Just a last question on this, and then I'll give the floor back to the critic or to whomever is next.

That is the case. It's my understanding that the board will be meeting with the parents and the people who put the proposal forward and having that discussion Monday night. They may or may not make a decision at that time. I agree: it has to be the board of education, first and foremost, who makes the decision that they want to move ahead on this and deal with this issue and that they accept the responsibilities that come with that.

I also would agree with the minister that you can't be making exceptions for the sake of exceptions. Even in my own constituency I have seven annexes that are potentially on the block to be closed. It is a problem.

What I'm looking at here…. Maybe the answer doesn't change, but the question is that if the board says, "This is an innovation. The approach here makes some sense. We do want to try this out and see if it will work as part of looking at new ways to do things…." If they made that determination as a board but determined, however, that there are a couple of places where it's out of sync with ministry criteria, that potentially we will get chastised by the ministry because we're out of sync with criteria that the ministry has and we're going to consciously be out of sync….

Is there a place to have the discussion to say: "We know that it's a little wonky at the moment, but if we try this for a couple of years, maybe we're going to learn something that will be of value in other communities as well"?

Is there a place for that discussion to happen around that, assuming — I agree — that the board of education says: "Yes, we want to try to do this, but we don't want to get into trouble with the ministry as we do it." Is there a place for that discussion to happen?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, all I can say to the member opposite is that we are exploring the challenge that, I think, districts are facing around capacity and what counts and what doesn't. I can't make a policy decision today that would set Garibaldi's decision outside of that framework. We have an existing framework.

Having said that, at the end of the day, we do not make the decisions about how boards manage their districts. I can be hopeful that the business case is compelling and that the board of education is convinced that they can actually manage through that process.

We do not make the decision to actually close or open a school. The boards of education do that. That's not about finger-pointing; that's about the autonomy that locally elected boards are given. I can remember being in the position of being a locally elected trustee, and boy, I loved the autonomy when it was some of those really good-news days. It was a whole lot harder when I was in the position of having to make decisions around school closures.

I can assure the member opposite that we are looking at the circumstances that I think boards today are facing around excess space, about how you utilize that in a way that's bigger than K-to-12. I think it's so important to look at partnerships. I would hope that the proposal that's been prepared contemplates partnerships with non-profits, with municipalities. That's the kind of thinking we're doing as we look at the capital planning process that we have in place.

J. Brar: I would also like to ask some questions about, of course, the schools in Surrey. I understand that the member for Surrey-Newton was here yesterday asking questions of the minister, particularly about the CommunityLINK program, where the city of Surrey received significantly less funding as compared to some of the other school districts. I am pleased to know that the minister gave a very favourable response to look into that and probably fix that problem of funding.

With that, I would like to start a question about a couple of schools. One of the schools is Green Timbers Elementary School, which, as per my understanding, is up for seismic upgrades. I would like to ask the minister: is it true that Green Timbers Elementary School is up for seismic upgrades this fiscal year?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm sure that the member opposite will be thrilled, as I am, to be able to be able to answer this in the affirmative. On the seismic upgrade of the gymnasium and classrooms we now have a signed project agreement, and we expect it to proceed to construction this year.

J. Brar: Can the minister be more specific about the start and end dates of the construction?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I thought that the member opposite might be happy for just a moment.

I don't actually have the specific start date. I'm assuming that the board of education will want to move that forward as quickly as possible. We're delighted that the project agreement is signed, and we do expect it to start, I would assume, imminently. I know that in the north the building season is a little shorter, but I think it should move forward soon.

We can find out for the member opposite if we have a more specific date. The staff that are here do not.

J. Brar: I appreciate the response from the minister. I would like, of course, to know the specific dates, because I have some reason for it. Probably I will discuss that with the minister today as we proceed with some of the questions.

My understanding is also that when the seismic upgrade will take place at Green Timbers Elementary School, the children will be moved to portables. Is that the correct information?

Hon. S. Bond: It is not uncommon for students to be accommodated in portables. So yes, that is certainly the indication that I've been given.

The work is expected to begin in the spring of 2008, although with the weather we've all been experiencing, maybe spring is a less than arbitrary term. It's supposed to start in the spring and finish in the summer of 2009, and students will be accommodated in portable classrooms during the seismic upgrade.

J. Brar: It's good to have a Chair from Surrey, because we are talking about Surrey school board at this point in time.

One more question about that. If the minister can tell me what capacity the Green Timbers Elementary School is at, at this point in time, as far as the number of students is concerned.

Hon. S. Bond: We'll get those numbers for you. If you wanted to proceed with the next question, we'll get the most recent numbers.

I should point out that Green Timbers will actually be $5 million in terms of the quantity of the seismic upgrades, so it's a good-news story. I'll get the capacity numbers for the member just as quickly as I can.

J. Brar:. My next question is, of course, Fleetwood Elementary School, which is up for closure. What I've been hearing until today, particularly…. One of the key rationales provided by the minister when we talk about the closure of schools is declining enrolment. The situation in Surrey is entirely different.

Surrey is actually the fastest-growing municipality in the province and probably in the country. We receive almost 1,000 new people every month. In other words, I'd say that two 747s land in the middle of Surrey every month. That has been going on for a number of years.

Surrey-Tynehead, which is the location of Fleetwood Elementary School, is actually the fastest-growing area within the city of Surrey. Based on the number of students, which is the key factor, it doesn't make much sense to me to close that school.

I would like to first ask the minister: is there any specific reason that the minister is aware of for the closure of Fleetwood Elementary School?

Hon. S. Bond: In terms of answering that question, one of the challenges we face is that boards of education undergo extensive consultation before they make this very difficult decision. Rarely would the ministry, and certainly not the minister, have the specifics of every single district's deliberation.

I have been assured, though, that the district went through an extensive process before making that decision. I believe it started in 2004 — is that correct? If that's not correct, I will correct it momentarily. I believe it was in 2004 that they looked at negotiations. As I understand it, the closure doesn't take place until June 30, 2009. In fact, that's quite a lengthy period of time. Typically, it wouldn't be that far down the road. I'm not aware of the specifics, because Surrey is a large and, as the member points out accurately, a very quickly growing district.

So complex discussions, but I am confident that the board of education did engage in significant consultations before making the decision to close. I should point out, and I know the member opposite does know this. Again, I only point this out to provide the contrast that while school closure is also taking place, so are capital projects. I think in Surrey alone we've done 27 capital projects since 2001-2002. The complexity for Surrey is where it's growing and where those students are located.

Before any board would consider a closure, there is an expectation that they look at their long-term planning. I know that from my own personal experience as a trustee, boards tend to do that very well. In some exceptional circumstances there may be cases where there have been some things missed, but generally speaking, boards plan well. They make difficult decisions, and I understand that that was the case with Fleetwood.

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister, once again, for the response. I understand that there are a number of expectations the board is supposed to go through before making that tough call, but this situation may be different. As we talk about that, the Minister will probably find out that this may be a different story with the Fleetwood Elementary School.

As per the regulations of the Surrey school district, regulation 1.4 is basically a notification to the minister. So they are required to notify the minister about any decision about closing any school. I would like to ask the minister: when was the notification provided to the minister, and what was the information in that?

Hon. S. Bond: I don't have the specific date that we would have been notified. I can only provide this information for the member opposite. The decision to proceed with closure was made on January 24, 2008. Earlier this year the board would have confirmed its decision to close the school in June of 2009, and I'm sure that information would have been conveyed to our office shortly after that.

I want to go back and just finish the previous line of questioning about Green Timbers. The capacity for Green Timbers is 80 kindergarten students and 575 elementary students.

J. Brar: What percentage is that, when we talk about that? When we talk about the capacity, is that 100 percent, or less than that, or over? The minister did give the number, but what is the percentage?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, those are two different questions. I can tell the member the capacity of the building. In other words, it could hold 80 kindergarten and 575 elementary students. That's the physical size of the building. What the attendance is at the moment or what the actual population is — I don't have that information. We will look that up.

J. Brar: It is just a coincidence that the Chair at this point in time comes from the city of Surrey. These are the meeting minutes from the Surrey school board going back to April '04, where the member for Surrey-Tynehead asked this question and made this comment. I'm going to read exactly what the member from Tynehead said at that meeting.

My question, if the minister can respond to that…. That was '04, and a member of this House made that comment in the meeting. If that was the number one priority at that time, why is the decision suddenly made to close that school?

Hon. S. Bond: The discussion about the closure of a school is not something that is either…. The ministry is not a party to it. It is not a participant in it. It is so important that when those kinds of decisions are made, the people who are locally elected, who know those communities better than any minister or ministry ever could, make those decisions. They're not easy to begin with, but certainly the complexities of a district like Surrey would demand that locally elected people look at all of the circumstances and make those choices. The ministry has no role in making a decision about whether or not to close Fleetwood specifically.

Certainly, the district does have to deal with its capital challenges. Again, we have built new facilities and have done a number of capital projects in Surrey to assist that board with making sure they have places for all of the new children that they have. But I wouldn't be able to specifically address the Fleetwood issue, simply because the board of education would have made that decision after a lot of complicated discussion, I am certain.

J. Brar: I certainly cannot ask the question to the Chair at this point in time. It is clear, though, from these minutes that the local Member of the Legislative Assembly for Surrey-Tynehead at that point in time made a comment that Surrey Fleetwood was a priority. Somehow the local member, of course, as a responsible member of this House, must have made that comment based on some information. But I understand the minister's comment about not having specific information to respond to that question.

The other piece on the same page, on the minutes of the school board — as I said before, April '04…. There's a paragraph I'm going to read that is directly related to the ministry's actions. It says:

My question to the minister is: what was the outcome of the review that the team of consultants conducted, particularly when it relates to the Surrey Fleetwood school?

Hon. S. Bond: We will work to see if there was an audit score done. In fact, if there wasn't a capital request, so if they didn't ask to have something done, there would not be an audit score. We'll just double-check that for the member opposite.

I can only relate back…. Generally speaking, and this is not my comment, but the board of education, I think, in their decision pointed out that this is a 60-year-old school, that it required costly repairs and that there was also a concern because there is space…. I don't know the neighbourhood, so I'm only reiterating what I've been told. There is apparently space for Fleetwood students in neighbouring schools. There was also some concern about four-lane thoroughfares related to Fleetwood.

I can only articulate the reasons that I've been made aware of that the board of education presented in their argument — the rationale, I should say, is more accurate — for considering this school for closure.

J. Brar: I would certainly put that on the record — if the minister can make available the report of the review of the team of the Ministry of Education at a later time.

This whole process to close the school has been going on for the last few years. There was a meeting back in 2004, where the school board told the parents, the students and other stakeholders that a decision will be made to close the school in 2009 and that at that time a reassessment will be done before making the final decision.

I have spoken to a lot of parents, and of course they're upset. They have reason to be upset, and the students. According to them, there was no reassessment conducted before the final decision was made by the school.

My question to the minister is this: I know that at the end of the day it is the school district making the decision on the closure of the school, but is it an acceptable standard in the view of the ministry that the school board made a decision to close the school without conducting the reassessment which was actually promised to the parents and students of the Fleetwood Elementary School?

Hon. S. Bond: It would be, I think, inappropriate for me to comment on the previous decisions and

discussions that the board had with parents in their community, which I certainly was not personally aware of. But I do think this. You know, it's never an easy discussion to have with parents, families, staff and students. It's a very difficult decision to close a school. It's never easy.

We are not the only province. If we were the only province in the entire world doing that, then I guess we would have to look at policy and things like that, but it's a phenomenon that's taking place around the world.

I would urge the parents to work with their board of education. I don't know that a promise was made or wasn't, but I do know this: that the board of education would have worked very hard to be thoughtful, complete and thorough in its discussion before it agreed to close the school. From that perspective, I think it's important that parents continue to be in dialogue with that board. The direction that I've received as minister is that that school will close in 2009.

J. Brar: Again, I understand that the minister, of course, was not part of the discussion that took place four or five years ago. But here is a situation where we have the school board saying one thing, and the actual parents and students who are being impacted are saying something different. I don't know whether the minister can find a way to at least listen to the parents and students to know what is actually the truth in this situation.

With that, I would move on to something else. There are a number of things I'm talking about. The issue here is the whole process, the way it took place.

The next thing I want to speak to is as per, again, the school district policy, "1.2 Public Consultation." I'm going to read that to the minister. This is what the Surrey school board policy says:

Then it moves on to a couple of other things, "the impact on the board's five-year capital plan," and the last point is the "proposed use of the closed school(s), including potential lease or sale."

I've spoken to the parents, and the parents make it very clear that the Surrey school district did not provide anything in writing as per their own policy.

Again, my question to the minister is: in the minister's view, is it something acceptable, standard to the minister, that the Surrey school board is not providing a written notice, which is a requirement according to their own policy, which it seems to me, at this point in time, is a violation of their own policy? Is it acceptable to the minister, that behaviour of the Surrey school board?

Hon. S. Bond: I am reluctant to make a comment about a process that I wasn't a party to and certainly, normally, have no role in other than receiving information once those decisions have been made.

Clearly, across the province I have a lot of confidence in school boards of education and their role in communities. Typically, they are very good at making sure that — especially in these processes, which are very difficult for them — they pay attention to the policies. It is certainly my expectation, and that of the law, that boards of education are required to have a closure policy, and one would expect that they would adhere to that policy.

So again, I would urge the member opposite to ensure that those parents are working closely with their board of education. Certainly, I have no hesitancy in asking a member of my staff to call the board of education and just confirm that, in fact, the school closure policy was utilized appropriately in that decision with Fleetwood. I will certainly have that phone call made.

I do want to go back and finish off the other question for the member opposite. I gave the member the capacity of the Green Timbers School, and I can now provide the enrolment numbers. The enrolment at Green Timbers is 35 kindergarten students, and I think we said the capacity was 80. The enrolment of elementary students is 448.

J. Brar: I appreciate the comment from the minister, particularly asking the staff to contact the Surrey school board to make sure that they respect their own policy. In this situation, this is what the parents are saying, because this has now passed. They are parents with little kids, and now they are being forced, of course, to send them to a school far away, which was earlier in the neighbourhood. They certainly didn't get anything in writing.

Going back to the same policy, I would like to ask a few questions on that one. Particularly, can the minister advise the Surrey school district if they can now provide in writing to the parents, according to their own policy, the impact of the closure of Fleetwood Elementary School on the board's five-year capital plan? That's one thing we would like to see that parents are aware of.

The second thing is, again, according to their policy, can they provide the information about the proposed use of the space which is now Fleetwood

Elementary School in Surrey? Those are two very, very important questions parents have been asking. Otherwise there is, of course, a lot of other speculation about what's going on. Certainly, I think parents at least deserve the accurate information. Those two pieces, in addition to all the other pieces, are very, very important.

Earlier I asked a question about the seismic upgrades at Green Timbers Elementary School, which is one of the schools which is probably going to take a significant percentage of the students from Fleetwood Elementary School when it's closed.

Fleetwood Elementary School, where the students are going to go, is almost close to full capacity. Now we're closing the school and moving a significant number of students to that school when that school is going through the seismic upgrade.

Fleetwood Elementary School is moving its own students to portables at the same time that the school board is forcing other students from Fleetwood Elementary School to accommodate them as well. So from the schedule point of view, as per the completion of seismic upgrade and the closure of Fleetwood Elementary School, it doesn't make much sense.

My question to the minister will be: in this situation, is there anything the minister can do or intervene to make sure that the transition process, at least for the parents and the students, is less painful — that it is smooth, so they can live with it?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I have said that I would ask my staff to confirm with the Surrey board of education that they did comply with their policy. I have every expectation and confidence that, indeed, they would have done that. They certainly have been extremely diligent about the work they do, but I have committed to have one of my staff actually confirm that that took place.

In terms of the movement of students throughout the seismic process, the fact of the matter is that boards try to manage throughout those seismic upgrades as best they can. We have tried to move this program ahead as aggressively as possible. It is not at all unusual to utilize portables during that process, but those are not decisions that the minister makes. They are the decisions of a locally elected board of education.

The member has raised a number of questions, and I have appreciated hearing them. I think that those would be most appropriately taken to the board of education, to actually ask them to demonstrate what their thinking and planning is around the movement of those children during the seismic upgrade.

J. Brar: The parents and students have done everything they possibly could, including to save the school and then about the transition — the whole planning. I think it's only after that that they came to me and asked me to ask these questions to the minister, at a higher level — if there's anything that can be done. That's why I'm here asking those questions.

I'm more than happy to ask those questions to the school board, but my understanding is that parents have asked those questions, and only after that, we are asking these questions. In this situation, if there's anybody, any person who can make a change, a difference, that is the Minister of Education — not me or not anybody else.

My question to the minister will be, again…. One school, the Fleetwood Elementary School, is being closed. The Green Timbers Elementary School, which is going to receive a significant percentage of the students from Fleetwood Elementary School, is up for seismic upgrade. It's going to move its own students to portables at the same time that students coming from the Fleetwood are going to pack the portables.

It doesn't make any sense to me. So is it not worthwhile for the minister to make a call to the Surrey school district about this and, particularly, to fix the schedule so that the transition of students and this change for parents become less painful?

Hon. S. Bond: I just want to confirm the time line, though, for the member opposite. Certainly, the work that's being done on Green Timbers and the closure of Fleetwood are not at the same time, actually. The children will stay in Fleetwood until 2009, at which time we expect the seismic upgrade to be finished. So in fact, the students would stay in Fleetwood until 2009. Again, it is difficult for me to make meaningful comments, not knowing all of the circumstances.

I do know a number of other factors, though. Students would not simply be going to Green Timbers. There are also students who would potentially attend Berkshire Park, Maple Green, Coyote Creek and William Watson elementary schools. The challenge that this board faces is that there is space in all of those schools, and Fleetwood is a building that was built in 1947. There are a number of complex factors that I am confident the board of education would have considered before even going down this path.

I just want to reiterate to the member that Green Timbers will begin this spring and be completed in the summer of 2009. The transfer of students from Fleetwood would not take place until the end of the school year in 2009.

I can't say it often enough, and I say it all the time. Making a decision to close a school is a painful process. It is very difficult. Of course parents are emotional. It is something where there is a close connection between children and families and their schools, and we would want it to be that way.

Would that I could continue to keep schools and that boards could keep schools open all across the province. There is just the reality we face that we have a very different demographic. Even in Surrey, where there is rapid growth, there is also excess space, and there are decisions to be made. It is a time of change. It is painful for families. It is painful for staff who have to move to a different school. But it is the reality of the demographics that we face, not only in British Columbia but around the world.

J. Brar: It gives me some satisfaction that the seismic upgrade will be completed before the closure of Fleetwood Elementary School. I understand that the minister will not stand up and guarantee that the seismic upgrade will be completed, or it must be completed before they close the elementary school.

My question is: if that doesn't happen, is there anything the minister is prepared to do if the seismic upgrade does not finish before the closure date of Fleetwood Elementary School?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things I do know about the board of education in Surrey is that they are very good at what they do. They have had a significant number of capital projects to manage. I think it's 27 since 2000-2001, of some variety or another. Some of that may include site acquisition. I have confidence in the information that's been provided to me, and the best information I can give the member opposite is that we're going to begin in spring, and the anticipated completion date is the summer of 2009.

I can only reiterate that this is a board that has experience with planning, which is the board's responsibility, and we will certainly be supportive where that's appropriate. I can only, again, suggest that that's the time line that I've been given. I would expect that, within reasonable circumstances, that's what will take place.

J. Brar: Just to put it on the record, a few minutes ago I read the paragraph from the chair of the Surrey school district board, according to which Fleetwood Elementary School was a priority. This was four years ago. That has changed. Now they've made a U-turn to close it. I just want to put it on the record that I appreciate that the minister is confident that the Surrey school board will finish the upgrade before the students move from the Fleetwood Elementary School, but I want to make sure that happens.

According to this policy they have for closing a particular school…. As I mentioned earlier, they are supposed to provide it in writing, including the impact on the board's five-year capital plan. Can the minister tell me if they provided a copy of that to the minister's office?

Hon. S. Bond: The document or the process that the member outlines is not something that is presented to the ministry. We don't get the document that is the result of their consultation process. What we do get is an annual capital plan, and on that capital plan, districts rank their priorities. I do not have, and my staff does not have with them, the capital plan from five years ago. We were just actually chuckling with one another. We'd need to be bringing a moving van, and already we have carts of binders. Doug was pointing out he'd need a whole lot more binders.

We can certainly go back and look at the capital plan, but that's the document that comes to the ministry, and it really outlines the priorities for the board of education. I don't have the last five years here, but we would not be in receipt of the document that is referenced in the board of education's policy around school closure.

J. Brar: I would like to table the school board policy here for the reference of the minister.

The minister is certainly confident that the board must have followed their own policy. This item is part of their policy, and it does confirm here that the minister's office did not receive, certainly, a copy of the impact on the board's five-year capital plan.

The other important piece in that one is — again, as per the Surrey school district policy — to provide a written kind of information to the parents and other stakeholders about the proposed use of the closed school, including a potential lease or sale. Can the minister confirm if they have provided that information to the minister's office?

Hon. S. Bond: The district is not required to tell us that they're going to sell the property. One of the things, as we discuss the capital projects as each member comes in…. We have to remember that boards of education are actually the owners of the property and the buildings. We've recently added a new phase to that which now requires boards to declare what is surplus to their needs, and they do that not for the short term, but we expect them to do long-term planning.

If they declare something surplus…. For example, if eventually this were to take place — and I am completing speculating, because I have no idea what the board intends to do with it…. If they were to declare it surplus, it would need to be identified on a list. It would go to a process that's now managed by Labour and Citizens' Services, and there would be a number of steps that we would have to go through, including: does government need the property, or is the community interested in it?

As far as I'm aware, we're far away from having an expectation of what will happen with this particular property, but there is now a process in place where a board is required to identify this as surplus. Having said that, if this board felt that this property was not something it could declare surplus, and that there would be a need for it in the future in some way, they would simply include that in part of their long-term planning and would not identify it as surplus.

The trigger for government to look at the property is if it's declared surplus based on the board's direction. We don't choose the properties they're going to sell or not sell.

J. Brar: What I'm talking about is basically the process when the Surrey school district makes a decision to close a school — whether they follow their own process or not — and what the role of the ministry is if the school district fails to follow their own policy.

According to this document, which I'm going to hand over to the minister, they are supposed to provide that information to parents and all other stake-

holders. My understanding is that the ministry is one of the stakeholders because the ministry provides funding to the school district.

I will certainly, again, re-emphasize to the minister to convey, through the staff, to the Surrey school board to provide the information according to their own policy to the parents and stakeholders as soon as possible. It should have been provided long ago, which is not the case.

In the absence of that information, Minister, certainly you are not aware of what they're going to do with the Fleetwood Elementary School space. There is speculation in the community, because the school board failed to provide accurate information, that this site, the Fleetwood Elementary School site, will be used for a SkyTrain station, when the SkyTrain is going to extend towards Langley.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I can assure the member opposite that we will make contact with the board of education. My comments reflect my view that, generally speaking, boards of education are very good at what they do, and they actually pay attention to their own policies.

Having said that, I have made the commitment that we will contact the board of education. Hopefully, I will be able, even as early as tomorrow, to come back and either provide that document or have some sense of where that is. I absolutely cannot, first of all, even speculate if this property would be deemed surplus. I have not been aware….

Certainly, we could check with Labour and Citizens' Services, but it would have to be declared surplus before it went anywhere. Then government would have the opportunity to look at that property and so would community, in that order. I cannot absolutely speculate on a SkyTrain station, and I'm at a significant geographic disadvantage, because I physically don't even know where that particular school is.

I will honour the commitment that I made to have someone contact the Surrey board of education to clarify whether or not they did indeed…. I would expect the answer to be that they did, but I will clarify that and make sure that we bring that information back to the table.

My last question to the minister is about the funding formula. Probably many of the members have asked the same question.

When it comes to Surrey, because of the size of Surrey and the number of students there, the funding formula change in the middle of the fiscal year hit Surrey very hard. As a result of that, the Surrey school district lost almost $3.6 million in the middle of the year. According to the trustees, it's very hard for them to make adjustments, because they had actually budgeted for the year.

I would like to ask the minister: how does the minister expect the Surrey school district to make a significant change to deal with $3.6 million, which is huge, without cutting any programs?

Hon. S. Bond: We certainly have canvassed the midyear funding adjustment. I said clearly then and will say it again now that the timing, obviously, was less than perfect. The boards of education made that very clear to us, and we certainly won't be contemplating that again. I think we've tried to work through that issue.

I don't want to back away from the equity issue. That funding formula change was important. There were boards across the province that were receiving funding for classes that children were not in. There were half-time students being funded on a full-time basis. Other boards were actually quite appreciative of the fact that we managed through that equity issue. The timing was not particularly well-received — and that would probably be an understatement.

In the case of the Surrey board of education, though, I have to point out to the member opposite that I have looked at these numbers over the last number of years, as I look at every district when we move forward. If you look at the recalculated amount — we do this as part of the ministry's process — for 2006-2007, the Surrey board of education actually received a 7.5 percent increase, and their population grew by 0.7 percent.

If you look at the '07-08 recalculated amount, their population grew by 1.3 percent, and they received 4.3 percent in terms of funding. If you look at their estimated 2008-2009 numbers, their student numbers are expected to go up by 0.3 percent, and their funding is going up by 3.4 percent. When I look at a five-year change, their student population has gone up by 4.8 percent, and their funding has gone up by 29.2 percent.

Their budget is almost half a billion dollars. While I recognize the challenges that they face with growth, we also see almost a 30 percent increase in their funding, while their student numbers have grown by 4.8 percent — significant growth but also a very significant growth in their budget.

We have recognized the challenges that the timing of the midyear adjustment created, but the equity issue was one that was important. I should point out again, for the record, that we protected funding for children with special needs and alternate programs, even during that funding adjustment, so that those programs continue to be funded in unique ways. They are not per course; they're actually, at times, by programs.

D. Cubberley: I'd like to embark on another area of questioning, but I'd just alert the minister that I'm probably only going to go for a short period of time and will have to pick this up again tomorrow. I'm going to be leaving and ceding the floor to my colleague from Vancouver-Kensington, who will close out the day's….

D. Cubberley: No, not at all. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind it myself. That's just fine.

D. Chudnovsky: Good afternoon to the minister and to members of the staff. It's great to be here this afternoon.

I want to first of all explain that we just didn't see fit that the member from Saanich talk for only five or ten minutes and then switch.

I also want to apologize in advance. I've got some cough candies in my mouth from time to time — not meant to be disrespectful to anyone. Even my students were allowed to do that when they weren't feeling well. If you balance it up, the disruption from the candy is probably less than the disruption to everyone if I'm coughing endlessly, so I apologize in advance.

I understand that during the FSA tests this year there were some logistical problems. I wonder if the minister could make us aware of what those problems were.

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is correct. The most significant adjustment was moving to an electronic delivery, and I think with any major technological shift…. We certainly did experience some challenges.

For the most part, there wasn't as much general downtime as there were some specific districts that had some challenges. There was a point on the second day where in fact all of the school districts were unable to access the system. We did have some growing pains. The member would be correct in making that statement.

D. Chudnovsky: What I'm interested in is some more detail on what the growing pains were. I think it's important for us to canvass that.

I heard from the minister that there was a point on the second day of the test where the whole system was down. Let's talk about that for a minute. We'll get to some other things in a few minutes.

How long was the system down, and what was the impact on students and schools where the tests were being administered?

Hon. S. Bond: Okay, we will confirm this. We have someone checking as we speak. But as far as we can tell, the impact when the entire system went down was, we think, less than an hour. It was not a long period of time, though certainly long enough, I'm sure, to cause some challenges in school districts.

The reason for that was network capacity issues, and there were challenges with that. My team describes it as: "We then sent in a SWAT team." I am not a technical person, but I'm assuming we actually sent in a team of people who were experts at what they did and who quickly resolved the issues.

I do want to get on the record, at the beginning of this discussion, the fact that this is a significant shift in how we deliver a service and that it requires — if you look at the total number of students that would be required to actually have an FSA — about 85,000 students. So we're looking at a fairly major shift. It was administered over a number of days in different periods and different times. The best I can give the….

Okay, well, this just in. This is obviously really significant technology, because it's a piece of paper. I know that I'm not allowed to use an electronic device anyway. We've had that debate already today.

The system was down for ten minutes; the whole system was down. Then the SWAT team arrived, and it went back up again.

D. Chudnovsky: To the minister: I, too, prefer the rudimentary technologies, because I can, most of the time, understand them.

The minister mentioned in her initial response on the question of disruption that there were also individual school districts where there was disruption. I wonder whether she could itemize those for us, please.

Hon. S. Bond: I don't want to claim that this is an exclusive list, because, you know, I don't know about little things. But I do know that where there were some persistent issues, certainly the staff readily was able to give me three districts that, obviously, were top of mind — Surrey, Nanaimo and Bulkley Valley.

D. Chudnovsky: Could the minister outline for us the extent of the disruptions in those school districts?

Hon. S. Bond: Generally, the problems in those three districts, while persistent, were the same type. The problem was the same nature, so I won't articulate them being any different. There were a variety of issues, but internal capacity was a challenge, and also there were some additional network problems. For example, a student might not have been able to log on, or there may have been timing out. So a student would start, and then the thing would time out. So what did we do about that? That would have been the case in Surrey, Nanaimo and Bulkley Valley.

We are certain there were probably little issues in other districts. I don't have an exclusive list. I should correct the word. We didn't send in a SWAT team. We used that as just an example of the fact that we did something fairly quickly. We sent in a technical team that actually worked with those districts. We increased capacity as quickly as we could, and we also looked at organizational issues and, basically, the flow. So we would suggest that if this group of students was taking it, perhaps this one could wait.

We did some organizational things and a lot of technical things, but I think the most important statistic to get on the record is that despite those technical chal-

lenges — and there were some and we admitted that and worked on them — 90 percent of our students finished an e-component within 90 minutes.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm interested in the minister's sense of what happened in schools when these disruptions occurred. Let me ask another question first. I'm sorry.

The answer that the minister just provided was long on what we did and short on what happened. I wonder if I could tease out a little bit more about what were the times, for instance. The minister said a few minutes ago that the entire system was down for ten minutes at one point. How long were the disruptions in this shorter list of districts that the minister referred to?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the member opposite would know that certainly I wasn't in a school in Surrey when it happened, but I do know this: it caused, I'm sure, unexpected interruption. I am confident it caused confusion and that there were changes that people needed to adjust to.

Did it go as well as we would have hoped or expected? No. We would have loved it to have been perfect, but we were moving to an electronic system to meet the needs of 85,000 learners in a fairly tight window. Having said that, there are…. So I recognize that.

We have already made changes that would see us, hopefully, avert those circumstances the next time. Certainly, there were significant benefits as well. They may seem insignificant to the member opposite, but they are important to us.

This moved away from the use of paper, for example. We actually looked at what this means in terms of an agenda that looks at being greener, for example. We reduced the use of paper by 80 percent — maybe not that significant but certainly something we considered. We look at the turnaround of the results — much more quick. In fact, it meant that parents could actually get the results more quickly than we have been able to deliver in the past.

Were there challenges? Absolutely. Would there have been unexpected circumstances that teachers would have faced with children in classrooms and out of classrooms and waiting and those kinds of things? Yes, there would have been. I can remember walking through those weeks on a daily basis with my staff, being reassured that each day something evolved, there was immediate attention and that it was dealt with individually across 60 school districts in the province.

D. Chudnovsky: Is the minister aware of the phenomenon of the wait time on a program, causing students to double-click to log on and, as a result, logging their classmates out of the test?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, I think that's what I referred to when I said timed out. A student would log on, work would begin, or however long they would be into that process. We probably would have considered that having been timed out.

D. Chudnovsky: Is the minister aware of instances…? In terms of that particular phenomenon, any idea of how many school districts at that particular…?

D. Chudnovsky: In terms of the phenomenon of double-clicking and logging the rest of the kids out, do we have a sense of how many places that happened? Was that Bulkley Valley and Surrey and Nanaimo, or did it happen in a bunch of other places as well?

Hon. S. Bond: Our team does have a detailed technical analysis of practically minute-by-minute occurrences. I can assure you that they were monitoring this on a daily basis.

The peak period of time appeared to be between about 9:25 and 9:40 in the mornings. The issue we then looked at was demand management and how we sorted through that. It depended on who was on and when they were on.

We certainly have a complete technical record of what happened in those circumstances, but the primary problem was between, as I'm informed…. Obviously, I'm not aware of every time someone logged on and off, but I certainly was aware of the challenges on a daily basis, and we do have a technical log.

Hon. S. Bond: We are happy to share that. We can't share it at the moment. We don't have it here.

Another factor I want to ensure is that there are no student identifiers on it. We don't want student information being named, obviously. The third thing is that it would also not identify problems that were problem-solved at the district level. The technical log would be where the ministry was involved in actually sorting through those issues.

D. Chudnovsky: I appreciate that. I understand that what she, in effect, is saying is that when we get this document, it will only show some of the logistical problems that people were faced with during the test. That's great.

I would assume that there are no student identifiers on the log as it sits. It's an e-document, is it not? Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that the only thing that would be there is a student number? Are names attached to that log?

Hon. S. Bond: I would assume not. I don't think the member needs to be concerned. We are prepared to share the information. As we would with any transfer of information, we simply make sure students are protected.

Absolutely, there were issues that boards across the province were quick to resolve and did that independently of the ministry. We were appreciative of that, actually.

D. Chudnovsky: Excellent. We will look forward to receiving that document. We will remind the minister from time to time if we don't get it, because that's what we do.

Was the minister aware of situations where students, because of the way that they ended their time on line in schools, were able then to go home and continue working on the test?

Hon. S. Bond: We were not specifically aware of that circumstance. It would require, as we understand it, an ability to actually hack into a program. I'm sure that the member opposite is leading to a path here where he's going to outline the fact that that did occur. If it did, we'd be happy to look at that. We were not aware of it. Not only that — if we had been, we certainly would have dealt with that. We were assured that that had not taken place.

D. Chudnovsky: We're quickly approaching a point at which my technological savvy is going to run out, but my understanding is that what happened is that the students didn't press "submit" at the end of the…. We've got bright kids in this province. They didn't press "submit" at the end of their time on line in school, and that allowed them to get back into the test.

Hon. S. Bond: No, we were not aware of that. And I have a terrific team. We're all pretty puzzled about why, first of all, a student would do that — obviously, maybe creativity or innovation or something to that effect. We're not even sure it's technically possible, but we are happy to explore that. We were not aware of that circumstance.

D. Chudnovsky: Well, if we were aware of why students did everything they did, life would be simpler but less interesting.

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, we were aware of that circumstance. In fact, what happened was that in our attempt to help people to become better informed about the format of the foundation skills assessment, we actually created a parallel assessment that would in essence mock the actual FSA. We obviously didn't do that in terms of the actual FSA. It was an opportunity to help people better understand the format and how it worked.

It had to do with…. When you put in your user name, there were a number of things done. Someone made a choice about using some inappropriate language. Once you signed back in, that language became apparent. We became aware of it, and it was fixed within 30 minutes.

D. Chudnovsky: I look forward and thank the minister for her offer to get us the technical log so that we can have a look at the range of problems that were experienced and dealt with.

I want to make, before I go on to the next questions, a comment about the move to putting the test on line. I've seen some of the advice that was received by school districts and schools. For instance, it was suggested to them that computer tech people have a look at the computers before they were used.

I haven't seen a computer tech person in a long time. I think it's really important, as we work with people in schools, that we be well aware of the challenges they face and the limits on the resources that are available for people to do the work that they do.

The minister is right that there is no doubt but that when a new system is put into place, there will be inevitable glitches. We can make a judgment, and we probably will over time, whether there were more or fewer than we might have expected in this situation.

So when the ministry suggests to school districts and schools that a computer tech person go over the computers, and nobody knows what a computer tech person is because there isn't such a person, or when the ministry moves to an on-line system and there are schools that don't have computers that are appropriate to that system, or any at all, that's going to be a challenge for schools.

I wonder whether I could ask the minister: how many students did not write the FSA test this year?

Hon. S. Bond: We're still finalizing the details. It looks like the participation rate was about 90 percent, and in fact, that's up a percent from last year.

D. Chudnovsky: Does the minister have available — either for this year, hopefully, or last year — what that 10 percent covers? Who are those children who didn't write the test?

Hon. S. Bond: The students that don't participate…. It's generally done on a case-by-case exception. It is done by the principal. Typically, the reasons for it may be language barrier. It may be children with particular special needs. It is based on a principal's decision.

Interestingly enough, recently we've come under criticism from the Representative for Children and

Youth, actually suggesting that it needs to be more broadly used. In fact, that was endorsed by the health officer Perry Kendall recently, as well. They are both strong advocates for us looking at why some children are exempt from the assessment, and they would like to see it more broadly applied.

D. Chudnovsky: I wonder if the minister could briefly explain to us how it's determined how many students wrote the test and how many didn't.

Hon. S. Bond: The participation rate would be fairly simple. It would be the number of students that would be eligible — grade 4s and grade 7s — and the number of students that actually wrote.

D. Chudnovsky: Just one little piece of clarification. The test is divided into pieces. Is the determination of the percent made on the basis of how many students wrote any one of the pieces of the test, or is the determination based on all of the elements individually?

Hon. S. Bond: We're just going to confirm that. I don't want to have an inaccurate answer on the record. I don't know it personally, so we're just going to double-check that. If the member would like to move forward, I'll share it as soon as I have it.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister for that. I'm going to turn to a whole other area, and that is the disposition of buildings and lands.

Earlier this afternoon I heard the minister talk about the notion of surplus being triggered by a board decision. I think I understood that, and I think the minister was clear about that. So it's the board that determines that a piece of land…. I stand to be corrected if I didn't hear correctly, but I think that's what the minister said.

My interest is in what happens or might happen after such a determination is made by a school board. A board determines that a piece of property is surplus. What happens then? What choices, options and rights does a school board have once it has made the determination that the land or property is surplus?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the work that we did last year in the Legislature…. They don't have an option. They actually create a list of anything that they deem surplus. But therein lies the work that they do. No one suggests to them what must or should be surplus. They make those decisions based on their plans.

Once they do that, they submit a list of their surplus properties to the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services. That list is then reviewed, first and foremost, by government to look at whether or not there might be a compatible or appropriate use for that land or building that government is interested in. We call it a match.

If there's not a match between some need that government might have, it then moves to a second phase of analysis. That would be at the community level. So you'd look at municipal governments, I think, as the next level.

At that point the third option is that if there are no matches in either of those two options, then the board has the ability to dispose of the land in another way with another interested party. But there is a very clear series of steps that are triggered once the designation of surplus is made by the board of education.

D. Chudnovsky: Let's take an example of a property that a school board has designated as surplus. The list has come to government. Government has looked at it and determined that there is not a match, as the minister described it.

The next step is other levels of government. Let's take communities or municipalities. Let's say that the municipality and the community and the school board together determine that there is a community use which is appropriate to that building and site. What happens then?

Hon. S. Bond: There's a clearly laid-out process under ministerial order that outlines it. I should just point out, too, that the definition of surplus property — and I want to make sure this is on the record because a number of members have asked about it — means real property not required by a board for educational purposes. It's a pretty broad definition, and it expects that there would be some long-term planning in place.

If we work through this, obviously the board must provide an inventory of surplus property to the Ministries of Education and Labour and Citizens' Services. There is a form that's been created, and that is then sent in. We then work through that, and it is called opportunity matching. So we work through the inventory. It is reviewed by government, and if there is an alternate government use, it must set out the description of that. Once notified, the board must negotiate in good faith with the potential purchaser — i.e., the government.

D. Chudnovsky: We're not going to come to the end of this today, so let me just follow up on what the minister said. I had really been asking about the next step, but let's delve into this step that she's just described in some detail.

So the board must negotiate in good faith with government in this first matching process. What does good faith mean? What is it that is the expectation as to the purchase or negotiation price of the real property? What is good faith in that situation?

Hon. S. Bond: In terms of the value of it, in terms of the fiscal value, it is fair market value.

I've just been handed a note. With that, noting the hour, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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