Hansard — Thursday, April 17, 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


Introductions by Members		11521

Tributes		11521
	Gwen Dowding
	M. Sather

Introductions by Members		11521

Tributes		11521
	B.C. wheelchair curling team
	Hon. O. Ilich

Introductions by Members		11521

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		11521
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 31)
	Hon. B. Penner
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 33)
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Translink Openness Act, 2008 (Bill M203)
	M. Karagianis

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		11522
	Prevention of violence against women and children
	M. Polak
	Esquimalt Neighbourhood House
	M. Karagianis
	Earth Day events and BARK environmental home design
	J. Rustad
	Arthritis
	S. Fraser
	Sea to Sky land and resource management plan
	J. McIntyre
	Sustainable development on Vancouver Island
	D. Routley

Oral Questions		11524
	Government action on domestic violence
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	D. Thorne
	Hon. W. Oppal
	L. Krog
	M. Sather
	Report recommendations for child protection services
	N. Simons
	Hon. T. Christensen
	Child death investigations by Representative for Children and Youth
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. T. Christensen
	Deaths of homeless people
	D. Chudnovsky
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	Taser use by transit police
	B. Ralston
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	Access to information on Olympic secretariat and VANOC meetings
	H. Bains
	Hon. C. Hansen

Petitions		11529
	C. Wyse

Reports from Committees		11529
	Special Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act
	R. Cantelon

Committee of the Whole House		11530
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act (Bill 16) (continued)
	J. Horgan
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	G. Robertson

Reporting of Bills		11537
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act (Bill 16)

Third Reading of Bills		11537
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act (Bill 16)

Second Reading of Bills		11538
	Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 14) (continued)
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	M. Karagianis
	B. Ralston
	D. Hayer
	G. Gentner
	L. Mayencourt
	H. Bains

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		11559
	Estimates: Ministry of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy (continued)
	Hon. S. Bond
	D. Cubberley
	J. Kwan
	C. Wyse
	R. Austin
	G. Gentner
	M. Sather
	J. Horgan
	D. Chudnovsky
	D. Thorne
	R. Fleming

D. Routley: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to introduce and embarrass a guest of mine. I promised him that I wouldn't introduce him, because I think he's a little shy. But I'm going to. He's a very good friend of mine. Corey Melchior is his name, and I'd like the House to help me welcome him.

He's one of those constituents that we all have who really keeps his eye on things. I think it's the ultimate accountability for government that people are engaged and realize what is happening.

Hon. S. Hagen: We have four very special guests in the gallery today from the beautiful Comox Valley. We have Tom Grant, Shawn Wilson, Ted Brooks and the mayor of Courtenay — who is a star — Starr Winchester. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

M. Sather: I would like to inform the House of the passing of Gwen Dowding on March 16. Gwen was the wife of Gordon Dowding, who was Speaker of this House in the early 1970s and introduced question period and full Hansard transcripts of proceedings.

Gwen moved to Vancouver from Manitoba in 1943 after her first husband was killed in the war. She became an accomplished photographer and was the official photographer for Theatre Under the Stars.

Gwen married Gordon Dowding in 1945. They had three children: Mark, Colin and Lisa. Gwen was a member of the Unitarian Church of Vancouver for more than 50 years, as well as a member of the Icelandic Höfn Society and the Icelandic Canadian Club of B.C.

She was elected to Burnaby council in 1972. Eventually Gwen and Gordon moved to Maple Ridge, where they lived for many years. Gwen moved to Parksville-Qualicum after Gordon's death in 2003 to be near her daughter.

Gwen was brave, intelligent, humorous, witty, loving and peaceful. She will be missed.

D. Hayer: It is my honour to introduce some very special guests today. They are our good friend Bob Hans, who is a community leader and a businessman; Mr. Bakhtawar Singh Sandhu, who is a businessman from Surrey; and his brother Tarsem Singh Sandhu who is a member of the Shiromani Akal Dal party of Punjab and ex-chairman of Punjab tourism. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. O. Ilich: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to announce that B.C. has once again struck gold at the 2008 Canadian National Wheelchair Curling Championships in Winnipeg. Team B.C. beat Ontario 8-6 to repeat as national champions.

On the team were longtime Richmond residents Vince Miele, Cindy Tucker, Melissa Soligo, Jacqueline Roy, Whitney Warren, Frank LaBounty and Jim Armstrong. I ask that the House please join me in congratulating Vince and the rest of Team B.C.

Hon. L. Reid: I wanted to welcome to the Legislature today Mr. Ross Lumb. He and I were teaching colleagues in Richmond. He's currently at Maple Lane Elementary School. It's delightful to have the opportunity to just say thanks to a teacher, particularly from Richmond, who continues to do an outstanding job on a daily basis.

Hon. B. Penner presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that Bill 31 be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm pleased to present the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. The bill contains amendments to the Environmental Management Act, the Forest Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act. It is my privilege to introduce the amendments to the Forest Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Forests.

This legislation has been prepared by our two ministries as part of this government's wide-ranging initiatives to address greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The amendments to the Environmental Management Act will add new provisions to that act, dealing expressly with requirements for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from certain sectors. One of these sectors is waste management, which includes

landfill operations. In addition, requirements are being added with respect to greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation facilities in accordance with commitments made in this government's 2007 energy plan.

This bill also contains amendments to the Forest Act. This year's Speech from the Throne noted that the government is committed to making British Columbia an alternative energy powerhouse in the Pacific century. The B.C. bioenergy strategy is being established to create new opportunities for using wood and other renewable fuels. The amendments to the Forest Act will encourage the development of a wood bioenergy sector.

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 31, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. W. Oppal: I am pleased to introduce Bill 33, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. The bill amends the following statutes: the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007; Degree Authorization Act; Financial Institutions Act; Forest Act; Forest and Range Practices Act; Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act; Motor Vehicle Act; Passenger Transportation Act; Pension Benefits Standards Act; Public Sector Employers Act; Teaching Profession Act.

In addition, the bill makes technical amendments to a number of other acts and repeals the Business Paper Reduction Act and the Scholarship Act.

Hon. 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 33, Miscellaneous 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. Karagianis: I move introduction of the Translink Openness Act, 2008, for first reading.

M. Karagianis: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce the Translink Openness Act, 2008. This bill will make TransLink board meetings open to the public. It will increase TransLink's accountability, transparency and openness.

Transit fares in the Lower Mainland are the highest in the country, and TransLink is raising property taxes. These are vivid examples of important decisions that the TransLink board makes. This bill will allow members of the public to participate in these and other important public transportation decisions that affect their everyday lives.

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

Bill M203, Translink Openness 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. Polak: To live a life free of violence and abuse is something that most of us take for granted. Sadly, as recent tragic events have shown us, violence in the lives of women and their children is closer than we'd care to admit. In families, in the workplace, at school and in the broader community, violence against women and their children continues to confront and challenge our society and us as individuals.

As government, we continue to invest resources in areas where we believe we can make a real difference — $1.2 million for partners in prevention grants to engage men and boys in the prevention of violence against women; $1.5 million to expand funding for culturally appropriate information and services to women experiencing abuse; $2 million for transitional housing developments in Victoria, Terrace and Vancouver's downtown east side; immediate 24-hour crisis line support through VictimLINK in 130 different languages and dialects.

In total, government provides almost $50 million a year in prevention and intervention supports for women fleeing abuse — supports like transition homes, counselling and outreach. These programs and initiatives are certainly making a difference, but government cannot do this alone. That's why it is so important to build public awareness.

Violence against women and children can continue only when we as individuals and communities turn and look the other way. As a woman and the mother of

a young woman, I look forward to a day when violence and abuse affecting women and children is a thing of the past. Prevention of Violence Against Women Week is an opportunity to remind ourselves and our communities that it is still here and that we must all work to end it.

M. Karagianis: Esquimalt Neighbourhood House Society is a multi-service social service agency dedicated to providing supportive services in my community. It has been serving the residents of Esquimalt, Vic West and View Royal for over 30 years. The society is committed to promoting health, education and social change within the community and has an amazing record of service propelled by an outstanding team of staff and volunteers.

It's with great pride that I note it was my predecessor, former Esquimalt-Metchosin MLA Moe Sihota, who assisted them in their search for a real home. With funding from the provincial government, the society was able to secure property on Constance Avenue. Dozens of citizens came forward to generously volunteer their time to help rejuvenate the vintage house into Esquimalt Neighbourhood House.

They are all deserving of enormous praise, but for now I will only single out Mr. Bryan Mee for his spectacular efforts on the project. Today Esquimalt Neighbourhood House is a pillar in my community providing exceptionally important programs and services to families with young children and mothers-to-be.

The Best Babies program helps pregnant women and their families until their babies are six months old, providing them with information on nutrition and health. Best Families takes over from there and provides ongoing services. Far too often, that even includes providing food.

Esquimalt Neighbourhood House prides itself on being able to offer volunteer work to people who may have had physical or mental disabilities and/or mental illness. The demand for services continues to grow every year, and Esquimalt Neighbourhood House always finds a way to do more with fewer dollars and provide for the needs and demands of the community.

Most recently the occasional homeless person has been found asleep in the yard, a sad sign of our times but an indication that Esquimalt Neighbourhood House is viewed as a haven of hope.

J. Rustad: Climate change is affecting us all. In my riding you only need to look at the dying pine trees or the two months of flooding last year to know that something has changed. As more people become concerned about the potential impacts of climate change, many are wondering what they can do.

One way to help raise the level of awareness is to participate in Earth Day on April 22. Earth Day has been celebrated for 38 years, and last year more than a billion people around the world participated in a number of events. This year international groups are calling for utilization of renewable energy, carbon-neutral buildings, protecting the poor and middle class in the new green economy and for a moratorium on new coal-burning plants.

In B.C. we can celebrate all of these achievements as each and every one of these goals is part of the direction our government is taking. But if we're really going to bring about change, we all need to get involved.

To that end, the Canadian Home Builders Association Northern B.C. is taking up the call. The theme of this year's Northern B.C. Home, Garden and Recreation Show on April 25 to 27 in Prince George is "Think Green." It will feature a very unique piece of Canadian technology called BARK.

BARK is a self-contained, all-terrain cabin that's designed to be completely off the grid. Everything in this unit is environmentally friendly and showcases Canadian design and ingenuity. This B.C.-built concept is truly a leader in the world and promises to be a real crowd-pleaser.

We can make a difference. We can find ways to reduce our impact on the environment, and I salute the Canadian Home Builders Association Northern B.C. for doing their part. I hope everyone will take time to participate in Earth Day on April 22, and I invite everybody to come and visit BARK at the home show April 25 to 27 in Prince George.

S. Fraser: One in six Canadians lives with some form of arthritis. There are more than 100 types of arthritis, and they are broken into two main groups, osteoarthritis and inflammatory arthritis. Arthritis affects people of all ages and has a serious impact on quality of life. Inexpensive, disease-arresting medications are available, but early diagnosis and treatment for rheumatoid arthritis are key to minimizing long-term disability and premature death.

Here are some of the challenges that we face. Fewer than 270 rheumatologists are actively practising in Canada today. Many people who live with inflammatory arthritis are treated by general practitioners and internists. Some of these have been able to stay current with arthritis techniques, but the fact is that GPs receive only 17 hours of training on musculoskeletal diseases during the entirety of their medical training.

British Columbians living in rural communities often fare worse in terms of accessing timely diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Aboriginal peoples are five times more likely to contract rheumatoid arthritis than non-aboriginal Canadians, and it is often more debilitating and more life-threatening. Arthritis is the leading cause of disability for people over the age of 15.

All these statistics are stark and highlight the seriousness of the condition and the costs to individuals and certainly to society in British Columbia and in Canada.

Here is what we need to do. British Columbians must be made aware of arthritis. We need education. All relevant health professionals must be able to perform standardized, age-appropriate screening assessment. They need education. Every British Columbian must have timely and equal access to appropriate treatments and medication. We as legislators definitely have a role to play in ensuring that all of this happens.

J. McIntyre: As we approach Earth Day, I'm proud to speak on a recent landmark achievement in the Sea to Sky corridor. On April 11, I was honoured to be a witness to a historic land use agreement signing with the Lil'wat Nation. With this, we have completed the Sea to Sky land and resource management planning process, paving the way for implementation.

In 2002 the planning for the Sea to Sky LRMP was initiated. In 2005 discussions began with local first nations to layer on their vision for land use in their respective territories to ensure harmonization with the 2004 LRMP recommendations developed by the community.

It's a vast area that's home to four first nations groups — the Lil'wat, In-SHUCK-ch, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish Nations. It's rich with cultural values and is known for its natural environment. Crown land use conflicts have been a sensitive topic for aboriginal and non-aboriginals in the Sea to Sky corridor as a result of the economic growth that's rapidly transforming the region.

Since 2005 our government has expressed its commitment to reconcile past differences with our first nations in the spirit of the new relationship, forging new partnerships based on respect and understanding that fosters expanded economic opportunities. Our government and communities of interests alike now share a vision with our first nations. With leadership and collaboration, we've successfully harmonized the interests of all parties.

I would like to recognize the four first nations representatives from the provincial government, including the integrated land management bureau staff, municipal governments, Squamish regional district and all the recreation industry and environmental groups who worked together to complete this.

Collectively, we've agreed on responsible development in the area to protect and sustain ecological values in our region for now and future generations. This historical agreement provides management direction for the creation of new conservancies, cultural places and cultural management areas, wild land zones and directions for front-country areas and wildlife habitat as well as riparian and floodplain ecosystems. We'll benefit from this framework.

D. Routley: I rise today to speak to the House about the concept of sustainable development on Vancouver Island. On Vancouver Island and throughout B.C. we're experiencing a great demographic pressure, a lot of it brought by the retirement of boomers from all across Canada coming to the warm climate here. In Victoria we have one of the lowest vacancy rates in the entire country and the highest vacant bedroom rate in the country, so we can see that our growth perhaps isn't being as well thought out as it might be.

Land use decisions can barely keep up to this rate of change in the cycle of election, the cycle of official community plan review. These things are not keeping up to the demands that are being placed on our infrastructure, our water, our hospitals, our roads and our transit.

Our core industries are in either crisis or downturn — forestry, tourism and fisheries. The industrial underpinning, the economy that would underpin this growth, is not being developed at the rate it needs to be. Water is under great pressure. The Chemainus River is being pressured with wells that might be installed to support development, despite lack of consultation with the first nations, the Halalt people.

Echo Heights, Paldi, Holland Creek — these are names in my constituency that conjure up a concern about the rate of development. Forest land conversions — we're seeing the privatization of those lands. There are many people struggling to keep up with this: the Vancouver Island farmers' alliance, mid-Island sustainable stewardship initiative, Youbou Timberless Society, Somenos Marsh Society, Cowichan Valley Naturalists, our first nations working on fisheries projects — all of these people. It's dangerous to name them, because there are so many working in this field, trying to bring some control to the shape and rate of growth.

Let's be smart about growth. Let's listen to the people affected. We decide, and if we don't decide well, we will pay very steeply with the loss of natural habitat.

M. Farnworth: Yesterday the community of Merritt — in fact, all British Columbians — were relieved to hear that Allan Schoenborn had been apprehended. But the community is still asking very important questions about how the whole case has been handled. Schoenborn was arrested three times the week before the murders. He was released by a justice of the peace in a tele-bail process that needs to be reviewed. A full day after the murders, police had not told the public that a potentially dangerous suspect was on the loose in their community.

My question is to the Solicitor General. Can he explain why that critical information was kept from the public for so long?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I do confirm that as the member for Yale-Lillooet said this morning, the community

and the police worked together on this investigation. The community is very supportive of their police, and I think it's important for the members of this House to realize that there is still a critical investigation going on. There is an individual that has been apprehended and taken into custody, but there is still an investigation going on which is very critical. It's important that I as Solicitor General do not make comments that might compromise that investigation.

I encourage all members to follow the lead of the MLA for Yale-Lillooet, support the work of the police and let the due process unfold. There are processes in place that will get the answers that the member is asking.

M. Farnworth: We all support the work of the police, but what the public wants is to have answers to questions. What we've seen this week — it doesn't matter whether it is the case in Merritt, whether it is the report from the children and youth commissioner or whether it's the Keeping Women Safe report — is that there appears to be a disconnect between the sharing of information. There is information that is not being shared between either agencies or the people making the decisions.

My question to the minister is: does he recognize that there is a problem in information-sharing, and if so, what is he going to do about it?

Hon. J. van Dongen: It's important, again, to acknowledge the seriousness of the issues involved in the crimes committed in Merritt. That is why the coroner's office…. The chief coroner very quickly announced that he would be holding an inquest subsequent to his investigation. That is one of the processes that will provide answers, in a fact-based way, to allow members of the public to learn, to allow the family and the community to learn how this tragedy unfolded.

There are other processes in place with respect to the conduct of the police, which people are free to use to examine the police conduct. Police are at arm's length from the Solicitor General, and it would be inappropriate for me to interfere in their operations or comment on them.

M. Farnworth: Issues around decisions — for example, on telephone bail, not directly related to this case — require that all the information is there. Issues that have been raised in the children and youth commissioner's report have outlined disconnects, a lack of sharing of information.

Does the Solicitor General not at least recognize — and let's put aside Merritt for a minute — that maybe now is the time to look at how government agencies and ministries and the justice system deal with issues of domestic violence, that now is the time to have a review of how we deal with that and how we share information between agencies and those making the decisions that can impact women and children across this province?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can assure this House that I'm not going to do what the member appears to have done and draw conclusions about the facts of these cases. It is important that we support, first of all, the people in the justice system who are working every day in good faith, doing their best to ensure that all of the appropriate processes are followed and that information is shared.

That is one of the goals of people within the system: to share information. But we have to be careful not to jump to conclusions before the proper processes have their opportunity to unfold.

D. Thorne: Yesterday's report called Keeping Women Safe called for critical changes to the way our justice system responds to domestic violence. Several of the key recommendations deal with the inability of government agencies to communicate and share information.

The similarities of yesterday's report from the children's representative to this report are startling. Underlying the urgency of this is the fact that both reports are pressing the government to immediately create an interministerial coordinating body with an ongoing budget — key words: ongoing budget — to coordinate government response to domestic violence.

I ask the Attorney General again today: will he commit to protecting women in this province by striking this interministerial coordinating body absolutely immediately — today, if possible, start that up?

Hon. W. Oppal: We recognize that violence against women is a very, very serious issue. We recognize that all of us — all members of the community and members of this House — ought to be concerned about this, and we must work together to resolve this issue which has been with us for many, many generations.

The point raised by the member is a valid one, and that is about the sharing of information. I can tell you that the criminal justice branch in my ministry is doing that now. We have established a creative, innovative approach. It's called the domestic violence response team wherein the police, prosecutors, social workers and community outreach workers will work together and share information. That should go a long way to resolving many of these issues.

We are all dedicated, and we're all committed to doing this. I can assure the member of that.

D. Thorne: With all due respect to the Attorney General — that his ministry is getting this problem under control — I think not. I think the community, the province at large, is very concerned. The Attorney General says that we should all be concerned. Well, I can assure the Attorney General on behalf of the people of British Columbia — certainly the people in my riding — that they are already very concerned.

The report is clear. No matter what the Attorney General thinks, B.C. is failing its women and children. The report states clearly: "Government must develop and maintain a comprehensive coordinated strategy to ensure that safety assessment and risk management are integrated." This is not happening, in spite of what the Attorney General says.

It's a simple question that I'm asking the Attorney General. He can make this committee happen. He can make it happen starting today if he chooses. Will he commit to this coordinated response, to a lead agency to coordinate so that women will stop falling through the cracks in British Columbia? Answer me now: a simple, simple yes.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, we were the ones who commissioned the report. We were the ones who wanted some answers. We were the ones who wanted to know how best we can solve these problems. I can assure you that we're committed to that.

I don't know what kind of committee the member has in mind. I don't know if establishing a committee is a response to anything. We have, with the people who are working on the ground floor — the prosecutors — established a policy wherein they're working together with all the workers who are working together with all the victims. They're doing that.

I'm not so sure what the member has in mind, but I can assure her that the spousal violence assault policy introduced by the criminal justice branch is a policy that takes into consideration many, many of the recommendations made by the report that we received this week.

L. Krog: Well, the Attorney General says: "We're the ones who commissioned the report." I have news for the Attorney General. They were the government that also made deep cuts. They're the government that's never apologized for making those cuts, and they're the government that's never admitted they should make changes.

What British Columbians deserve to hear from this government and need to hear from this government is some accountability at long last. The place to start, with respect to domestic violence, is with this report. In all, there were 65 recommendations to help protect women from domestic violence. Will the Attorney General commit today to implement all 65 recommendations?

Hon. W. Oppal: Obviously, we're examining the report. We have to look at all of the recommendations. I think the report is a good report. It fairly sets out the circumstances of what has taken place in the past 20, 25 or 30 years in this province, and it makes some very sound recommendations. Obviously, we'll take the recommendations into consideration.

L. Krog: With the greatest respect to the Attorney General, the time for consideration is long past. That's the point of having the report.

Two significant reports this week have exposed serious weaknesses in the government's ability to protect women and children, and the tragic murders like the ones in Oak Bay and Merritt are telling us we need to do better. But we haven't had any commitment today from this government that they're really going to make the changes necessary.

My question is to the Minister of Community Services, who has some special responsibilities — who isn't here. Sorry.

L. Krog: My question, then, is to the Attorney General. He knows what the issues are. He has two reports. We've got two serious incidents. Will he make that commitment today? Sixty-five recommendations — they're reasonable. Let him commit here today.

Hon. W. Oppal: Let me say this. Everybody in this House is concerned with this issue. I take seriously what the member opposite has said. I'm completely satisfied that his motives are entirely honourable and that he's genuinely concerned about violence against women. Tragically and unfortunately, this cancer has been with us for many, many generations, and we have to resolve it together.

We will examine that report. We will look at the report, and we will move forward from the report. It's a good report. I said that before, and I'll say it again. We will look at it, and we'll examine carefully all of the recommendations that are made. We'll consult with the community partners who would be involved in implementing the recommendations in order to resolve this very difficult issue.

Before being elected to this office, for several years I led treatment programs for assaultive men who were mandated by the courts. Unfortunately, what I saw was that the use of police reports to confront the men about their behaviour was being discouraged.

Assaultive men are very adept at not taking responsibility for their actions and for blaming their victim. The use of the police report is very important. It's uncomfortable, but it's very important in getting the man to take responsibility. Yet I saw this government change direction to make that more difficult.

My question to the minister is: will he ensure that the open use of police reports in assaultive men's treatment programs is not restricted in order to ensure that the safety of women and children comes first?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can't comment on the specifics of the member's question, but I will assure him

that all of the relevant information that came out of the recent report on domestic violence will be considered in my early discussions with police-based and community-based victim services people.

There is a lot of good work going on in terms of risk assessment, and I can also confirm for this Legislature that this government has invested significant additional dollars in transition houses to provide safety for victims of domestic violence.

M. Sather: While I encourage the minister to consult the files, I did apprise the minister of this issue back in 2004. The report Keeping Women Safe made some important recommendations for assaultive men's treatment programs. They identified problems with lack of adequate availability of treatment as opposed to educational approaches to assaultive men's counselling and emphasized the central role of accountability strategies.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Men are being let off the hook in these treatment programs. What is the minister going to do to ensure that accountability is put back in assaultive men's treatment programs? When will he act to protect the women and children of this province?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said in my previous answer, we will examine the latest report and all of the other advice from people both in the system and within our ministry to take the appropriate actions to ensure that we continue to build a better approach and better systems to dealing with the protection of victims and dealing with offenders when it comes to domestic violence.

N. Simons: Yesterday B.C.'s Representative for Children and Youth released a scathing report into the government's lack of progress on protecting children and helping families. The minister said that he welcomed the report, but British Columbians want to know what he'll actually do in terms of more than just saying that he welcomes it. They're skeptical because of this government's failure to act in the last seven years.

Will the minister do more than simply welcome the report and commit to implementing all of its recommendations?

Hon. T. Christensen: I will confirm that the government certainly does welcome the report. As I said yesterday, I think it's important that we have critical analysis of the work being done by the ministry to protect children and families.

We believe that the report provides a solid learning opportunity. We believe that the recommendations were put forward in a spirit of ensuring that the system gets better. That's the spirit with which we accept those recommendations, and we will be working closely with the representative. We will be working closely with the select standing committee to report on how we can use these recommendations to improve outcomes for children and families across the province.

There are elements of the recommendations that we want to have further discussion with the representative about, but certainly the general direction of the recommendations is very consistent with the work that the ministry is doing and will continue to do.

N. Simons: We've heard assurances in the past that the government was working on things, but we've seen quite clearly that they've had seven years, and they've failed to address the issues that they have been repeatedly told need to happen.

Considering this government's track record on openness and accountability…. They tried to hide the report. They tried to delay it, and now they're saying they welcome it.

The people of British Columbia want to know specifically: will he state clearly that the government has learned its lesson and that they will implement the representative's recommendations?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member may want to rewrite history, but I think we should actually learn from history. We have gone from a situation where only 59 percent of the positions in the north actually had employees in them that do the work with children and families to 98 percent today. That's a dramatic improvement.

I'm not going to suggest for a moment that there's not more work to be done. I certainly believe that the report of the representative will help us in continuing to improve services to children and families.

I also believe it's worth acknowledging that the front-line workers across this province, day in and day out, work in very challenging situations. We are working hard to support them, to put the resources there that they can rely on. We've added supervisor positions to ensure that front-line workers have the supervisory support that they require. We believe very much that these recommendations will assist us in doing more to strengthen practice on the front lines.

M. Karagianis: Well, there is certainly a bit of a theme emerging here today. Report after report of failure by this government, and this government continues to refuse to commit to acting on the recommendations in any of these reports. In both the Oak Bay and the Merritt tragedies, the murdered children were linked with the Ministry of Children and Families.

My question is to the minister. Will he confirm that the Children and Youth Representative will investigate those deaths and the role of the ministry, and will make recommendations flowing from the tragic deaths of those children?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member knows well what the mandate of the Representative for Children and Youth is. It may come as a surprise to the members opposite, but the ministry actually doesn't dictate what the representative investigates. Her legislation does, and I have every confidence that the Representative for Children and Youth will fulfil her mandate.

M. Karagianis: Well, the children's representative isn't allowed to let the community know she's investigating children's deaths. She's asked for the power to do that, and the government has said they will bring in a change at some point. Who knows?

When will the minister bring in the legislation to empower the representative to let families and communities know that a child's death is being investigated?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member should know that in both of the tragic circumstances that the member refers to, there are ongoing coroners' investigations. Those will proceed. Those will inform all of us in terms of what has happened and what improvements might be made. I think we should allow those processes to continue. As I indicated, if the Representative for Children and Youth is mandated to investigate these particular circumstances, I have every confidence that she will be doing that.

D. Chudnovsky: The office of the chief coroner has released statistics which show that at least 56 homeless people died in B.C. over the last two years. This is a rate 19 percent higher than the rest of the population. Experts on homelessness who have looked at the report conclude that the figure of 56 deaths is a dramatic undercount — 56 deaths, a dramatic undercount.

The fact that the death rate for homeless people is so much higher than the rest of us means that many of these deaths were preventable, if only those people had somewhere to live. If you're homeless, you are more likely to die. Will the Solicitor General explain to the House what specific measures he's taking to reduce the outrageous and unacceptable mortality rate of homeless people in B.C.?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I regret that I don't know the details that the member is referring to, so I will take the question on notice.

B. Ralston: My question is for the Solicitor General. In the last year transit police used Taser stun guns on passengers who refused to pay fares and ran away. Will the minister confirm that he intends to do absolutely nothing to stop this practice?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Every day police in the province of British Columbia put themselves at risk to protect the public. We give them the tools to do this job, both to protect the public and to protect themselves in risky situations. A Taser is one of those tools.

There are certainly legitimate concerns raised about the Taser. That is why this government appointed an independent public inquiry under former judge Thomas Braidwood. Commissioner Braidwood has confirmed that he will review recent examples of the use of the Taser by the GVTA police. He will review all of the previous studies and comments, which will allow him to provide a report to the public near the end of June.

So it is a serious issue. That's why the commission is in place, and it will report out phase 1 at the end of June.

H. Bains: It has been reported in the media that the Olympic secretariat office has stopped keeping written records of its meetings. My question is simple to the minister responsible. When was he first made aware of this practice, and does he agree with that practice?

Hon. C. Hansen: The Olympic secretariat is an important part of my ministry and is overseeing the provincial government's participation in the games, and I am not aware of any change in practice.

H. Bains: It's about time this minister got on with the file of this Olympics. It has been neglected for the last three years. This is how bad it is. The freedom-of-information manager for the ministry told the Georgia Straight that she had been…

H. Bains: …told by the secretariat that it had decided to stop recording minutes of its meetings without explanation. Not only had the secretariat stopped keeping minutes of its meetings, but VANOC had also stopped sending its minutes to the secretariat.

Where is the transparency and where is the accountability that this Premier ran his campaign on? Will this minister start to show some leadership and ask VANOC himself — and the secretariat — to keep the public and the taxpayers…? With all of the information that is going on behind those closed doors, will he ask them to keep those minutes public?

Hon. C. Hansen: Let's talk about leadership. Let's talk about the leadership from VANOC.

Hon. C. Hansen: We know that the NDP have been in a quandary about the Olympics because their leader was opposed to it, then wasn't sure about it and now maybe supports it. We've got some members who say they support it, and then they demonstrate that they don't.

The leadership that we have shown around the 2010 Olympics means that for the first time in the history of the Olympic movement, we're going to have every single sports venue completed 14 months ahead of the actual date.

We have seen for the first time in the history of the Olympic movement the most transparent organizing committee that is sharing information with the public on the website. All of the agreements are on the website for the public to witness.

We know that the athletes are excited about 2010. We know that British Columbians from corner to corner to corner of this province are excited about 2010. It's about time the NDP got excited about the Olympics.

C. Wyse: I present a petition of 104 asking for the implementation of the medical, health and safety report entitled Population and Oil and Gas in the Northeast, including the memorandum of understanding between the Northern Health Authority and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

R. Cantelon: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act for the fourth session of the 38th parliament.

R. Cantelon: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

R. Cantelon: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like to make some brief comments.

R. Cantelon: The report of the Special Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act contains the committee's findings and recommendations on the first statutory review of the law.

Keeping personal information private is vitally important. In our report, the committee wanted to enhance the privacy safeguards, but at the same time we balanced that goal against imposing unnecessary regulations on businesses, especially small businesses.

Our key recommendations relate to enhancing accountability for cross-border data flows; mandatory notification of privacy breaches in certain circumstances, particularly with respect to credit and health information; banning the use of blanket consent forms by provincially regulated financial institutions; revising consent exemptions to better address business practices in the insurance industry; retaining the minimal fee for access to personal information; permitting the disclosure of personal contact information for health research — an issue which was followed and paralleled with the Ministry of Health; streamlining the complaints process in the province's privacy laws; especially, strengthening the Information and Privacy Commissioner's oversight powers.

In closing, I'd particularly like to thank the committee members for their efforts and also acknowledge the studious and excellent work of Josie Schofield, our committee researcher. I would also like to express our appreciation to the witnesses who appeared before us and all those who provided written submissions.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 16 in this chamber and in Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, continued debates on the estimates for the Ministry of Education.

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION
(RENEWABLE AND LOW CARBON
FUEL REQUIREMENTS) ACT
(continued)

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

J. Horgan: I wonder if the minister could assist me in understanding section 6(2), and I'll read it for those who don't have the bill in front of them. "Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to Part 3 fuel that the Part 3 fuel supplier expects, on reasonable grounds, will be used for a purpose other than (a) transport, or (b) if applicable, another prescribed purpose."

The reason I raise this question is that as we go through the remainder of Bill 16, there are a number of locations and a number of clauses that make reference to prescribed purposes, which of course we have no knowledge of at this time because the regulations are not accompanying the act.

If the minister could just enlighten me on what potential other prescribed purposes might be in that category.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I will introduce again the staff with me today. On my right is Paul Wieringa, executive director of alternative energy, electricity and alternative energy division. On my left is Michael Rensing, air quality program analyst, bioenergy renewables branch, electricity and alternative energy division. Right behind me is Janice Larson, who is a director in the bioenergy and renewables section of the ministry.

I'll give you two quick examples. One could be off road, and one might be marine.

J. Horgan: If one might be marine, would then B.C. Ferries be required…? B.C. Ferries is not part of this act, but it is an issue that has been raised in discussions inside this place. Would B.C. Ferries be covered under that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, B.C. Ferries would be covered because they use light diesel and not a bunker.

J. Horgan: Moving along to 6(3): "a Part 3 fuel supplier must determine, in accordance with the regulations" — again, which are forthcoming — "the carbon intensity of each of the Part 3 fuels that it supplies in the compliance period by either (a) applying the default carbon intensity deemed by the regulations to be the carbon intensity of the Part 3 fuel, or (b) determining the carbon intensity of each component of the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the Part 3 fuel."

As I read that, I'm coming to a conclusion that the provider of the product — the part 3 fuel provider — is to determine the carbon intensity of the product. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, it's not their decision. The ministry will set default value. I'm told that if you go down further to (b)(iii), they have the opportunity to actually argue a point with the legislation, the regulations that will be in place. It is definitely a decision by regulation, by government.

J. Horgan: I know it's difficult to jump around on a bill, but while we're still on section 6, I've skipped ahead to part 4, "Administrative Penalties," at which place we will find a formula that says if one therefore equals, and so on…. It's in section 9, just for staff to quickly gander at.

As I'm looking at section 6 about what the requirements will be in regulation, the administrative penalties that will flow from those regulations are in a section to come. Is that the way these intensities are going to be calculated — by regulation, by the ministry, published for part 3 suppliers to meet?

G. Robertson: In terms of measuring the carbon intensity for these part 3 fuel suppliers, what staffing and resources is the ministry allocating to establish the carbon intensity of each of these potential fuels and/or to audit the fuel suppliers and their findings?

Hon. R. Neufeld: This doesn't come into force until 2010, and when that comes into force, we will have the required people to actually do that kind of thing. For the compliance we will work with other ministries, because you can do cross-ministry compliance, especially in the tax division. That's one ministry that I can actually think of.

G. Robertson: That sounds like a fairly vague commitment to ensuring that the carbon intensity is accurate. Of course, it makes a huge difference if it is or it isn't.

I'm concerned about the measurement of carbon intensity, specifically with biofuels originating from the tropics from forest land that has been deforested to produce palm oil, for example. Will the calculation of carbon intensity by this government factor in the deforestation that takes place to cultivate crops for biofuels that are then sold to British Columbia?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, we discussed 25(b) just a little while ago. I believe that I read in their life cycle, and I read in wherever it originates from, whether it's inside of British Columbia's borders or outside.

G. Robertson: Let me just make this a little clearer. Life cycle is not in the definitions, and life cycle is certainly a term that has flexibility to it.

Some of the calculations on carbon intensity globally have not factored in the deforestation that precedes the production of biofuels from tropical rain forest, the land that was forested prior to the biofuel crops being developed.

I want the minister to be very explicit that the carbon intensity of fuels that are exported from the tropics where rain forest has been removed to produce biofuels — the actual deforestation — will be factored into the carbon intensity for purposes of biofuels imported to B.C.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I'll say that when we talk life cycle, which we talked about earlier, we will have them report to us where they actually get their feedstock from, how they get their feedstock. There's international convention around those kinds of things that will take place. I think we're going to do absolutely the best job we possibly can, and this bill actually states that.

J. Horgan: I know we will be able to plow through fairly quickly in some of the subsequent sections, but it's this issue of carbon intensity. I know that when we get to section 25, we can perhaps ask again about the life cycle and the definition for that and who is going to be determining that. But I think the member from Fairview hits on a question that's really bedevilling us on this side of the House.

The minister has acknowledged that certainly there's significant public sympathy for finding alternatives to reduce our carbon footprint. This has been considered one of the options in the past, but as more and more work is done on this file and as more and more displaced agriculture and more and more deforestation happens, the public starts to ask different questions.

If the minister is confident there are international conventions that are going to determine what the carbon intensity might be of a palm derivative that's shipped from Indonesia to British Columbia and then maybe tanked or piped to some processing plant in another jurisdiction and then brought back here….

If the minister is confident we're going to be able to determine that in such a way as to say that the carbon intensity is neutral, that's fine. But in my mind, when I contemplate all of the greenhouse gases that would have to be emitted to have that product arrive at our shores, I'm confused.

If the minister could tell me where these conventions rest, who created them and who will be updating them, maybe I could do some more research.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Certainly, there's lots of debate around the issue. I've said that from the start. I'm not saying there isn't going to be lots of debate. There will be debate on both sides of the issue.

We want, as I said earlier, to use the best available science that we possibly can to move this issue forward so that we can reduce our carbon footprint. We on this side of the House, the government, believe that we need to actually reduce our carbon footprint. We have to do it in a rational way and do it through science and those kinds of things, instead of you and I — I'll speak for myself — who maybe can't go and figure out all the science. But there are people that can actually do that for us.

So there's lots of debate. There's debate in California and Michigan and the universities there around these issues, and we will certainly be part of it. I would say it's great that we're at the leading edge, because we will be able to have some influence on some of those things as we move this forward. I think that's an important place to be. I would rather be at the leading edge, with our people actually having to get some of our information in there about how we do this, than be waiting for some other jurisdiction to decide what it is, and then we just have to live up to that.

You know, Member, you should take some comfort…. I know the card you're playing. I hear it from you; I understand. You're trying to say that we're trying to take food off the table.

We had that discussion already. We went at length about that discussion. I think what we should get on with is actually starting to figure out how we reduce our carbon footprint here in the province of British Columbia.

J. Horgan: Again, it's not as simple as just fuel for food. It's the transport of the product from other jurisdictions. If we're not producing the biofuels here in British Columbia, and that's a significant possibility…. This sector is growing in other parts of the world. That's what has led to the debates internationally about the efficacy of this product to reduce greenhouse gases.

My example that I put forward was the case of Indonesia, where palm oils are being used to produce alternative fuels. They're then tanked to British Columbia, emitting greenhouse gases along the way. They are then potentially tanked or piped to a refinery, where they're added to fuels and then brought back to the marketplace sometimes by tanker, sometimes by pipe — again, all the while emitting greenhouse gases.

When we look at the carbon intensity issue and why we've spent so much time on this, it is that…. Absent the regulations and absent some international standard whereby the product, where it is produced, is monitored to the pump and to the customer, I think it's difficult for us to measure whether or not there's a net benefit to this process. That's where the debate, I think, is now raging not just in this Legislature but right across the country and, in fact, around the world.

With that, I'll just say again that the carbon intensity issue is one that I'm not satisfied has been answered in this debate. The minister will say and has said that the regulations will follow, and we'll have a better understanding of that. When we get to 2010, we'll have a better understanding of how providers of the product will be meeting these targets. But today we're basically — as we have with other bills in this vein with respect to greenhouse gases — writing a blank cheque for the government of the day.

If that's acceptable to the government, if they want to say to the public, "Just trust us," I guess, as an oppo-

Hon. R. Neufeld: I know the member tries to expand this. "Oh yes, it's all going to come from Indonesia. It's going to come to British Columbia and then someplace else and then come back." I appreciate that what you want to do is build the worst case possible. I appreciate that, but I also want you to listen to some of the….

Hon. R. Neufeld: Through the Chair. I also want you to listen to some of the things that the universities are telling us, those people working with these issues. There is a benefit to using corn ethanol or cane ethanol or biodiesel or cellulose ethanol. There is a benefit to it at the end of the day.

You know what? I'll go back to what I said this morning. If you don't want to reduce your carbon footprint, stay with the NDP agenda. Do nothing. Keep on doing what we're doing today. Or if you want to move forward the way the world is moving forward in reducing its carbon footprint, in reducing its carbon footprint and reducing its greenhouse gases, then join with us. If you want to stay on the old track and keep down the old track, you can keep down the old track for as long as you want, but we on this side of the House are saying that we want to actually have a mix of 5 percent each by 2010.

I think we're on the right track. In fact, I know we're on the right track to reduce our carbon footprint and our greenhouse gases in the province of British Columbia.

The Chair: I'd like to just remind members that you speak through the Chair.

G. Robertson: Well, the minister's wrong-headed rant there cannot go unopposed.

We on this side of the House are absolutely committed to reducing our carbon footprint, our greenhouse gas emissions. We have demonstrated that in our support for government bills, though they didn't present much backup to them and research.

We're repeatedly asking questions of the minister here. Where's the backup? Where's the research? Where's the data to demonstrate that this is going to reduce our carbon footprint in B.C.?

The minister has failed to demonstrate that today. He has not put a single substantiated number on the table in this House to demonstrate that a 5 percent biofuel requirement is going to reduce B.C.'s carbon footprint. That's what we're asking about here.

We want to make sure this has substance to it because around the world, people are raising the concerns — whether it's in Indonesia or British Columbia — that biofuel is not as good as we thought it was, that biofuel could in fact represent a significant increase in carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions if it's not done right.

We have raised it repeatedly in second reading and now third reading of this bill. These are huge concerns around the world right now, whether they're for carbon footprint or world food supply. We're raising these concerns because we care and because we want to be sure that legislation that comes through this House has had the scrutiny it is required to have for us to appropriately represent the people of British Columbia today and into the future.

People in the future — if they're saddled with this requirement for biofuels when, in fact, it is increasing our greenhouse gas emissions — are going to look back at this day in this House and in the second reading when this minister failed to substantiate his case for the legislation and was unable to present a factual case for why a 5 percent requirement that is enabled by this legislation will in fact reduce carbon footprint.

Just for the record, from this side of the House, I want to emphatically state that we are committed to reducing the carbon footprint. We are aghast that this minister cannot present the case. We don't besmirch the good work that takes place in the ministry. We're sure that the public servants who have worked hard on this have done all they could do. But given the changing frame with biofuels right now and given this government's radical shift to actually look at embracing a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the adequate time has not been invested in presenting the facts.

What we're seeing here is a piece of legislation that needs a lot more work on it and needs a lot more substance. We've forwarded amendments that ensure the sources of this biofuel are sustainable. The government has rejected that — rejected sustainable source biofuels.

Do we need to rest our case with that? We're doing everything we can, on behalf of the people of B.C. and the future generations that rely upon our wise decisions, to make sure that this bill is not pushed forward with unintended consequences of increasing greenhouse gas emissions and creating more food crisis than we already have.

One final last chance for the minister. In terms of life cycle and his pledge that the life cycle, as envisioned here in section 6, will in fact be rigidly measured and will be sustainable…. Can he present some factual evidence that the work has been done and that there is no chance whatsoever of the carbon footprint increasing as a result of the use of biofuels mandated by this legislation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: What's not adequate here is that the member hasn't read the bill. That's what's not adequate here. He would have known that when they presented their amendment, it was already in the bill. If they would have just read the whole bill, they would have found that what they were amending was already in the bill. It's already there. That's what's inadequate.

It's interesting for the member for Vancouver-Fairview to stand up — the next wannabe mayor of Vancouver…. The city of Vancouver is actually smart enough to already start using biofuel in their equip-

ment without it being a requirement. I can only assume this member, if in fact he runs for mayor and wins, would actually take that out right away. I think that's probably what he would do.

There's been lots of data and lots of things done here. For him to stand up and say this isn't done in other places in the world is absolutely ridiculous. That's how ridiculous the argument is.

This isn't outside of what is already transpiring around the world. When we look at carbon intensity, when we look at reducing greenhouse gases…. For the member to stand there and say to the staff that they haven't done their homework and haven't done their work, and that the people who work in the ministry and the people in universities haven't done their work is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable to British Columbians.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister just said that the member indicated that staff hadn't done their homework. The member specifically, immediately previously to the minister speaking, lauded the staff for the hard work that they do.

So it's completely and totally inappropriate for the minister to suggest that the member said something different from that.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yeah, well…. Look, I know you're all jumping to defend one another. I don't blame you, because you're so mixed up on this issue that you're not really sure whether you're coming or going.

We've got one member of your caucus who says they'd use 100 percent biodiesel if in fact it was available. I mean, she spoke about it, and she spoke glowingly about it. She said she wanted to do that. She's actually lobbied government to have it in ferry systems and government systems all across the province of British Columbia. The critic himself burns it in his tank to heat his home.

Then we have the member for Vancouver-Fairview jumping up and saying the world is going to end, in fact, if we continue that. I guess there's only a few that the member for Vancouver-Fairview thinks should be able to use it. I guess that's the old socialist way of thinking.

We actually want to reduce greenhouse gases in the province of British Columbia. We've told you how we're going to do that. This bill allows us to do it. We want to have renewable fuels in the province of British Columbia — 5 percent of each in gasoline and diesel fuel, something that's coming in gasoline whether we like it or not. We ought to be on the train and make sure that we do it right.

Diesel fuel. We're going to be just a little bit tougher. If you don't want to reduce your carbon footprint…. If you want to continue to import your goods and services from Indonesia and not account for them, you go ahead and do that. But on this side of the House, we want to reduce greenhouse gases. We've got a target to reduce greenhouse gases.

This bill deals with carbon intensity and renewable fuels. That's what is on the docket today to talk about, and we're going to do that for the province of British Columbia for the benefit of those yet to come.

You can say no, which you did in second reading. You voted against it. That's fine. We're actually moving it forward.

On the point of order, the member raises an issue of dispute of facts and in debate has ample opportunity to clarify.

J. Horgan: Just while I'm on my feet, before I start into section 8, I do want to say — and the minister knows this — that I was heaping praise on his staff not 24 hours ago. There's no question whatsoever that we on this side of the House believe that the staff of the ministry are doing everything they possibly can.

What we are saying is that there's a dispute in the science. The ministry can only take what they're directed to from above. The staff are doing the work they're just directed to do. So let's leave it at that and move on.

With respect to section 8, we have here transfers between part 3 fuel suppliers, and as I read (1)(a)(i), it goes as follows: "an amount of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions equal to all or part of the amount that the first Part 3 fuel supplier could have had attributable to the Part 3 fuel that it supplied in a compliance period without exceeding the prescribed carbon intensity, or…." And on it goes.

Is this a trading of carbon intensities? Is this an opportunity for part 3 fuel providers to exchange credits, similar to a cap-and-trade system?

J. Horgan: That strikes me as something we were debating in another bill the other day, Bill 18. If this is a mini cap-and-trade model, I'm curious, again…. This is another one of those trust-me's. How is this going to be monitored? How many staff are going to be brought on to ensure that part 3 providers, when they're trading credits on an intensity that we're not yet certain is defined…? How is that all going to come together?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't want you to get it mixed up with cap-and-trade because cap-and-trade is something that's larger than just British Columbia. This is fuel suppliers within the province of British Columbia, so they can trade back and forth. If in fact in the north in the winter, it's going to cause an effect…. If you're operating in 40- or 50- or 60-below weather or some-

thing, the fuel may gel. Then you can actually trade if somebody is putting in B15 or B20 or something in the Lower Mainland that's available and can be burnt. They can actually trade those back and forth so we meet the average of 5 percent across the province.

J. Horgan: Well, that's very interesting. So then this is a two-tiered bill. We talked in an earlier section about winter conditions. Mr. Stoner from the Petroleum Institute made reference to their concerns that in cold weather climates, the biofuels may not have the same efficiency as they would in warmer climates.

So if I understand what the minister just said, at certain times of the year — to meet the 5 percent standard — suppliers in the Lower Mainland will increase the percentage in fuels that they're providing to customers. Providers in other parts of the province — northern parts of the province, colder parts of the province — will have less. So is that a two-tier system — biofuels for the Lower Mainland and nothing at all for Peace River North or South?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As we speak, there's B10 and B20 already available in the southern part of British Columbia that's being used. I'm not sure whether it's on Vancouver Island, but I think it's in Vancouver.

But if there are areas where it gets too difficult to actually be able to use a mixture, what we're saying is that you can trade that back and forth. That's how you arrive at an average. I'm surprised that the member didn't understand averages, having studied this bill and all the things around it so much.

That's actually the way the federal program is also going to work — on averages, not that every speck of every jurisdiction has to actually meet that 5 percent by 2010. There's a way that they can average that out. That just makes absolute good sense.

It's nothing new. It's what we're going to be faced with. When you talked earlier about, "We should align ourselves with the federal government," well, I guess this does it in one way — the 5 percent ethanol by 2010. I mean, there's a way that you can trade those credits around so on average in the province….

I think the member or one of the other members asked a question in regards to how we're going to actually monitor this. By 2010, as I said earlier, we'll have the ministry and the complement of staff to be able to do that and to actually inspect and make sure those types of things are happening in a way that respects the bill.

J. Horgan: Well, I think the minister and I have hit on the reason we have committee stage debate on legislation. I certainly understand averages, but it wasn't until the minister stood in his place and said that there will be times of the year in certain parts of the province where the 5 percent requirement will be exempt, in essence, because of this section of the bill.

I certainly understand what the minister just said, but were it not for the exchange we just had, it would not have dawned on me that at some points in the year in some parts of the province, this requirement of 5 percent, in essence, won't apply.

I know that's what the minister just said, so could I just have him confirm that — that during the winter months in those locations in the province that suffer severe and brutal cold, compared to my lily existence here on southern Vancouver Island….

Again, I understood what the minister said, but I just want him to confirm that at some times of the year in some parts of the province, the 5 percent requirement will not be in effect.

Hon. R. Neufeld: On average, it will be in effect all the time — on average, 5 percent.

I appreciate what the member said. I've lived in the north most of my life. I lived in Fort Nelson for 19 years. Fort Nelson is the end of the rail. Actually, it's not the end of the rail; it's the beginning of the rail. It actually ends in Squamish. Fuel actually comes by rail to Fort Nelson and is distributed into the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and those kinds of things.

We need to be able to facilitate some of these things just in the plain distribution. We're trying to be reasonable in that. The 5 percent average applies year round, and they will be required to meet the 5 percent average exactly the same as the federal program is going to be when it comes in.

J. Horgan: My best friend used to live in Fort Nelson, and he said it was "colder than a witch's elbow." I don't know how cold that is, but my sense is it is pretty darn cold. He moved to Quesnel to get away from the cold. So I won't lecture the minister on what happens north of the Peace. That's his domain and that of the member for Peace River South.

Again, I say the value of these debates is that at some time in the year, it may well be that providers in the north, based on their distribution in the south, will sort of be exempt. I get what the minister said.

When we get to complicated formulas…. We're now at section 9, the administrative penalties section. Were my son Evan the math genius here, he'd be able to walk me through this. Perhaps in his absence, the minister could help me with the formula of administrative penalty equals required RF — which I believe would be renewable fuel content — minus actual RF times penalty rate. What the heck is that all about?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, if you should have your son here, I guess maybe I should have my daughter here too.

Anyhow, it's explained to me that it's the method for how you figure out what the penalty would be. The penalty will be prescribed by regulation, obviously, but in fact — and this is what's explained to me — when they do an inspection, if you're compliant with 80,000 litres but you…. I'm sorry. I'll back up.

Let's use 100,000 litres. If you're compliant with 80,000 of those litres, you're obviously not compliant with 20,000. There will be a prescribed penalty for that balance that you were not in sync with — the 5 percent.

J. Horgan: Was there consultation with industry on this section with respect to penalties?

J. Horgan: Does the minister contemplate consultation based on Mr. Stoner's correspondence? I understand from the briefing I received from staff that there are 11 major suppliers that service the province, of a total of about 20 altogether. Is there any prospect of consultation before this law is enacted?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We'll be consulting on the regulations with those folks, yes.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move the amendment to section 13 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. R. Neufeld: With the automatic penalty provisions in the bill, there is no administrative penalty notice, and therefore the bill should not refer to a notice. Other penalties are imposed with a notice given to the person upon whom the penalty is imposed. The amendments eliminate the inconsistency between section 13 by requiring the director to give particulars of the administrative penalty, whether it is imposed automatically or pursuant to a notice.

J. Horgan: For those following at home, we're on part 5, section 14, "Appeals to Environmental Appeal Board." I'm wondering if the minister could just walk us through this section. What decisions would have to be made for appeals to come into effect?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There is an opportunity here to appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board, and it's listed out there. I'm not exactly sure what the member is really asking. I thought it was relatively straightforward. There are numerous things that can be appealed if, in fact, a supplier doesn't agree with what an inspector has done. That would be a normal course of events, I would think.

J. Horgan: I'm just curious why it would be the Environmental Appeal Board for this act. That was basically the question. Of any other tribunals that might well have been contemplated to hear complaints from suppliers, this one wouldn't have been the one that I would have selected. It was basically a justification for why that's the board that's doing the appeals.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's explained to me that the Environmental Appeal Board is well equipped to handle these kinds of appeals. They have the expertise to do it, and they have the in-house knowledge to do it. That's why the Environmental Appeal Board was chosen.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move the amendment to section 15 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'll maybe give a brief explanation. The amendment to section 15 is a companion amendment to the amendment to section 22 and serves to clarify that disclosing information in contravention of section 22(2) is an offence and carries significant consequences.

J. Horgan: I was going to go straight through to section 22, which is the consequential section that the minister refers to with this amendment. Perhaps in the interests of expediting debate here, I'll pose a few questions on this amendment, and that may well get us through to the end.

In his consultation with the Privacy Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner's office, did the minister receive written confirmation of support of that independent officer for these amendments?

J. Horgan: Is the minister prepared to provide the opposition with a copy of those documents?

J. Horgan: The reason we're discussing this…. Again, I'm going to be talking and reading at the same time, and I know the young children in the gallery today will be amazed at that ability. Were I chewing gum, of course, I wouldn't be able to read and talk at the same time. I will try, as the letter comes over here, to review that.

I don't want this section to pass without a confirmation from the commissioner. Those in the House will know — and perhaps those watching at home — that when Bill 16 was tabled for first reading, I received a letter from the Privacy Commissioner outlining his concern that section 22, in particular, provided a blanket exemption to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

Upon receiving that correspondence, we drafted an amendment for section 22. I'm assuming that at section 15, when we're dealing with penalties and offences, a consequential amendment would be required.

Again, as I look to the youngsters in the gallery, I'm speaking, I'm looking at you, and I'm also going to be reading a letter that the minister just provided me. I don't know if I've ever done that before, but I'll give it my best shot.

J. Horgan: I thank you very much. I can keep talking. I'm talking; I'm talking, talking, talking.

J. Horgan: Yes, well, that's a good idea. There you go. Thanks, member from Fairview.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to section 22 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It complements what we just spoke about here — that we have actually come to an agreement with the Privacy Commissioner. This is also a companion amendment to amended section 22 and describes what an information-sharing agreement is.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Through the Chair to the member: just a little complication in numbers, as I understand.

I move section 22.1 standing in my name on the orders of the day, as the Clerk has requested.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to section 23 standing in my name on the orders of the day. They're on the orders of the day for the critic to read. Section 23(2)(a) is a consequential amendment required due to the amendment to section 22.

J. Horgan: We are here at the general regulation powers. Again, this is section 23(1). The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is the cabinet — the executive council, in essence, of the government of British Columbia — may "make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act." Then it lists out a series of responsibilities in section 23.

We've had an amendment here to a consequential amendment, which was approved — or passed, I suppose, rather than approved. I'm wondering if the minister could give us an indication on what the time frame would be for bringing forward regulations.

Hon. R. Neufeld: For the renewables part, we will probably be bringing those regulations in, I would think, sometime later in this year.

J. Horgan: So "a little bit longer" would be into 2009. Or would it be beyond that?

J. Horgan: I just want to put on the record that this would be the first bill I've debated as a critic that may well come into force long after I'm somewhere else. I just wanted that on the record.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 16, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act, reported complete with amendments.

Bill 16, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT
(PORT MANN TWINNING)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2008
(continued)

Hon. R. Thorpe: I rise to speak in favour of this bill, Bill 14, Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008.

I am sure there may be some members in this House, particularly members of the other side, that would be wondering why a member from the Interior of British Columbia, the Okanagan Valley — in fact, Okanagan-Westside — would be standing in the House to talk on this bill which, for the most part, most members on the other side of the House seem to think is a Lower Mainland issue.

Well, let me say that this is a bill that impacts all British Columbia. This is a bill that impacts the Interior, the rural and the northern parts of British Columbia. This twinning of the Port Mann Bridge is causing great congestion and a negative impact on British Columbia's economy, its communities and its families.

Congestion costs our economy up to $1.5 billion per year, up significantly from a decade ago. This is a key aspect of the Gateway program, which will address congestion, improve the movement of people and goods in and through the region and, in fact, for the entire province of British Columbia. It will improve safety and reliability of the current road system. There's absolutely no question that this is going to improve the economy and improve links to the Lower Mainland, airports, border crossings, etc.

This is a significant undertaking. This bill provides for tolls to vary on the basis of the vehicle size, the class of vehicle, the time of day. For example, certain categories will be exempt from tolls — taxis, TransLink buses, persons with disabilities as defined by legislation.

This is good, but you know, it's also about our economy. It's also about our environment. I hope that all members in this House, especially members on that side of the House, who seem to be very divided within their own caucus on how they are going to vote on this….

This is about reducing greenhouse gases. Earlier today we had a debate on Bill 16 that talked about reducing greenhouse gases, the concerns and all of those other things. I heard some of the concerns of earlier debates from the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca and also the member for Vancouver-Fairview, and we've heard the concerns of other members from the Surrey area.

I hope that all members of this House are actually going to finally recognize the greenhouse gas reductions that this will do, that they will stand and vote in favour of it and that they will take some of their earlier rhetoric, park it and realize that this is the thing to do as we move forward.

But I'm sure there will be some that will have trouble saying this is a good thing to do, because our government has the vision to do this. I'm going to be particularly interested to see how the members from Surrey…. One day they're for it; one day they're against it. One day their leader says they're for it, and one day: "We'll have to have a caucus."

You know, British Columbians want people to make decisions. When it comes to moving our economy forward, when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases, when it comes to moving goods down to the Lower Mainland and goods back up through, this is about all British Columbia.

As I mentioned earlier, I have the pleasure of representing Okanagan-Westside. When my colleague the Minister of Transportation first announced this project, who was one of the very first people to jump on board and support this project? It was the mayor of Kelowna, Walter Gray. Walter Gray said: "This is about the economy. This is about reducing greenhouse gases. This is about moving British Columbia forward." So I trust that all members in this House will vote for this, because it is the right thing to do.

This project looks at widening the highway, obviously the construction of the new Port Mann Bridge, upgrading interchanges, improving access and safety from McGill Street in Vancouver to 216 Street in Langley, a distance of 37 kilometres. Construction, in parts, has already started.

On Saturday, April 12, I had the pleasure of travelling with my wife, my daughter and my grandson. We drove down from the Okanagan to see a play in Vancouver, Mamma Mia! I thought we'd have pretty clear sailing, but we got to Langley at around 11 o'clock or so on the Saturday morning, and now I know what people mean when they say "British Columbia's largest parking lot." It was unbelievable. This was Saturday morning. I have no idea what it's like Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday if this is happening on Saturday.

I thought about it as I sat there with my grandson, as we were actually playing the DVD of Mamma Mia! and getting ready to go to the play. I'm 62 years old, and my grandson behind me is five years old. If we don't do something, what's it going to be like not just for my grandson as he grows up but for my children and other people's children in British Columbia today with all these greenhouse gas emissions?

We hear the rhetoric from the other side of the House of how they're concerned about the environment. Let's do what's right. Let us do what's right. I hope that the members on the other side, especially those from Surrey who, when they're back in their ridings, say something completely different than when they're here in Victoria…. Let them stand up and be counted to say, yes, this is a good idea.

This isn't about partisanship. This is about the environment. This is about the economy. It's about our children. It's about our grandchildren. Let us start thinking about them.

You know, it's always interesting when you travel down and see some of the work starting, and it looked to me like they were putting in some drainage systems. I believe that this language is okay. I noticed off to the side, thankfully, that there was a Johnny on the spot. It's a good thing there was, because I noticed that three or four cars ahead of us, people were stopping and pulling off to the side of the road with young children. They had to use that facility because they had been in the traffic jam for over an hour and a half, and there was no accident. So there's something fundamentally wrong.

As I said, I proudly stand on this side of the House and will be voting for this bill. You know, Highway 1 and RapidBus service combined with additional transit improvements…. We often hear from the other side of the House how transit is important. Well, I think and I hope that they mean what they say and they will vote in support of this. Easier transit opportunities for people to come from the valley into Vancouver, to come out from Vancouver back to the valley…. What is wrong with that? To me, that is good.

You know, these amendments are needed to this investment act so we can move forward. This corporation will be a distinct commercial self-sustaining entity that will enter into concession agreements with private sector partners for designing, construction, financing and operating the project, including the collection of tolls on the Port Mann Bridge.

The improvements will include adding one lane on Highway 1 in each direction on the west side of the Port Mann Bridge, the Vancouver side, and two lanes in each direction east of Port Mann on the Surrey side. I'm sure not just the members from Surrey on our side of the House think that's a great idea. I have to believe that the members from Surrey on the other side of the House think that's a good idea too.

I am hopeful that they will park their partisanship outside on this important bill and will vote so we can move forward, so we can turn British Columbia's biggest parking lot into a vital artery of people and goods flowing in an efficient, effective greenhouse gas–reducing manner. That's what we should be doing in this House. I urge all members in this House to support this bill and, in doing so, support long-overdue very critical improvements.

As I mentioned earlier, I live in the Interior. I live in the Okanagan, and I've only experienced it a few times. The latest time was April 12. But I cannot imagine what it must be like for people going to work every day, coming home to be with their families in the evening, having to go through that. I can't imagine what it must be like for a family travelling through when they have to go to certain things in Vancouver, or coming back out.

You know, there's only one way that we're going to be able to continue to have the funding for health care and education and children and families and social services that all members in this House work for, and that's by having a strong economy. Highway 1 and the Port Mann are key to our success.

It's time to move forward. I ask all members in this House, if they have an opinion on this bill, to stand and tell British Columbia their opinions, and for those who are against it, be proud that they live in a province where they can actually stand up and say that they are against something and explain it to their constituents. I ask the members from Surrey on the other side of this House to stand up in this House and go on the record so that their constituents can hear firsthand how they are going to vote in support of this bill because they know it's right.

I'm going to close here very shortly, and I know that some members on the other side will be disappointed. This bill is good for the environment, and it's good for rural British Columbia. We hear so much rhetoric from the other side about rural British. It's good, so that it's great for goods and services to flow down; it's good so goods and services can flow out; it's good for Asia-Pacific. As we know, the future as Canada's only Pacific province is to the Asia-Pacific.

We have opportunities here for designated lanes. I know some members from the Victoria area are always concerned about cycling. There are cycling lanes here. There are opportunities for HOV lanes here. There are queue-jumping lanes for transit and truck vehicles. It's an opportunity to take a 37-kilometre parking lot and turn it into a modern, vibrant, economic, environmentally sound artery for the future of this province, for the future of today, for the future of our children and, most importantly, for the future of our grandchildren.

I will proudly vote in favour of this bill, and I welcome all members to vote in favour of this bill.

M. Karagianis: I stand to speak to Bill 14, the Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008. I must admit at first glance, when I heard the minister outline the bill and present it to us in the House here yesterday and then, of course, the previous speaker here….

After the minister's comments I had actually to go home and re-read the bill, because I wondered whether or not we were actually talking about the same bill that's before us here in the House.

I'll quote from a number of the minister's comments that this is about the Port Mann highway project, that "it will be tolled not only to pay for the project but also to reduce congestion and moderate traffic growth over time…. Now, to make all of this happen, amendments are needed to the Transportation Investment Act" under the creation of and "establishment of the Transportation Investment Corporation".

I certainly listened with great interest to the minister outlining this corporation and its duties. He goes on to say: "The corporation will be a distinct commercial self-sustaining entity that will enter into a concession agreement" — a concession agreement, singular — "with a private sector partner" — a private sector partner — "for designing, constructing and financing and operating" the highway. That was very interesting — a concession agreement and a private partner.

The minister goes on to say that now there are some critics who suggest that by creating a new Crown corporation, the government is abandoning their deregulation efforts and creating an unnecessary Crown corporation. It's good that the minister actually acknowledged that, because as the previous minister of deregulation, I'm sure he's already heard the criticism on this and hence his need to address it right up front and try and stave off that criticism in his opening remarks.

He goes on to say, "As was the case for those other entities" — when he talks of other highways being built and other projects — "the Transportation Investment Corporation will offer a transparent, arm's-length mechanism for highway construction and management." We'll talk about that a little bit here today, I'm sure.

The minister went on to say: "Amendments in the bill also provide for tolls to vary on the basis of vehicle, vehicle size, class of vehicle," etc. This is "very much consistent with the feedback we received," in extensive consultation process. I think we'll talk about that a little bit as well.

Then the minister goes on to say: "I welcome the comments from the members of the opposition and look forward to hearing" their position "on this important project." Again, a project — singular.

In looking at those remarks, as I said, I had to go back and actually re-read the bill again, because having familiarized myself with the bill and what the actual contents of the bill are, there were some contradictions. There were some sharp contradictions here.

Let's just read the first preamble of the explanatory note. I know that the previous speaker talked about this great project and how this was going to help the Interior and how this was some monumental move forward on the Gateway plan that the Premier and his government have laid out. But in fact, the first explanatory note about this bill says that this amends the definitions of agent, concessionaire, concessionaire agreement, due date, excessive debt toll, debt toll, vehicle, and adds definitions of "corporation" and "payment mechanism."

It's pretty evident in there that there's no reference whatsoever to a project. It talks a lot about concessionaires, agents, due dates. It's very apparent in the very opening of this bill that, in fact, it's not necessarily about a project. It is about some definitions here around concessionaires, concessionaire agreements. Much of this is not about a project. It's about a new way of doing business under a Crown corporation.

I know there's much talk here about this somehow being a real challenge around the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. In reality, the word "bridge" appears in this bill exactly once. Let's be clear. This bill goes on for 18 pages. The word "bridge" appears exactly once, and it appears in the context of buildings, bridges, walls, tunnels, culverts, wires, pipes. In fact, it doesn't even refer to any specific bridge. It just refers to bridges — plural.

The reason I read and focused in on a couple of the minister's comments in introducing this bill is because the very specific reference to a concessionaire, a project, is not borne out anywhere in the language within this bill. It's about — plural — bridges, buildings, walls, tunnels, concessionaires, tolls.

In the title, where it talks about the Port Mann twinning in brackets, as being part of the bill…. Frankly, that particular reference appears only in the title of this bill and only in the context of the bill where it refers to the title. There is no other direct relationship whatsoever to that project or any other specific project — hence, the interest I had in the minister's remarks when he was introducing this. Most certainly, it does create a new Crown corporation.

I'd like to make sure we get on the record, because I know that often the members of the government like to interpret our demands for more details, more saliency, more sustainability, more common sense and more detail in some of their bills as somehow not being supportive.

I want to be very clear on the record right now that we very much support Crown corporations that preserve and manage the resources for British Columbia taxpayers — absolutely. No question that all members on this side of the House in opposition support Crown corporations that preserve, manage and operate B.C. resources for B.C. taxpayers. I think we'll see that as time goes on, that's a sharp contrast between our view on what the Crown corporations can and should do versus what's happening here in this bill.

I would like to say that, in some ways, creating this whole new level of bureaucracy is the antithesis of what the previous minister of deregulation was doing in the way of business in the first couple of years of this

government's term of office. This government came in saying: "We're going to strip government down. We're going to make it a lean machine. We're going to get rid of a lot of these unnecessary regulatory barriers." I know that even the previous speaker who spoke here, the Minister of Small Business, is very, very big on deregulating and removing barriers.

In some ways it's very fascinating to see how we've come, a couple of years later, to creating a brand-new level of bureaucracy that has some very express duties here — very express purposes within this legislative bill. Much of it adds all kinds of new layers of bureaucracy, all kinds of new barriers to us seeing exactly what kind of business this new corporation might be engaged in.

The reality is that if this bridge was supposed to be about more green, as the previous speaker said. If it's supposed to be about finding better solutions for the Lower Mainland, then it needs to be a lot more about transit and a lot less about a corporation that's going to be only engaged and only taxed in here with business to do with concessionaires and privatization.

That is the sole duty of this new Crown corporation, as it's being formed. This is 18 pages that lay out very, very specifically and succinctly that this new Crown corporation is being formed to do a specific kind of business in a specific way with privatization of highways, bridges and future infrastructure in the province.

So we look at the sections here. Section 2 amends this section to provide for agreements relating to the Transportation Investment Corporation, and it does lay out very broadly that this is not about a project at all. There is no reference to a singular project, a specific project, but there's lots of reference to a whole number of projects. This will cover a whole number of projects in the future, and that's why we see references to plurals around the kind of projects in the future that will be covered here.

Part of the bill, as we go through into section 3, begins to amend all of the actions of this corporation around what it's going to do around its mandatory provisions in setting up concessionaire agreements. For those who may be tuning in today and the general public who don't know what a concessionaire agreement is, it's privatization. It's when the government engages in privatization for a private corporation — takes over the building, the maintenance, the long-term, ongoing operation for 20, 30 years here in the province. They own it, they toll it, and they operate it and get all proceeds from that.

This particular piece of legislation, the Transportation Investment Amendment Act, 2008, is the setting up of a corporation that will specifically and exclusively privatize future projects under this government, and not even specific future projects — other than the misleading name in the title. Frankly, I'm not sure that there's an appetite in the province right now for more privatization and certainly more secrecy. So I'm curious as to how the minister has justified this as being some grandiose praise of the Gateway project, when what this really is, is a whole new layer of bureaucratic firewall behind which the government can take refuge.

Now let's just talk about what's happened here in the last few days around B.C. Ferries. The B.C. Ferries board has given themselves a big fat raise, and the Minister of Transportation responsible for B.C. Ferries throws his hands in the air and says: "I have no control over this. I have no jurisdiction over what B.C. Ferries does, because this is a Crown corporation that has its own autonomy and, therefore, they can make decisions without me, without my approval, without even any kind of interference or application from me".

In fact, as the minister admitted, it can even be in disagreement with what the minister thinks. He said he was annoyed by the kind of raise they gave themselves, but he was helpless to affect that.

This is one of the largest Crown corporations in British Columbia. It is our marine highway. It is a Crown corporation that is there ostensibly to preserve and manage B.C. resources for B.C. taxpayers. That is what they are there to do — operate and maintain the B.C. marine highway on behalf of B.C. taxpayers. And here the minister, even in this case, which is not nearly as extreme as the kinds of things being set up in this bill, the kind of firewall being created here…. The minister says: "I have no control. I have no jurisdiction. I see nothing; I know nothing. They're a power unto themselves."

We've seen a very similar thing happen with TransLink. Very controversially, the government brought in a bill where they came in with new governance of TransLink, where they put a handpicked group of individuals in place that no longer had any kind of elected representation to the public. The minister put them in place.

Then the minister says: "I have no authority over them. I can't control the fact that they gave themselves a 500 percent raise. Hands off. Once they're in place, once this firewall is in place, they do business as they see fit, and I have no authority over them. I have no oversight." You have to say to yourself: how could it be that our Transportation Minister is putting in place bodies that he then washes his hands of all future responsibility for?

Here we are, doing it a third time. Here is a brand-new Crown corporation whose sole responsibility is to set up concessionaire contracts, private contracts, and to oversee tolling and to have responsibility for oversight of all kinds of private actions. The minister is then going to say: "Well, we're going to appoint a board of directors. It'll be very much like TransLink and B.C. Ferries. I know nothing, I hear nothing, and I see nothing around what kind of actions they're taking, because you know what? They're a Crown corporation. They can do all kinds of things without my political interference."

Apparently, it's okay to set up an organization like this and then wash your hands of any responsibility for their actions. That gives me grave concern, because it means that we will have no accountability. It means that we will have no oversight. We have a minister

who says: "Once the Crown corporation is busy doing its thing, I can't interfere, I won't interfere, and whatever they're doing, they're responsible for."

We're going to purposely now go out and set up a new Crown corporation whose sole duty is to privatize roads, bridges, highways and future infrastructure projects. We are going to set it up with all kinds of powers around tolling and other things that are very controversial and need to be very open and transparent. But no, we're going to set up another layer of bureaucracy, another opportunity for government to shy away from its responsibility and wash its hands of any of the consequences of that.

Madam Speaker, I canvassed the minister at great length about my concerns around the ongoing privatization of infrastructure within this province, and I will say here on the record that, again, I have some very serious concerns around the fact that this legislation is strictly and succinctly about creating opportunities for more privatization. This is the body that will carry it out.

The minister and I had kind of an amusing little exchange around privatization and tolling and around the kinds of interest that generally come to the table here, and I'll talk about that in a few minutes. But first, I'd like to proceed a little bit closer through the bill here and talk about some of the other things that in fact are being done in the creation of this new Crown corporation.

Let's be clear again. The minister talks about it being a project. I saw no project. I did see a Crown corporation, and I saw lots of very interesting aspects of how this is being created and how, in some ways, this Crown corporation is even more of an anomaly than the quasi-privatized B.C. Ferries, which we still pay for but apparently don't have any oversight for and the minister has no responsibility for, or TransLink, which meets in secret, gives themselves lots of fat raises and raises transit fares but won't be accountable to the public.

This new Crown corporation is even going to have some more interesting loopholes behind which they can hide. The minister talks about in this bill…. Bill 14 says that section 4 amends the section regarding optional provisions of a concession agreement. Again, there's no reference to a project here — a concession agreement.

Section 5 amends the section that adds rights, powers and obligations with respect to this new Transportation Investment Corporation. Let's examine that a bit more closely. It says: "If the minister delegates rights, powers or functions to the corporation under subsection (3), the corporation may, in a concession agreement, delegate to the concessionaire any or all of those rights…."

Let's think about that. This is a law we're putting in place in British Columbia that says that the minister can delegate rights and powers to the corporation, who can then give those same rights — delegate those same rights — to a concessionaire, a private corporation much like many that are functioning around the world right now buying up projects like this across the world. We'll get to some of those in a moment.

Immediately, it looks as if government is trying to create an opportunity here, where they basically absolve themselves of any responsibility for these privatized concession contracts — right? It says here that "the concessionaire is entitled to exercise those rights, powers or functions" that are delegated from the minister to the corporation to the concessionaire. They're entitled to exercise those rights in relation to a concession highway during the currency of the concession agreement.

We are delegating authority out of the minister's hands to the corporation. So right away the minister has got a right to stand up, as he's been doing all week with B.C. Ferries, and say: "Not my problem. I don't know who's responsible, but it's not me." We're going to see the same thing here. Right here in subsection 5(3.1), the minister can delegate his rights to the corporation, and they give it to the concessionaire. Now the concessionaire is in charge, and they can exercise those rights.

It says here in subsection (4.1), the second one: "If the minister imposes obligations on the corporation under subsection (4), the corporation may, in a concession agreement, impose any or all of those obligations…on the concessionaire…." Here's the next point: "(a) the corporation is relieved from those obligations in relation to the concession highway."

Again, if we make this very clear path of what this language means, the minister delegates all his responsibilities to the corporation. They then delegate all of theirs to the concessionaire, and it says right in here: "The corporation is relieved from those obligations in relation to the concession highway."

So we have the minister giving away all of the power and authority to the corporation, and he says: "I have no authority here. I don't know what's going on. It's up to them to make up the rules and regulations and enforce them in the policies." The corporation itself can give all of their powers and authorities to the concessionaire, and the corporation is then relieved of their obligations.

Madam Speaker, how can it be possible in the province of British Columbia that a minister of the Crown would give away and delegate power and rights and authorities through a corporation to a private concessionaire — give away all of the authority over that — and be able to stand in this House and say: "I don't know what they're doing, and I don't know have responsibility, and it's a mystery who's going to oversee this"? We've seen that with the B.C. Ferries corporation, we've seen it with TransLink, and this exaggerates it beyond any of the powers that were given to either of those corporations when they were created.

Let's talk about section 6. Now we've actually seen the trail here of abrogation of responsibility, and then we see the next clincher, section 6, where this bill "amends the section to limit the liability of the Transportation Investment Corporation" — limit the liability.

It's very interesting that we first see government trying to absolve themselves of the responsibility for any decisions that the private sector concessionaire may make. Government seems to think that then they will have no responsibility beyond that, around long-

Then we say that we limit the liability. We believe that we can limit the liability. Well, in fact in 1997 the Supreme Court of Canada made a decision which ruled that the province is ultimately responsible for negligent actions of highway contractors. In other words, the provincial Crown cannot contract out its responsibilities to a concessionaire, yet we're going to try and do that in this. We're going to try and change the law despite a 1997 Supreme Court ruling.

I'm sure that we can continue to try and amend legislation and challenge the Supreme Court in this, but frankly, that means litigation. That means we are setting ourselves up for a court challenge around the very issue of who becomes responsible. Frankly, it would seem to me that there's not a concessionaire — a private partner, a private contractor — who at the end of the day is going to take all this responsibility that would assume ultimate risk.

I know there's lots of talk here about how privatization of these projects somehow rids government of risk, but that's complete nonsense. If there is ever a court challenge, the province will bear responsibility for risk on anything that was created by their actions.

Despite the fact that this is three stages away from the minister's hands, I don't believe for one moment that there would not be a successful court challenge on this. So I don't know how we can limit the liability of this corporation. We certainly are not going to foist it onto this new private partner. Although they're getting all kinds of powers and authorities to go about their business without a lot of oversight, I don't believe for one moment that we are going to see them take on any undue liability. It's very interesting that that's part of what this legislation does.

Again, as we go through this, Madam Speaker, you can see that there's no reference whatsoever to this project that the minister was waiting for a response on or that the previous speaker, the Minister of Small Business, was waiting for a response on. Nowhere in here have we yet got to any reference whatsoever to a project, but we've certainly seen that in creating this Crown corporation, there are many questionable powers being diverted over to this private company that at the end of the day will receive this.

I'd like to also look at the clauses under subsection (d) around limiting the liability. It starts off in subsection (1.1): "Despite any law to the contrary and despite any enactment, neither the corporation nor any director, officer, employee or agent has…any duty to develop, plan, design or construct any portion of a concession…agreement" or "any duty to expand, extend, upgrade, remove, maintain, rehabilitate…."

That goes right back to my original comments about the government now saying: "We have no duty to maintain or oversee any of this kind of maintenance. It does say — continuing on that: "Without limiting subsection (1.1), neither the corporation nor any director, officer, employee or agent of the corporation has any liability arising from operation of law in relation to anything done or omitted…" or done by the concessionaire. So it's like whatever the concessionaire does, if they do something wrong, we take no responsibility for that.

Further down on that same page, subsection (3.1), "…no legal proceeding for damages or compensation of any kind lies or may be commenced or maintained against the corporation or any director, officer, employee or agent in respect of the failure by the corporation or any director…to take action" in connection with the concessionaire agreement referred to.

We are trying very desperately here in this law…. The government is trying very desperately to divest all powers and authorities to this new corporation who will then download that directly and give those powers and authorities to the new concessionaires — the private companies that will come in and engage in building bridges and culverts and roads and all the other things listed in here. We're going to try and limit our responsibility for overseeing maintenance and upkeep.

Madam Speaker, you can see that in a matter of time, if we have a concessionaire who, for some reason, begins to fall down on their responsibilities over the course of their contract, the government is going to say: "It's not our fault." Where is that going to take us? Right to court. There is no place else that you can fight out all of the convoluted responsibilities put in here except in court — where the court is going to have to try and follow the trail back to government.

They will inevitably follow it back to government, because I do not believe for one moment that you can actually divest yourselves of all these responsibilities and get away with that in the case of any kind of litigation. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure that other members of the opposition who have much more understanding and knowledge of the law than I do will have some interesting things to say on that.

I go back, again, to the minister's comments about this being about a project and a concession agreement. A full three pages of the next section are devoted to tolls and outlining all of the various aspects of tolling. It goes at great length to talk about what can be tolled and how it can be tolled and when it's going to be tolled and how the tolls can be levied and not levied and how they can be collected and all of that.

Rather than get into the minutiae of that, I'd rather talk from a slightly higher level about what this issue of tolls could potentially lead to. I raised this, and I alluded earlier to my comments about something I had raised with the minister.

Madam Speaker, I am the designated speaker on behalf of the opposition, so I will continue my remarks here.

I raised this with the minister, and we had a very interesting and somewhat amusing exchange over this. I brought to the minister's attention in estimates something that bears absolutely now on this bill with its three pages of tolling details and all the pages leading up to that about the powers and authorities given

to the private company, the private concessionaire, around future projects that the province would engage in. I outlined for the minister some examples of what's happened elsewhere with these kinds of private contracts that were tolled highways.

In New South Wales, Australia, the city of Sydney entered a 30-year public-private partnership contract — a privatization agreement for 30 years with a company, a private consortium — to build and operate an underground cross-city tunnel — not unlike a bridge in many ways. The tunnel opened to much fanfare in August of last year in Sydney but has since become a huge political fiasco. I'll explain why.

First of all, the expectation was that the private owner and contractor who built the tunnel would, of course, get all of the tolls going through there every day. There was an expectation that 90,000 cars a day would go through the tunnel and that that would be the amount of tolling that would then go to the private owner of this tunnel.

Well, in a very short time it became apparent there were not 90,000 cars a day going through the tunnel. As a result, the city of Sydney had to begin closing off main arterial roads in order to force more traffic through the tunnel, trying to reach the threshold of this private contract.

When the public grew very outraged by this, and rightfully so, it was revealed that the non-competition clause in their privatized agreement forced them to do this and that the government itself had no way out. They had no choice but to sit down and try and negotiate a better system. The reality is that they are still in litigation in Sydney, and the city of Sydney is still locked in gridlock, trying to determine what's going to happen in the future around their tolled bridge.

That's one very good example of the failure of privatization of highways and bridges. Interestingly enough, closer to home, the government in Ontario under previous Premier Mike Harris engaged in a 99-year agreement. I will say that the agreement in Sydney, Australia, is a 30-year agreement that the government can't get out of. They can't seem to even rid themselves of the non-competition part of the clause, but Mike Harris, closer to home, engaged in a 99-year agreement on the tolling of Highway 407.

What's happened there — and this is a matter of open, public news — is that the private company that owns that stretch of highway and tolls it, began to raise the tolls. They began to creep up and up until the public and business set up a huge outcry. By then Premier Harris had left office, but the new Premier went to battle and discovered an exclusivity clause in their agreement that is airtight. They cannot interfere with the private company's tolling schedule.

They have no choice. The clause is there. For 99 years they are stuck with an agreement that has clauses that say they can't interfere with the cost of tolls. All they can do is try and negotiate it. They're currently in negotiations with that company and trying to reduce the tolls somewhat, but without a lot of success.

There are two really clear examples of the failure of privatization, where the public at the end of the day and governments themselves find themselves in contractual agreements that they can't even control, that they can't get out of and that have exclusivity clauses and agreements in them that are devastating to the taxpayer and devastating to government.

Interestingly enough, the same company responsible for these two fiascos is one of the three short-listed contractors and bidders on the new Gateway project, on the new tolled Port Mann Bridge. When I raised this with the minister…. I appreciated his comments, because he did tell me that he was a lot smarter than those other two governments and certainly wouldn't sign an agreement similar to theirs.

At the same time you have to ask yourself: if we are capable of engaging in signing our own private contracts directly between government and private enterprise — as we have done with the Canada line, the Sea to Sky, the Kicking Horse and the William Bennett — why now do we have to create a brand new corporation?

Apparently, we are not capable any longer here in the province of British Columbia. Despite an illustrious history of building bridges and roads and tunnels, we are no longer able to do that without a corporate structure to hide behind. That corporate structure gets all kinds of powers delegated to it, which they can then delegate to a private partner, and at the end of the day, who's making the decisions?

Surprise. It's the privatized partner in this. It's whoever privatized at the end of the day. The reality is…. Is it getting us what we need in the Lower Mainland? Is it getting us more transit? Is it getting people more options today and tomorrow and next week to get out of their cars and take a reliable transit system around the Lower Mainland that allows us to reduce greenhouse gases and offers real opportunities for a thriving public transit system? No.

In fact, this entire bill talks about tolls, talks about private companies. It's all about more privatization — and from a minister who has already admitted he has no control over ferries and TransLink and certainly will, I'm sure, not have any control over this corporation either.

Just to be clear, when the minister referred to a project, when he said, "I look forward to hearing what the opposition has to say about the project" — singular…. When he talks about "This is about a project…." Here we are on page 9, "Purposes of the corporation." The purposes of the corporation are "to engage in and conduct businesses related to (a) delivering, managing, operating, tolling or funding transportation projects" — plural — "including projects described in a concession agreement."

I think that's pretty clear. This is not about a project at all. The purposes of the corporation are to engage in conducting business, delivering, managing, operating, tolling and funding transportation projects, including projects described in a concession agreement.

I'm not entirely sure why the minister has determined this to be about any kind of singular project,

because it's not. I'm not even sure why the Port Mann name appears on the bill, other than perhaps as a bit of political trickery.

Let's talk a little bit here about the governance model of this, because the governance model follows the same lines of the very ill-fated TransLink board, which we know has become a complete disaster, and the public is very concerned about it.

So what are we seeing here? We see, first of all, the capacity and powers of this corporation. Here's what they get to do, and this is for the public. Here's what the corporation gets to do — and remember, this is a corporation that can delegate all of its powers immediately to its private concession partner.

They get to — and, again, going back to the minister's comments about this being about a project — "acquire, construct, hold or improve transportation infrastructure or cause it to be acquired, constructed, held or improved." They get to "acquire, hold or dispose of land, including interest in land." They get to, "with the approval of the Minister of Finance, borrow money."

With the approval of the minister, they enter into agreements with the government of Canada, the governments of other provinces, acquire or create a subsidiary.

Certainly, this is a corporation that has quite a vast number of powers, and remembering that they can delegate all kinds of authority and responsibility to the private concessionaire.

So the governance of the corporation, and it's structured very much the same as the governance…. We've seen this model that the government marched out with TransLink — managed by a board of directors. So seven directors duly appointed through the Lieutenant-Governor, and they go on to talk about the kind of remuneration.

The board must meet at least four times a year. That's sort of reminiscent of TransLink. That's all they're required to meet. They get to set their own remuneration and expenses. That's a lot like TransLink. The interesting part here around board meetings, and this was an issue of contention around the TransLink model, was the fact they could phone in, so a director may participate in person, by phone or by other communication. So we're going to see some very interesting remuneration for meetings.

I'll just make sure I get on the record, right now, that there was a lot of contention about the fact that TransLink board members could meet as often as they want, even by phone, and were getting $1,200 per meeting. I noted the other day in the debate around B.C. Ferries, when the directors gave themselves a big, fat raise…. They actually get $1,500 a meeting. It's even a richer setup for them than it is for TransLink. And who knows what this will be.

The other interesting thing, which I thought was very good here, is on page 11, "Duties and powers of the board." "The board has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the corporation." Interestingly, not the taxpayers. The board does not have a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers or to government.

We're now creating a Crown corporation that has fiduciary duties to the corporation but not to the government or taxpayers. You have to ask yourself: "How could that be, that we would create a new corporation that can delegate its powers to a private corporation and that only has fiduciary responsibilities to itself, and not to government and not to taxpayers."

All kinds of opportunity here, I think, for the private partner in this, or the concessionaire, to have just unbelievably enormous powers and influence over this corporation. They can delegate all of their authority to it, and yet there appears to be, again, no oversight. We're going to see again very much the same kind of hands-off approach that we've seen from the minister here with regard to the other big corporations under his responsibility.

So when we go on to the conflict-of-interest part of the bill, as always, it's very fascinating to read through. It's interesting that, unlike other Crown corporations or government bodies, the conflict-of-interest guidelines here are very wishy-washy. That gives me great concern as well, because the conflict-of-interest policies and legislation here are what protect taxpayers, at the end of the day, from any kind of misconduct or even the guise or the appearance of misconduct. So you really have to rely very strongly on the conflict-of-interest provisions that are laid out in here.

These are actually unbelievably weak considering we are talking about a Crown corporation that has responsibility now for major projects in the future for bridges, roads, other kinds of major transportation infrastructure and has all kinds of strong interrelationship with a private corporation and concessionaires. The first preamble of the bill is all about setting up their relationship to the concessionaire, the private corporation — pages and pages about tolling — and yet conflict-of-interest guidelines here that are very weak and amount to a few phrases here that basically say….

I'll read some of these out: "Every director or senior officer of the corporation who in any way, directly or indirectly, is interested in a proposed contract or transaction with the corporation must disclose the fact." It doesn't say they have to step down, recuse themselves. They just have to disclose the fact and the nature and the extent of that.

The disclosure required can be at a meeting in which a proposed contract or transaction is first considered — again, no designated legislation that forces them to recuse themselves from this. So a meeting can come up; it can be….

We know that the government, in appointing a board of directors…. I'm sure we can stretch our imaginations as to who might be represented there and who might be considered the only business authorities of a high enough calibre to conduct these private enterprise contracts with major international corporations. I don't imagine these are going to be elected officials or just anybody off the street.

So what are the chances that they may have some kind of conflict of interest there? They only have to disclose it at the meeting where such a proposed contract or transaction is made evident to them: "…if the director or senior officer is not, at the time of the meeting referred to in paragraph (a), interested in a proposed contract or transaction, at the first meeting after she or he becomes interested, or at the first meeting after the relevant facts come to the knowledge of the director or senior officer." So a disclosure has to be made if the director or senior officer was not, at the time of the meeting referred to, interested in a proposed contract or transaction.

Now, that's very peculiar. I spent almost a decade in municipal government, and I know that the issue around conflict of interest and apparent conflict of interest is very important to the public, and it's a very key part of an elected official's responsibilities to the public. And here we have a conflict-of-interest guideline or legislative framework that says disclosure only needs to be made if the director or senior officer was not, at the time of the meeting, interested in a proposed contract or transaction. So they could have been interested in that contracting project before the meeting and after the meeting, but they only have to declare if they're engaged in it at the time of the meeting.

That is very weak language, and I'm shocked that the government would have engaged in a piece of legislation with such a vague and, frankly, sort of Swiss cheese–like conflict-of-interest guideline, where you could slip through any of the loopholes at any given time.

It also goes on to say that for the purposes of this section, a general notice in writing given by a director or senior officer of the corporation to the directors of the corporation to the effect that he or she is a member, director or officer of a specified corporate body or is a partner or owner of a specified firm, and he or she has an interest in the specified corporation or firm, is sufficient disclosure of interest to comply with this section

So we have here a Crown corporation being set up that is strictly being structured to deal with private corporations building future infrastructure in British Columbia. Privatization is their sole responsibility and mandate, and it says here that boards of directors only have to kind of casually, in writing, say: "Oh, by the way, I have a major interest in one of the corporations that's now going to engage in doing this private enterprise contract with the corporation." I would expect that government is going to give that a second look and tighten that up.

Again, all of these, as we go through this bill and read each of these, page after page…. I continue to go back to my original statement here that if this is about a project, it's so deeply hidden in here that it's not apparent. In reading through the bill numerous times, what I see is that this is a Crown corporation that is being formed solely for the purpose of engaging in private enterprise projects with corporate entities that are interested in building large projects here in the province of British Columbia and that will toll them.

I'm concerned that it's misleading for us in any way to say to the public that this is about a project, the Port Mann or otherwise, because what it is about is further privatization of our highways and bridges and tolling, none of which will be reinvested in the one thing that we need the most here in British Columbia, and that is more public transit. At the end of the day, our endeavours here in this province around building future infrastructure have got to be about public transit.

I'm disappointed, having read the bill from cover to cover, that there is in here no indication of the kinds of infrastructure expansion that we actually need here. We don't need more corporations that engage in privatizing highways and bridges in British Columbia. We need more transit. We need more buses. We need to expand SkyTrain. We need to get the fast bus routes on track and on line — not in 2013 or 2020.

The minister and I canvassed this at great length in estimates. Everything this government has delivered in the way of transit expansion has either been in the works for years, already underway, like the Canada line, or else doesn't deliver anything until 2013, '14, '15 or 2020.

We're now setting up a corporation for the sole purpose of privatizing future bridges and highways, and at no point are we seeing any kind of dedicated resources go to transit. No, we're wasting time and resources, and the focus is about highways and privatized highways and a corporation that will do specifically that.

Frankly, if we were putting in place a new corporation to expand public transit, we might have more of a chance of supporting that. But in fact, we already have that. We already have TransLink, and the government ruined that. They went in and, in the regovernance, made it a secretive organization that has already begun to make our transit so expensive that people are unable to see it as a real option to getting out of their cars.

At the end of the day, we don't need a Crown corporation to do private enterprise with big global corporations like the ones who have already engaged in litigation with governments around the world. We may think we're smarter and bigger than they are, but we'll see, again, what kind of contracts the government thinks it's going to engage in. Although, apparently now it's going to be done by this corporation.

Much like the other Crown corps, where the minister says, "I've got no authority. I've got no control. I don't have any inside knowledge of what they're doing. I have no oversight. I'm not accountable for that," we're going to see the very same thing here. The minister is going out of his way now to set up a corporation here for which he will then disavow any responsibility or accountability.

At the end of the day, the solution to climate change issues and congestion in the Lower Mainland is around getting on with the job of expanding transit. Frankly, the government rolled out this big Gateway plan and then tacked on transit in January of this year only because of the enormous pressure put on them by the opposition, by the public, by local government.

For us to be engaging in a debate here, where the government is saying this is all about some specific

kind of project in the Lower Mainland when it's not, means that there's no possible way we could support this bill that creates such a nefarious set of circumstances — a Crown corporation that immediately abrogates all its responsibilities to the private sector, who comes in and tolls us, doesn't reinvest in transit here and has contracts that last for decades into the future that we will be unable to change, fight or in any way control.

It is a Crown corporation that will become yet one more shell that the minister says of: "I've got no accountability for that. It's all a mystery to me how these decisions will get made or changed or who has influence there."

It's just not good enough. We have delayed so long in getting on with the transit expansion that's needed in the Lower Mainland right now. The government continues to try and dribble out little announcements on buses and new SkyTrain cars. That's re-announcing and re-announcing. What the public wants are some buses. South of the Fraser, they want some buses. They want to be able to get on the bus and get back and forth and do their business. They want to be able to travel on a public transportation system that is adequate.

Frankly, we at no point dispute the need for an additional bridge — none whatsoever. But this is not the way to do it. This is not how it should be done — under the guise of a Crown corporation that's strictly engaged in privatizing that and tolling that at the expense of the entire public transit system.

These need to be integrated. These need to be systems that are integrated and continue to build on that. We cannot see them as separate entities that get patched together.

I would say that Bill 14 is not about a project. It's about a Crown corporation. It's about a fairly insidious Crown corporation. I'd be very interested in hearing from the members of the opposition who have more legal experience than I about whether some of these clauses, in fact, are possible and what kind of legal challenges we could expect if we believe that we can, in any way, shirk our responsibilities and risks for the ultimate responsibility of highways within the province. I'd be interested to hear what other members have to say.

I'm disappointed that we, yet again, are going to put something in place that's secretive, allows more secrecy and less accountability, and that we're not getting on with building what really needs to happen here today, tomorrow and every day — more transit, transit, transit.

B. Ralston: I rise to speak to Bill 14. This bill is…. I think a polite way to put it might be a snow job. One can well imagine the Minister of Transportation cackling with juvenile glee and rubbing his hands together about how he plans to trap the opposition on this bill by pretending this bill is about something that it's not.

This bill is about creating a Crown corporation to deal in infrastructure. There's great interest in the investment community in infrastructure and infrastructure deals. Around the world it's becoming more and more an interesting investment for the big investment firms, and this corporation sets up a mechanism for the government to vend in not only a newly constructed project but existing projects, as is happening in the United States. To do that, the minister chooses to cloak himself in rhetoric about transparency and openness and all the rest of that — none of which, to judge from the operation of TransLink, he really believes in whatsoever.

This bill will create yet another board. On page 10 of the bill…. It will be composed of a board of seven directors. Seven times $50,000 a year plus a board chair. Let's throw in another $25,000 or $30,000 for the board chair, so that's $350,000 plus another $35,000 or $40,000 — close to $400,000. Add in their per-meeting expenses, and you're at half a million dollars just for the board alone.

On page 12, in section 24.35: "The board must appoint…a chief executive officer…." So what is being proposed here is to set out a board structure for, perhaps, more jobs for Mr. Gardner, the minister's friend, or people like that and to hire a CEO at something between, I would say, $300,000 to $500,000 a year and a bureaucracy to run the corporation.

This was a government that used to prattle on about deregulation. Here this government is setting up a corporation to shield themselves from accountability about the operation of infrastructure — that's roads, highways, bridges — in the province. That's what this bill proposes, that's the direction that the government is setting here, and anything else is just a political smokescreen concocted by the minister to try and blow this one by the public.

If you look at the TransLink bill, which was rammed through the Legislature…. Closure was used. I'm going to speak about some of the individual clauses here. Given that we only have some 16 days left in this legislative session, doubtlessly, there may not be sufficient time to debate this bill clause by clause, given the amount of time that's left here to debate bills.

I think it's important. In the case of the TransLink bill, there wasn't time. Here in the Legislature, we ran out of time, and that one was rammed through without clause-by-clause debate. So some of the sections that are now talked about and some of the powers of the TransLink corporation that are talked about, their power to acquire real estate…. Interpretations of those sections are floated out, and there was never an explanation from the minister and the opportunity to debate them here in the Legislature.

That's the real danger about the way that the government chooses to operate and the real danger that this particular bill will be the subject of closure before the end of this session, in some 16 days of sitting left.

In the TransLink bill — in addition to the board, which promptly gave itself a huge salary increase upon its convening itself, drawing itself together and enacted fare increases and refused to discuss them publicly to

any great extent — the TransLink bureaucracy was set up with a separate commissioner, an office of the commissioner, following on the model of that other supremely accountable organization, the B.C. Ferries.

So a board, a commission structure, all of which has to be paid for. In B.C. Ferries, that commissioner billed the government a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year at least. In the TransLink structure, there's a provision for inspectors. Again, more cost to run the organization — all of which leads to a lack of transparency.

This week the minister stood up when asked a question about B.C. Ferries and professed complete impotence. "I can't do anything about this. They're raising their directors' fees. I'm completely helpless. I have no power whatsoever." The sole shareholder of the B.C. Ferry is the government of British Columbia, and the minister as the representative of the shareholder professes complete impotence — inability to even affect that whatsoever.

Mind you, mysteriously, his own friend did find his way on to the board. I'm sure that the minister had absolutely nothing to do with that selection whatsoever.

The proposal that's put before us is in the same manner and same style as the unaccountable TransLink corporation, the unaccountable B.C. Ferries, where even the most basic decisions of governance will meet with a profession of impotence from the minister. That is not a structure that the public should be endorsing, nor do I support it in this particular piece of legislation.

There's really quite a lot at stake in this particular financial arrangement that's being talked about. Big investment banks are very interested in investing in infrastructure. There are actually a number of infrastructure deals around the globe that major investment banks are investing in and constructing those kinds of arrangements.

I'm going to quote from that well-known socialist journal BusinessWeek. "Hey, Buddy, You Wanna Buy a Bridge? Why investors are clamouring to take over America's roads, bridges and airports and why the public should be nervous." What this article points out is that many investors think of infrastructure-investing as a natural extension of the private equity model, which is based on cash flows and lots of debt, but there are important differences.

Private equity deals typically play out over five to ten years. Infrastructure deals run for decades. The risk levels are vastly different for a constructed facility like a road or a bridge. The infrastructure is ultra-low risk, because competition is limited by a host of forces that make it difficult to, say, build a rival toll road. Indeed, in the agreements there are specific agreements that rival toll roads would not be permitted to be built.

My colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin gave the example of the infrastructure project, the tunnel, in Australia where the government was obliged to close feeder roads that would have enabled people to escape the tunnel. They were forced to use the tunnel in order to drive up the number of vehicles passing through the tunnel to meet the projected toll revenue afforded to the concessionaire in the agreement.

The only major variables in these kinds of equations are the initial prices paid, the amount of debt used for financing, and the pace and magnitude of toll hikes — easy things for Wall Street to model.

I'm going to quote Anthony Coscia, the chair of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey: "With each passing week, there are more parties expressing unsolicited interest in some kind of financial transaction that will involve one of our assets directly or indirectly."

There is real interest in infrastructure and in infrastructure investment. What is it all about? It's all about the tolls. That really becomes the important part.

Some municipalities, cities and jurisdictions in the United States that entered into these kinds of agreements have already come to regret them.

Certainly, one of the early ones was the Chicago Skyway. What Dennis Enright, who is a principal and founder of a company called N.W. Financial, shows…. His firm's analysis "shows that Chicago could have done a lot better by handling the whole deal itself. It could have raised tolls and sold tax-exempt municipal bonds backed by the scheduled hikes. That would have given the city upfront cash it needed while preserving some of the income from the toll hikes. Instead, that money goes to Macquarie and Cintra" — the two infrastructure companies that bought the Chicago Skyway, at least the right to use it in a long-term deal.

So what's happening is that there are…. Typically, somewhat like the biofuel debate we had here, where conditions change and the government is a little bit behind what's going on out in the broader economy and hasn't really caught up to those changes, there's pushback against private investors now playing out in different ways.

He says the state doesn't need to hand over the turnpike to private operators. In Texas, that other bastion of social democratic thought in North America:

So what's happening is that other jurisdictions in North America that rushed into this sale of infrastructure in these long-term deals, where the main factor is the toll revenue, are coming to regret it and reconsidering their position. Yet this bill is designed to enable the entry of the government into that kind of a deal, because that's what a concessionaire is. That's the person who's going to ink the deal and that's going to gather the toll revenue over the life of the agreement.

There's every reason to be cautious here, and there's every reason to be suspicious, particularly when popping up to speak after the minister is one of the more partisan members. Of course, we're all partisan to some extent here, but the minister of Small Business and Revenue, that well-known pugilist, has popped up to speak to this bill. That ought to send off a warning signal right then and there that there's something afoot here, some attempt to divert the public to make this debate into something that it's not about. It's certainly not about what the minister says it's about. It's about creating a Crown corporation with a plan to vend in Crown assets in the future in the way that this article in BusinessWeek describes.

There's no particular rationale set out because, of course, all the discussion of the bill is completely beside the point and off topic, deliberately so. There are other projects in the province that have been built very recently without the necessity to have this kind of Crown corporation in place — for example, the Bennett bridge; the bridge at Kicking Horse Canyon, which the members opposite like to talk about whenever given the opportunity; the Sea to Sky Highway.

None of these required the existence of this Crown corporation — none of these projects. They're big projects. The bridge at Kicking Horse Canyon is complete. It managed to be done without this kind of legal structure in place. One wonders why this is necessary. In my view, this is part of a long-term plan to vend, to sell sections of roads, bridges and highways to the private sector in these kinds of long-term deals that are so popular with investment banks and have been arranged in other jurisdictions. That's what this is about.

I do want to make a couple of comments on different sections before I close, simply because this bill may well go by way of closure, given that we have limited time left in the session. The government likes to back-end-load the bills, all coming near the middle of the session rather than at the beginning, in order to create that kind of pressure and, in my view, perhaps hope that debate gets limited on the important parts of legislation.

Section 15, though, allows the concessionaire to suspend the toll device of a person who is indebted within the meaning of section 17(2). What's envisaged here is that the concessionaire will set up an arrangement.

They'll also be able to create something called the toll device, which may be an electronic form of paying the toll. You attach it to your vehicle, and it would read it when you crossed over an electronic reader, somewhat like you do at the supermarket when you pass your groceries through. Therefore, you wouldn't need to stop and physically hand over the cash for the toll. A machine would read the toll device in your car, and you would be able to get through.

There is a comment in the same article that I referred to: "Higher tolls will take a big bite out of lower-income people's wallets." Next is a quote from Princeton University economics professor U.E. Reinhardt, who says: "You have to ask yourself if you want roads that used to be considered a public service to be rationed by income class." That's one of the effects of a toll highway, certainly, when the agreement, in order to finance it, will give the concessionaire the right to ratchet up the tolls.

That's certainly what was discovered in Ontario in the 407 Highway 99-year agreement. The government had conceded all control over the tolls. As is clear from these deals and expert comment on it, these agreements are all about the tolls. That's what they're about. That's why the investment banks are interested in them. That's the source of revenue. If you've got an exclusive source of revenue for that period of time, if you strike the right deal, it's an opportunity to make a lot of money at very little risk to the investors that are involved in this deal.

This particular section gives the authority the right to suspend the holder of a toll device. If you don't pay your toll, then you can be blocked by the concessionaire from using the highway. Put yourself in the position of a small business person. You maybe had some reverses. You get behind on your bills. You don't pay the toll device. You can't get to work. You will be blocked from crossing the bridge because the toll device will be suspended.

There's nothing in the bill that sets a level or any scrutiny. It's all handed over to the concessionaire to decide what level to institute that at, what punitive interest, late charges or disguised taxation might be imposed on someone who has fallen behind on their payments, whether there's an appeal process of that. All of that is handed over to the concessionaire.

I suppose the minister will argue that the very transparent corporation and those transparent and accountable directors would entertain pleas from people like that. Given the experience of TransLink, given the experience of people who have experienced fare hikes from B.C. Ferries, given the minister's impotence before the huge increase in directors' fees at B.C. Ferries, I doubt that the corporation will have any power to help those kind of people whatsoever.

If there is some small business person running an electrical company or construction firm, living in, say, Surrey-Tynehead, who has a toll device and has fallen behind in their bills, they could be blocked entirely

from crossing the bridge, with a very drastic consequence to their business, to their personal affairs, to their personal life entirely. That's something that, in this particular provision, is in my view offensive. I raise it here at second reading debate simply because we may not get to it later on in committee stage.

The other thing that has been mentioned is typical with the corporate structure. It's set out here in the legislation that this corporation's fiduciary duty has to act in the best interests of the corporation and not the government, the public or any broader consideration.

Very traditional corporate law would bind this corporation to that obligation, and in my view that's not the role of a public corporation. Its sole direction should not be to act in the best interest of the corporation because, broadly construed, the interest of the concessionaire may take priority over any public interest and, certainly, over a board of directors that will be hidden behind a firewall from any public scrutiny or any public concern, and where a minister will be powerless to intervene — or at least profess that he's powerless to intervene.

The other area that my colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin has also addressed is the area of conflict. These directors, one will expect, have some background in the area. But the conflict-of-interest rules that are set out here are very, very diluted and, in my view, don't afford the kind of public protection that's necessary and, indeed, expected when one assumes a position as a director of a public corporation.

Finally, the issue of capacity and powers on page 10 of the bill confirms the argument that I am making that this corporation has the power and capacity to do one or more of the following: "(a) acquire, construct, hold or improve transportation infrastructure or cause it to be acquired, constructed, held or improved; (b) acquire, hold or dispose of land…."

The government can vend to the corporation different existing infrastructure projects, existing bridges, sections of highways, toll roads or prospective toll roads, and then this corporation will be given the mandate to strike the deal, to sell them off, to make an agreement that involves toll revenue. That's very clear from this legislation.

A polite term would be that the minister is constructing an artifice here — or, if you prefer a little bit more down-to-earth term, a snow job. This bill is not about the professed subject that the Minister of Transportation says it's about. What it's about is creating a corporation with powers to strike long-term deals with financial institutions, where the toll revenue is the main subject of the deal.

Given that this government is usually long on the ideology and short on the practicality, I expect that it will ignore recent American experience with these kinds of deals, where even the assembly in Texas — as I say, that well-known bastion of social-democratic thought — has put a moratorium on selling off infrastructure and creating toll roads because the deals look so bad in hindsight.

I want to record my comments at second reading and those extra comments on individual sections, because I don't expect that we will have time to deal with this issue in committee. Should we have time to deal with it in committee, I look forward to that debate, and perhaps, for once, we'll get some answers from the minister.

D. Hayer: I want to take this opportunity to speak strongly in favour of this bill and strongly in favour of twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. This bill — Port Mann Twinning Amendment Act, 2008 — is all about this project. This is a project that has been a long time in coming, but if I listen to the members from the opposition, it will be even longer before they reduce the congestion though my riding of Surrey-Tynehead and before we begin to improve the air quality for my constituents and for the rest of the people living south of Port Mann Bridge.

The existing Port Mann Bridge was opened in 1963. That is some 45 years ago, when our population was less than half of what it is today, when our city of Surrey was just a small farming community and when our British Columbia was not a huge transportation corridor from our ports to the rest of Canada.

Yet in the next 10 years, more than one million new people are expected to call our British Columbia home. As they come, they will need more bridges and roads to get around. They will need more bridges and roads to get their goods and services moving. Those things will not be possible without the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, without the widening of Highway 1.

Every day we have hours-long traffic jams leading up to the Port Mann Bridge. Vehicles — cars, trucks, buses — waste endless hours idling, stuck in gridlock. Every minute they sit idling in traffic gridlock, they are spewing emissions into the air.

The NDP doesn't seem to understand that we have to have the traffic move more efficiently and effectively to reduce emissions. They don't seem to understand that unless we double the size of Port Mann Bridge, we will have congestion the way it is now. Our residents and our working people — our economy — will have their worst nightmares, being stuck in the traffic.

This bill — which enables a management corporation to build a bridge and widen the freeway, along with rebuilding the interchanges between Vancouver and Langley — only makes sense. We need a Crown corporation to oversee the project to ensure that the taxpayers' best interests are maintained and to develop this massive project into a self-sustaining entity.

It will have the ability to toll users, thus creating a revenue flow that will maintain the infrastructure, manage the traffic demand, reduce congestion and improve our air quality. That Transportation Investment Corporation will also develop and sign a joint agreement with a private sector partner to design, construct, finance and operate this incredible project.

This is a great project — the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the widening of Highway 1. I know that all the constituents from Surrey support it. I also

know that the constituents who live in Surrey–Green Timbers, Surrey-Newton, Surrey-Whalley, Surrey-Tynehead, Surrey-Cloverdale, Surrey–Panorama Ridge and all surrounding areas support this bridge.

This corporation is necessary because it will provide a safeguard for British Columbians. It will ensure that our best interests are maintained and protected. It will also ensure that the bridge is built as a complete transportation project — that it will include provision for expanded HOV lanes, rapid transit buses, cycling lanes and a pedestrian walkway. This is a bridge at the right time, at the right place. This bridge is needed — something that the NDP either doesn't seem to understand or is not willing to acknowledge.

I know it is right, because my constituents tell me it is right. Virtually everyone who lives south of the Port Mann Bridge and south of the Fraser River says it is the right thing to do. More importantly, the economy tells us that it is, because right now the cost to businesses, to our working people and to the economy through lost time stuck idling in traffic is more than $1.5 billion a year.

The NDP members from Surrey know this. They know how long it takes for their constituents to go to work. They know how long it takes for parents to drive their kids to games. They know how frustrated everybody is with the current bridge, yet they won't have the courage to stand up for their constituents. They won't have the strength to speak up for something that is obviously right, that is obviously necessary, that is obviously needed. If we'd left this project up to the NDP, it would have been another 45 years before a new bridge would be built. Despite what they say now, they would not have built this bridge for the next 45 years.

Our government, with this bill, is not waiting 45 years. We are going to start it right now and start it this year. We will have traffic flowing across this new bridge by 2013, just five years from now. That is the reality: a new bridge, more lanes on the freeway, rebuilt interchanges and underpasses and clean air by 2013.

This is a good bill. It is necessary. It is good for now; it is good for our future. It is good for our children's future, and it is good for our grandchildren's future. I completely and totally support this bill. It is a bill to secure our future. It is a bill that will secure the future of all British Columbia. It is a bill that should be supported by every member of this House, because it is good for everyone, regardless of their political affiliation.

G. Gentner: Just briefly in preamble before we address the actual bill, some of the statements made by the member for Surrey-Tynehead are good ones, relative to the need of the bridge.

Frankly, this legislation isn't all about the bridge. It enables future projects — in fact, all projects in the province — and it has a very suspicious agenda here. As the member for Surrey-Whalley has pointed out, we don't need this legislation to be able to build a bridge.

What bothers me so much in this is the fact that the member opposite doesn't realize that the very legislation that's being proposed here is going to delay this bridge. It's going to hold it up. It's going to set it back, and we have lots of proper examples to show how that's going to happen.

We know that this is a delay-and-evade issue by the members opposite. They say they want to build a bridge, but what's happening here is a bill that's not going to enable efficiencies in the system. It's going to wreak nothing but more legal expenses and contracts as we've never seen before between all different partners in this mini-partnership. It's a Partnerships B.C. that is a subsidiary-like corporation here. That is what we're going to see.

You know, hon. Speaker, we can talk about this Transportation Investment Corporation, but it is another wasteful level of bureaucracy that will be used to hide the government's own accountability on this project, to hide from responsibility for the damage that will be done, with many years to try and find out what really has happened.

We've seen what's happened, for example, on the Canada line. The Canada line is an example of that type of so-called partnership where things didn't really evolve in the transparent nature of what we expect from the government of British Columbia.

What we saw instead were consortiums involved…. And yes, on that one, even some of that money came from pension money. Caisse de Dépôt and the B.C. investment…. It was partly part and part of that project.

In many ways we see what happens. We saw what happened to Canada line. For example, we saw that the syndicate — or the consortium — went out and bought land, assembled land, in Richmond to build the Bridgeport SkyTrain system — a parking lot. Then for next to pennies, upon assembling that land, what did they do? They sold it to River Rock Casino for their parking needs and not for the park-and-ride needs of the people of Richmond.

That was done underneath, and nobody knew. There's no transparency there. Nobody knew about the back deal there, but here's an example of what happens with this type of consortium P3 agreements. That is what we're going to see here today with this Transportation Investment Corporation. It creates a new level of bureaucracy. It creates more legal servicing, accountants being put on the payroll to try and find out who owes who and why. Indeed, it's going to be another level of bureaucracy between the provincial government and the infrastructure project.

Maybe we can call it another independent Crown corporation. We saw what happened with B.C. Ferries and the ability for the bureaucrats, particularly the board of directors, to self-appoint their own fees and allowances and salaries.

The lack of accountability here is very questionable on what the intention of the government is. It's going to run around. The minister will tell us how he is somehow at arm's length once again of this project, and if

there are any problems, the difficulties will be passed somewhere else. In the end, it's the taxpayer who will be picking up the tab. In the end, if there are any liabilities, they will be picked up by the taxpayer.

We have got to seriously question what the real message of this bill is all about. On this side of the House we made it very clear — our leader made it very clear — that we support a bridge. I want to say it again. We support a bridge. It's the manner in which you go about presenting that bridge.

This legislation is going to defer the construction. It's going to slow it down. They're going to dawdle. They're going to vacillate. They're going to waver. They're going to falter. Because this new bureaucracy that's going to be put in place — a new system of partnerships, credit, with various consortiums…. We will not see this completed in the time frame that the members opposite suggested.

We do not know what the costs are. We do not know what the costs will be, in the same way that the members opposite didn't know what the costs were going to be on the convention centre. They're still in a position where they're in denial, but there it went for a huge cost overrun — a Crown corporation, I may add.

The government chooses P3s because it allows them to use what they call creative measures. They're able to hide debt from government books. Let's not forget that B.C. Ferries has a debt. The government will bring in private financing for this project, but the risk will not be borne by the partnerships. The risk will be borne, of course, by the government itself.

We've seen it over and over again. We've seen it many times with some of the projects being put forward, coming forward off the stream by Partnerships B.C. In particular, if I may, I'll talk briefly about what that means for British Columbia. We can talk about the shared responsibility here.

This is going to try and offset accountability and transparency, but the liability will rest strictly with the province. When it comes to joint and several liability, it's covered by the taxpayers. We saw it with the Accenture deal. We've seen it again, over and over, with many other P3 projects.

In fact, this type of bill that's going to present itself will prove without question that Bill 14 certainly will be a sinkhole when it comes down to building the bridge. It will prove without question that there are going to be far greater expenses here than most people even envisioned. It will turn accountability on its head, it will promote government deals that actually guarantee we pay more, and we will get less. In fact, the concessionaires will be rubbing their hands with glee.

When you look at the example that was placed with Partnerships B.C. and the original intention…. You look at what the CEO of the day said: "Our job is to drag government kicking and screaming into the marketplace. That's our mandate. Our corporate interests are aligned with the markets." That's what this bill will do.

It's strictly not about accountability to the people of British Columbia. It's not about accountability to local government and sharing and talking to the regional district and working things out. This is a matter of working with consortiums. This will be a project that has been typically design-build-finance-operate, and it will be operated by the concessionaire, where a private company will be involved. It usually will be a consortium. It'll go beyond the conventional design-build contract that usually finances the project and then operates the facility over a long-term period of 25 or 40 years for additional fees.

Traditionally, we do that anyway. We promote entrepreneurial spirit. We did it with the Alex Fraser Bridge, and we did it with all our projects. There are some contractors that win, but the real risk here is that of financing, and the risk will be borne on the taxpayer in the long term.

The long-term fee here on this project will be higher. It's for a simple reason. The government can borrow money at a lower rate than the private companies. But on a big project like this, we're going to see that the interest will be much higher than from the government. With the P3 agreement, the debt will increase, but the liability will be borne by the taxpayer.

The government, instead of using the traditional means of taking the leadership and developing subcontracts, will instead deal with negotiating a contract with the consortium themselves, and they will turn around and subcontract to subcontractors, whose contracts will be woven into the master plan. We've seen this many, many times.

We've seen it in many concessionaire tolling booths south of the line, and we've seen it, again, up at a similar project with the Abbotsford hospital. I'm not going to spend too much time with that, but there's another one that's already well over budget. The budget rose by 70 percent, from $211 million to $355 million, within three to four years. The yearly service payments to the P3 consortium doubled, from $20 million to almost $41 million per annum. The total cost for the 33 operational contracts skyrocketed to nearly double, as well, from $720 million to $1.4 billion.

The P3s have proven to cost more than the conventional projects. Proponents have quit claiming that they will save us public money. It's interesting that members on the other side are unwilling to admit the relative long-term costs of these types of projects over a contract of perhaps 30 to 40 years.

We can look at many successful P3s. I'll grant you that there are some. We saw one up at the Britannia minesite, with the filtration of the water from an area that was destroyed by a copper mine. That was a smaller project, and certainly, it has been somewhat beneficial. We are on record as looking at those types of projects — smaller, where there's some risk.

But when you look at the larger issues such as this, an issue of a utility that is going to be used by the majority of people south of the Fraser, we want complete accountability here.

You know, it's interesting when the member for Surrey-Tynehead talks about the need for this bridge. Of course, I agree that we need the bridge, no question. The problem with it, when you put on the tolls…. Let's talk about toll for the trolls. It's interesting what it's going to do to my community. We'll see an increase through my community because of toll evaders. They're certainly going to evade taking the chance of paying a private contractor to take their money. They're going to filter their way through my community and cause a greater pressure on our infrastructure.

Nevertheless, that planning consultation should be completely open and transparent from a regional perspective, and now with this bill it's certainly questionable whether or not we'll be able to do that. It's interesting, too, with this added bureaucracy, what it's going to do. It's going to certainly see some more recreational dining by CEOs. It's going to open up new allowances to go out and wine and dine in the culture created by Partnerships B.C. with these huge salaries, these bonuses and, of course, the amount of, shall we say, recreational dining that will certainly be part of all these interests — getting together over a dining table.

We know lots of examples with Partnerships B.C., what happened there — Al Porto Ristorante on Water Street, dinners that went on and on, wild goose, liver pâté. We're looking at bottles of wine for 17 people, bills of thousands of dollars. So this is what's going to happen here with this project. We're now going to create a new mini-P3 project. We're going to see more and more of the elite getting together over a nice little dinner. Where will the accountability be when we start to ask the question, primarily: what's happened to the accounts?

H. Bloy: It's a real pleasure, and it's the first time that I have my childhood friend here from grade 3. We moved into the same subdivision, and we remember the teacher's name — Miss Rowat, I think. We were both in love with her then, and we remained friends all these years. He's in the gallery today. It's Paul Andaloro, and he's with another friend that went to the same elementary school with us, David Brooks. If the House would please make them welcome.

G. Gentner: You know, we've seen it through government, and we've seen it in municipalities that we already have these turnkey operations at work. Again, the major concern here is that of the financing. The amount of money over the long term that will be awarded to the consortium is something that we should very much consider.

When we look down, relative to…. Will that private partner provide an irrevocable line of credit on a bond? I don't think so. Again, the risk will be borne by the taxpayer. As the project gets older and there's a sliding scale on the maintenance of the infrastructure, how will the government ensure that that will be in place? We certainly don't know.

This legislation certainly points to the position where there will be plenty of liability here. There will be plenty of partners and consortiums with shell companies, which they would like to call subsidiaries. But there are some problems here. Again, it's going to be based on one thing, I believe — that of joint and several liability of who's going to sue whom when there's a problem here.

These are issues that I think have been not properly addressed, and hopefully, if time permits, I would suggest the proper means of dealing with issues in democracy — that is, going through it with a true committee stage so that we can take it step by step. I hope we have an opportunity to do that, because this is a very important issue.

The government, in its wisdom, has decided to create a Crown corporation, yet it didn't have to create a Crown corporation to build this bridge. It didn't have to. It's all there in place. It's already there now. More importantly, it's the precedent that's going to be set here in this legislation. It's not just building a bridge. It could be for all projects in the province, and the implications of that are extreme. It means many residents, many neighbourhood groups could be cast aside when the discussions come forward as to what should happen and what should not happen.

The parent company or subsidy may not have any assets, and, therefore, under joint and several liability it will be the taxpayer that will be on the hook. We can create this concession corporation that deals with the concession of tolls, but if there's a problem, it will be the taxpayer that will be on the hook.

When it comes to regulating that…. I know the government has been somewhat negligent in the belief that regulation is the way to go, but we certainly see regulation on utilities — ICBC and all other such utilities. Yet this, in fact, is a utility as well. This is a utility called roads — a very important road.

I don't see anything here in this legislation that provides a step towards appealing the rate structures of the concession. I don't see the ability to take it to the Utilities Commission or any commission to appeal it. We're seeing another similar transit — TransLink — board of directors that can go in secret and do what it wants. For the need of accountability, there's got to be a structure built in here, and I don't see it here.

The private shell company may be 70 percent liable, and the province is 30 percent, but if the shell has no assets and it goes belly up, it will be the province, the taxpayers, left to hold the bag. Therefore, it will be the province, and it will be 100 percent responsible. If

there's a partnership in the maintenance of this structure to design, build, finance and operate and if there's a problem there and no money available, well, it's going to be the taxpayer that's going to have to bear those costs.

The government will have to renegotiate the contracts in midstream. Those costs will not be discussed here today. We don't know what those costs will be in maybe ten or 15 years under this legislation. If the provider is insolvent and cannot provide services, even those that are substandard, what will be the message then from the government? We'll be spending a lot of time in litigations.

Why are we going to look at holding companies? Because there will be very little liability by the holding companies. There's little equity, therefore, I believe the higher borrowing rating will be passed on to taxpayers. Holding companies receive tax benefits, though. They borrow. Interest on debt can be claimed. Bigger costs, bigger debt means bigger tax shelters. The tax shield, without exposing themselves, will be part of this structure. Subordinated debt — that adds to the cost. Nothing put up in equity — higher debt is passed on to the concessionaire and to the taxpayer.

I think this is a very serious bill that has far-reaching implications. It's leaving the traditional method on how we finance and how we built our infrastructure. The privatization view of this government is going to the extreme with this bill.

Will the government want to finance tax breaks for the construction firms? Well, maybe it will, and maybe that's what this whole legislation is about. It's a break to many of the friends of the opposite side. When you talk about these types of partnerships, there are huge contracts that sometimes take years to sign off on. The Accenture deal was a thousand pages.

The amount of legal work that's going to go into this contract with the concessionaire and the build-design operators is going to be huge. We're going to need codes of conduct built in that legislation, codes of conduct that, in most part, will have to address key policies and principles as they are applicable to persons providing services to this road or to any road. That's going to have to be worked out now with the private provider.

The code's amendments or revisions shall have to be approved by the majority of the board members. How accountable will these board members be? Are they going to be accountable to the people in this room, or will they be dealing with moments in secrecy, and it will not be transparent enough to know what that code of conduct will mean?

We can look at the partnership's expenses. The partnership shall be responsible for and shall pay all of its expenses. However, it will all be at the sole discretion of the private partnership. As taxpayers, we may never know what those expenses could be. Again, it comes down to liabilities. If the partnership goes broke, it will be the taxpayers that will have to bear those responsibilities.

Of course, we're looking at the fees. We're going to look at a whole new industry evolving out of this. With all due respect to my friend to the left, the member from the legal profession from Nanaimo, there are going to be a lot of rich lawyers making these types of new agreements in these P3s, particularly here with the new road structures. This is where we're going, different moneys for consultants.

G. Gentner: Yeah, the poor lawyers and the rich lawyers. We need more rich lawyers. No doubt about that.

The whole investigating structure is going to have to be evaluated. It's going to have to come about in the new contracts on how we're going to monitor that. How do we do restructuring? There'll be reorganizations within.

We're looking at this huge new unnecessary bureaucracy we are going to be creating with this Crown corporation. I believe that it's already intact. If we utilize our own human resources here, we're not going to only save money but we will also see efficiencies.

You know, we can look back to the '60s and Flying Phil Gaglardi and the speeding tickets and everything else that was involved back then. That was an exciting time in British Columbia, because they did get things done, and they didn't have to go this route. They didn't do that.

We saw Deas Island Tunnel, which stood the test of time. I mean, it was a marvel in 1957, when it was built. I didn't see a P3. In fact, there was a concession booth built there, and the deal — similar to the Coquihalla, although we've sort of changed that one — was that once it paid for itself, the concession would be removed.

You know what W.A.C. Bennett and Phil Gaglardi did? They honoured that. As soon as that tunnel was paid for, they took the concession booths out. Why could they do that? Because the taxpayers of British Columbia owned that infrastructure. They didn't have to honour a contract that could go 30 or 40 years, where a concessionaire is putting your money in their pockets constantly, not knowing whether that money is going to go back into maintaining the infrastructure.

The Coquihalla is another example. Another Bennett, the Premier, went forward and built a bridge. I admit that there was lots of controversy on that one as well, but by golly, they got it done. Here we are later. Although there's still a concession, it's been paid for.

I think that even years ago the Lions Gate Bridge had a concession that was publicly owned, although I admit that I understand that part of it was financed by British Pacific Properties to help bring some development onto the North Shore. But in the end, that was owned by the taxpayers.

There are lots of success stories about what we can do as a province together on both sides, what we can do with our own ingenuity without having to go beyond and take greater risks. That's not to say that we're going to shut down free enterprise or the entrepreneurial spirit. We never have when it comes to building roads. We have never done that. There's lots of money to be made for good contractors that meet the standards of the day.

I don't understand or support where the government is going with this. I think it has got more to do with politics. I think the people of British Columbia will see right through it, because we know the need for continued infrastructure.

There's a need for the bridge. My position is clear; about that I have no problem. Do you want to talk about this bridge? I have no problem with this bridge, but I do believe that there have to be constraints on the type of growth up the valley which could occur because of this bridge. But with the record of the government and previous governments on the preservation of the agricultural land reserve, this is a potential gateway for more development.

It doesn't mean we're against the bridge. I think the bridge could be a good thing, under public money, as long as it doesn't create a type of sprawl. Also, the need for proper transit services, the proper infrastructure, the proper continued growth, even light rail transit systems….

The GVRD has actually done a study on passenger ferry service across the rivers. San Francisco has done a great job, where they're able to do passenger services. We should be investing more time in sea buses across the Burrard Inlet. We have that infrastructure, that ability. There's a sea bus that was built by the vision of a Premier of the day called Dave Barrett in the 1970s — publicly financed, not private. We need more of that kind of infrastructure — publicly financed and built by the people of British Columbia.

The other problem I have with this, of course, is the member for Surrey-Tynehead talks about how we're against this bridge. We're not against this bridge. We're not against any improvements to infrastructure. What I do have a problem with here is that there's a possibility under the contract signed under this legislation that the partners could be indemnified and the risk will be transferred — you know who to — to the taxpayers.

We don't have to do that. The success of British Columbia, the success of the 1950s, means that we had a hard time getting out of the province. There was a gravel road called the Trans-Canada Highway. Lo and behold, Phil Gaglardi came, and he showed us how to do it. He didn't have to do it through the P3 structures.

Confidentiality. Here's one that really bothers me. The parties involved should be able to disclose information. But if one party believes — and we know the story — that it's going to hurt their competitiveness in the marketplace, that confidentiality, that information, that technical knowledge we have invested in will not be shared by the people of British Columbia. It will be somewhat removed.

What does it do to the confidentiality of information that's going to be shared with the environmental assessment office? That's a whole new can of worms we're opening here. If you go to the environmental assessment office and you want a project built and there are some real difficulties with it, and if there's a partner involved who said that disclosure of this information will have a detrimental effect on my future competitiveness, where is the place of the province in that position? Those are questions and issues that I don't see here.

L. Mayencourt: I'm really glad I have the opportunity to stand up and talk a little bit about this particular piece of legislation and the reasons why I'm going to be supporting it.

I grew up in Surrey, and I've seen Surrey grow from about, I don't know, 100,000 people to almost half a million. I have seen Surrey turn into a wonderful, wonderful place that is going to one day be the largest city in British Columbia.

My mom and most of my family still live in Surrey. I really love going out to see them and visit with them. I have to take the 401 to get there. I have to go across the Port Mann Bridge to visit my mother. I want to tell you, those visits are really important to me, but also they've taught me something about the Port Mann Bridge. They've taught me something about transportation. They've taught me that there is a time when there needs to be some action taken.

I've listened to the NDP for the last several days talk about greenhouse gas emissions, and they've put forward the argument that we aren't consulting enough. They want us to go to a special parliamentary committee. They want us to do all of this stuff. Well, one of the irrefutable facts is that when you're parked on the 401 from Langley all the way to Coquitlam, you're polluting. You are putting greenhouse gases into our environment. That is not productive.

It's also really irritating. I've sat in traffic across that bridge, and I could not believe how long it took for one person to get across that bridge. I cannot believe, also, that people in this province don't understand that that's a major problem for us environmentally as well as economically as well as emotionally.

You see, Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that if you're parked there, you're producing these gases. You're polluting the environment. When you put a bunch of trucks in a lineup and ask them to leave their engines idling on the 401, they're polluting. They are making it impossible for us to deal with climate change in our own little province, in our own way.

That's really one of the agenda items that we put forward here. We want to reduce our footprint on the environment. That's why all of the green climate change agenda has been so important to us. I used to think that it was important to the NDP, but apparently…. I mean, the last few days I kind of question

that, but I know that I am firmly committed to it. I know that members on this side of the House are firmly committed to it, and I know that members on this side are going to be supporting this bill because it facilitates a change that will help us deal with the environment.

One of the issues that comes up all the time when I talk to anyone in any neighbourhood around the Port Mann Bridge is transit. It's hard to believe, but it's impossible for us to have a transit system going across the Port Mann Bridge. It's simply not possible. The buses can get stuck in traffic in a way that makes it just impossible for it to be efficient, impossible for it to be environmentally friendly.

With the Port Mann Bridge twinning we'll have an opportunity to have HOV lanes. We'll have an opportunity to have buses and transit vehicles going across the Port Mann Bridge, speeding people into their workplace and taking them home real fast. I think that's an important thing.

Now, as I said, Surrey…. You know, the traffic is not all going one way. The traffic in British Columbia is going in directions towards Surrey and away from Surrey. The fact of the matter is that people from Vancouver get caught in traffic heading out there as well. That's happened to me over and over again. I used to think that the NDP stood for getting that transit system improved. That's what Glen Clark did when he was the Minister of Highways. He said: "We're going to have to expand the 401."

I'll tell you, Madam Speaker, that at least that guy understood that it made sense to invest in a wider road so that people could get to work on time. At least that guy understood that that was an improvement to the environment. You know, we've heard a lot from the Leader of the Opposition in the last week and a lot from members on that side about the good old days of W.A.C. Bennett.

Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, that I'm old enough to know what that team used to say about W.A.C. Bennett. They didn't like him at all. They thought he was crazy. They didn't want to support any of the initiatives that he put in. They didn't support the Port Mann Bridge in '63. They didn't support the Alex Fraser Bridge. They didn't support the Deas Island Tunnel in 1953. That side decided that the way to solve problems was to lock everybody in their car on a highway.

That never made sense in 1953. It didn't make sense in '72, it didn't make sense in 1975, and it sure doesn't make any sense in 2008.

We talked a little while ago, and the member for Delta North mentioned Flying Phil Gaglardi. Well, Flying Phil was pretty popular in my day with people on this side of the House but not very popular with the NDP. I will tell you why. It's because he got things done.

He got highways built. He opened our province up in a way that it had never been opened up before, and he made it possible for all of us — Liberals, Conservatives, NDP — to be able to go out and see what a beautiful province we had. He made sure that we could make it across the bridges. He made sure that we had opportunity for economic development to happen in every corner of our province. That has been very good for our province. That has been something that has made British Columbia the envy of Canada right now.

I want to talk for a minute about another thing. Our Transportation Minister right now is perhaps not as flamboyant as Flying Phil, but he's got a vision. He is determined, and he….

We have someone in the driver's seat right now in the Ministry of Transportation that is going forward…

L. Mayencourt: …with an aggressive agenda to make sure that people and goods and services are moving efficiently throughout British Columbia.

We have someone, finally, that wants to do something about the congestion on the Fraser River. I gotta tell you, as I listen to members opposite talk about the Port Mann Bridge, I have one of them opposed to it from Esquimalt, and I have one that's in favour from North Delta, and I have the Leader of the Opposition, who can't quite make up her mind because she's not really sure where it is and what benefits it's going to have.

I've got to tell you that it's pretty clear on this side of the House. It's pretty clear in Surrey and in Delta. It's pretty clear in Coquitlam. It's pretty clear in Maple Ridge. It's pretty clear in Chilliwack and everywhere along the Fraser Valley that it's time to double the bridge.

I hear a member talking about that by creating this corporation, this evil P3, somehow we're going to mire the whole process in bureaucracy and not get the bridge built. Well, I'm going to tell you that P3s make sense in British Columbia, and the proof is the fast ferries. If those had been a P3, you would have had everything built, everything ready, including the toilet paper, for $150 million. Instead, you spent $500 million on it, and it didn't work — on an experiment. So P3s are something that we should be doing.

As a matter of fact, members in this House will remember in 2001 when we finally said, "Okay, we have to build a convention centre," your side stood up and railed and got the public sector unions and got everyone to make it impossible for us to have a P3 there. So what did we do? We had to build it. Guess what. It wasn't the best way to do it. We should have had someone else taking the risk, someone else taking the loss — someone else that would have a sharper pencil. There is a great argument for P3s in this province.

Every time I hear the mantra over there that P3s are evil, that P3s are bad, I wonder what is so bad about them. What is so bad about having everyone participate in building British Columbia? What is wrong with someone like PCL construction doing some work for the province? What is wrong with having someone else build a SkyTrain route? Nothing.

When you go with a P3, you reduce the risk to British Columbians. You make sure that the project is built on time. You make sure the project is built on budget. That's something that British Columbians want.

For the last several days we've heard the members of the opposition talk about the greenhouse gas and all the climate change and how we should be doing this and that and everything, yet they've consistently voted against legislation that puts in a carbon tax. What is that about?

Well, they'd like to refer it to the committee. They'd like a special parliamentary committee to look at whether we should do something about the environment. They want another committee to decide whether or not we should build a bridge.

When was the last time you went across the Pattullo Bridge? Have you been over there, Members? Have you come across the Fraser River on the Port Mann Bridge or the Alex Fraser or the Deas Island Tunnel? Have you been stuck in traffic so bad that you can't get to where you want to go?

I'll tell you what. You can have all the committees you want. I'll tell you what committees do. Committees do squat; committees do nothing. That's why we still have the Pattullo Bridge. That's why we still have traffic backed up to Langley, because the committee couldn't come to a conclusion about whether it was a good idea or not.

Our Transportation Minister and our Premier said: "Enough is enough. It is time to build another crossing across the Fraser River. We are doing it, and we're going to do it this year." You can rant and rave all you want about P3s. You can scream and pull your hair out and light it on fire, because this awful thing is happening.

I'll tell you something. People in the Fraser Valley want a bridge. They're getting a bridge, and the only argument is whether or not you have the guts to stand up and support the initiative. It's time. Flying Phil, W.A.C. Bennett, the Premier, the Transportation Minister and members on this side are willing to take a stand to open up British Columbia, and you are worried about whether there's going to be a board of directors that can report to someone in this chamber or not.

I've got to tell you, I don't really care. I'll tell what you I care about. I care about British Columbia being a thriving economy. I care about the environment, which these people have dithered over for ten or 15 years, which they dithered over in an unprecedented manner this past week. It is shameful what I saw from that side of the House on greenhouse gases. It is shameful that they want another committee.

I'll tell you something, Madam Speaker. I've sat in this chamber for seven years, and I've been with these guys, these characters over here, for two. I'll tell you something about the last opposition.

L. Mayencourt: I'll tell you about the Leader of the Opposition the last time I was here, Joy MacPhail. She could get things done; you guys can't. You guys are so mired…. You have asked for more committees….

The members opposite have asked for more committees under this term — for committees, reports and everything you can imagine in unprecedented numbers. No wonder Joy left. It's just not worth it to sit over there and be namby-pamby and negative all the time, to be destructive for every particular…. I mean, what is it that those members stand for if they cannot stand for British Columbians? What is it? What is it that you can't stand for? You can't stand for getting British Columbians good value, for getting them an environmentally friendly….

Let's remember this. The $50 million out of the Gateway project is going to greenways, to cycle paths. We'll have high-occupancy vehicle lanes all the way to Langley. We'll restore transit to the Port Mann Bridge for the first time in 20 years.

All of the time that you guys were in government…. All of the time that the members opposite were in government, there has not been one single B.C. Transit bus go over the Port Mann — all of the time that they were there. I've got to tell you, that doesn't sound very environmentally friendly to me, and it sure doesn't sound like it to people in Surrey, Coquitlam and New Westminster. It sounds like dithering.

I'll tell you, Madam Speaker. I'll stand with members on this side any old day of the week. When it comes to the Port Mann Bridge, it's time to build it, and we'd better get it done. We can't afford another opportunity to pass us by.

You know, the NDP has never built a bridge, and this is probably why they're a little nervous. You see, they've never actually built a bridge in British Columbia.

L. Mayencourt: Yeah, can you believe that? How many years were you guys in government? You didn't even…. As a matter of fact, I think the closest they came to it was adding ten feet to the side of the Lions Gate Bridge. Well, that's no great achievement. It looks nice, but it still cost me and British Columbia $130 million.

So who the heck do I want watching the store? I want our Transportation Minister, I want my Premier, I want my Finance Minister, and I want the people on this side calling the shots. I'll tell you right now that the members opposite have no vision, no commitment to the environment, no commitment to improving transportation, no commitment to public transit at all. None whatsoever.

For all of the time they were in government, not one bus could cross the Port Mann. I'd be pretty ashamed if I were them. I'd be pretty ashamed.

On this side of the government, this side over here, we get things done, and we are going to make sure that British Columbia and the Fraser Valley get a bridge so that we can move goods, services and people around this province, prepare Surrey for its role as the largest city in British Columbia and ensure that people do not spend hours and hours in their cars.

I have the opportunity to choose whether or not I go to Surrey. I don't have to go there for work, but I get to choose. I choose, because I want to see my mom, and I want to see my family. But for hundreds of thousands of people every day, they do not have a choice. They have to go across that bridge as fast as they possibly can and hope that they can get it over five klicks an hour.

It is time for this opposition, for those members on that side, to stand up with us, stand up for British Columbia and for the people of Surrey and the lower Fraser Valley. It's time for you guys to get on the train. It's leaving the station.

H. Bains: You know, the public sitting at home listening to this debate and watching TV think that the debate is over whether we should improve our infrastructure, whether we should build roads and bridges. This debate is not over that at all. Obviously, the previous member missed the whole point. He didn't read the bill, obviously. He talked about whether we should have a Port Mann Bridge, whether we should have Highway 401 expanded, and whether we should have the other roads built. This debate is not about that.

Both sides of this House agree that we need to improve our infrastructure, and that's one thing that we all agree on, but the debate is on how we go about that. How do we manage the public purse? How do we manage taxpayers' money wisely, prudently and transparently? That's the whole debate over this bill. What this bill is talking about is how we build infrastructure in this province.

Madam Speaker, I am actually a bit disturbed that when you look at the headings of the bills that are coming before us, there seems to be a pattern developing here that they're trying to bring in these bills and policies under fancy and catchy headings. But when you unwrap the package and really look at what the contents of the bill or the policies are, they have very little or hardly anything to do with what the slogans or what the headings say.

Now, when you read the heading of this bill, it talks about Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008, as if this bill is all to do with the Port Mann twinning. In fact, when you read this bill, Port Mann is a very small portion of the overall obligation that this corporation will be taking over — very small.

Here's the purpose in the bill. Page 9 says: "The purposes of the corporation are to engage in and conduct businesses related to (a) delivering, managing, operating, tolling or funding transportation projects, including projects described in a concession agreement, and (b) such other things as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may authorize."

Then it goes on to say what capacity and powers this Crown corporation will have. It goes on to say on page 10:

When you really read this bill, it has nothing, or very little, to do with Port Mann Bridge, as the heading suggests.

Now, I would think, in this day and age, that the government would be open and upfront with taxpayers. I think the public out there will support the good projects. They understand what is needed in their communities. They understand what is needed in their neighbourhoods.

Let's talk about Surrey, which the member talked about before. The Minister of Energy and Mines has actually encouraged me to talk about Surrey. Let's talk about Surrey. Let's talk about the Port Mann Bridge.

If you really want to talk about it, first of all, you should be open and honest with the public with this heading. You're not. You're not when you say, under the heading, that it's something to do with Port Mann twinning — the entire bill. It's not. Port Mann will be a small portion of the overall infrastructure that this Crown corporation will be taking over.

We've been on record that we support Port Mann twinning. Again, the debate was not if we are or we aren't; the debate was how we go about this.

The debate should be…. Unlike the member previously from Vancouver-Burrard, who just went on his rant and talked about everything under the sun except to talk about what this bill talks about…. He talked about nothing about what this bill says. That is unfortunate. He actually used up half an hour of very productive time that other members could stand up and use to talk about the facts. His entire speech missed all the facts. The entire speech missed the real purpose of this bill.

Now, if we were serious about improving infrastructure in Surrey…. I want this minister, I want that government, to stand up and say that we will agree with the city of Surrey's council and the mayor and that we will provide the 400 buses that they ask for now. Not in 2012 or 2020 — now. That's what's needed in Surrey.

If you are really serious about building Port Mann Bridge transit infrastructure, start building the thing rather than keep on bringing another bill after another bill. No one's stopping you from building the Port Mann Bridge. No one's stopping you from expanding the 401. No one's stopping you from bringing 400 buses to Surrey that we need today. No one is stopping you from expanding the SkyTrain. Why do you need this? You don't need this.

In my view, and as my learned colleague from Delta North said very wisely, this here is another attempt to delay the project. I cannot see any reason other than that. I think that this government owes it to the public, owes it to the taxpayers, that they should know exactly what you're talking about in this bill. They should actually get the services and projects that this government is promising.

When the member talked about the 401, the Alex Fraser Bridge, the Port Mann Bridge and the Deas tunnel…. They're saying today that all of that was a mistake. They were built traditionally, a design and build model, and we are all benefiting from it. Now they're saying they were all wrong. Somehow, they were all wrong.

I think that by going this route, they're creating another bureaucracy so that they can appoint their friends again, find another corporation where their friends can be appointed.

The minister, just the other day, stood up here as another Crown corporation, called B.C. Ferries…. Their board of directors gave themselves an enormous pay increase, an obscene pay increase, and the minister said that he's helpless. He doesn't agree with it, but he's helpless. He can't control them. Here is another Crown corporation he's creating where he will be saying that he's helpless. I think that's the wrong way to go.

What we need to do is learn from other governments and other experiences. Let's go to Ontario. Premier Mike Harris was not an NDPer but a Conservative, like many of those people sitting on the government side are — same ideology. He thought P3 was the best thing that came, and he started Highway 401 under the P3 model.

Guess what the new minister had to say about that. The new minister, who also is not an NDP member, said….

H. Bains: He's a Liberal. He's a Liberal minister. This is what he had to say: "The Ontario government will fight tooth and nail with that private company." They did fight tooth and nail, but they lost in the court. That's the legacy of the Conservative ideology in Ontario. We should learn from it.

Let's talk about New South Wales in Australia, where the tunnel was built under this model that is being proposed. We should be talking about what model we want to use. This is their experience. They built the tunnel to ease the congestion problems in Sydney by entering a 30-year public-private partnership contract with a private consortium to build and operate an underground cross-city tunnel.

That's exactly what this minister is proposing that we're going to go through, and that's exactly what this government is proposing.

All we have to do is just take a small step backward and take a look. What are we doing here? Who are we serving here? We are here to serve the public, the taxpayers of British Columbia who elected us to do the job on their behalf.

It seems to me that this government is hell-bent on supporting their friends who are wealthy, who are millionaires, and multinational corporations. That's the only people, it seems to me, that they are catering to. The general public is basically left behind.

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

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Monday morning, April 28, at 10 a.m.

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

Hon. S. Bond: I'd like to put on the record that the staff does a terrific job of trying to keep up with some of the "homework" types of issues so that we don't have a big, long list at the end of this. I want to read into the record the participation rates from the founda-

tion skills assessment that was canvassed yesterday. There was a question about how the participation rates were calculated.

For the record, the grade 4 participation rates in reading were 89 percent; writing, 88 percent; numeracy, 88 percent. Grade 7: reading, 89 percent; writing, 88 percent; and numeracy, 89 percent.

We are working through those numbers and will certainly find a way to finalize those over the next period of time. So those are the results, and that was the question asked about that.

Hon. S. Bond: These are last year's results. I want to make that clear. Thank you for clarifying that. We will be getting this year's very shortly.

In terms of the technical report that was requested, we will provide that as soon as we're able to put that information together.

Library funding was requested from one of the members opposite. I want to point out that the total budget to support public libraries in '07-08 was nearly $18 million. The budget for '08-09 is expected to be about the same. So $15.675 million is the grant subvote for that budget, and $2.2 million is the budget for the public library services administration.

I also want to deal with the Fleetwood School closure — there was a significant discussion about that — and make it clear that the board of education in school district 36 was directed to study the potential of the Fleetwood School closure in the spring of 2004. As early as 2002 Fleetwood had been identified in district facility reviews as nearing the end of its economic and functional life.

On April 14, 2004, the results of public consultation, consultants' reports, demographic information, facility audits, P3 options, financial considerations, school closure policy, etc., were provided to board, administration, staff and the Fleetwood School community.

There are a number of other pieces of information, but I did want to have those on the record to clarify some of the questions that were brought forward yesterday.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for getting back to us with that information.

I don't know if the question was asked, but I would like to ask about the participation rate in FSAs for a couple of special populations, one of them being special needs kids. I'm not entirely clear on how that is handled, but I'd like to know whether special needs kids are included in FSA assessment and to what extent that population participates.

The other population that is not quite an overlap with that, but is to some degree, is children in care of the ministry, children under an order or children under a kith-and-kin relationship. Their participation in FSAs…. You may not have that on hand, and I quite understand that. If not, that can come when you do.

Hon. S. Bond: We have a large conglomeration of numbers, but I'd rather spend the time having the members be able to ask their questions. So we will disaggregate that and provide it to the member opposite as soon as we can do that.

I do want to recognize, though, and make sure that it's clear on the record that we have most recently been compelled by the Representative for Children and Youth and also the provincial health officer to suggest that, in fact, there needs to be a broader application of foundation skills assessment. Instead of seeing more students excluded, those two significant individuals have suggested that there needs to be a greater inclusion in foundation skills assessment.

We will be doing some follow-up work to look at who is excluded and why. Any numbers that we have in terms of the last number of years we will certainly be happy to share.

J. Kwan: Prior to the break I was asking the minister about seismic upgrade issues. She mentioned the report the minister had received that they used to assess the criteria or priority of schools getting their seismic upgrade. Could the minister tell me what the name of that report is?

Hon. S. Bond: We've actually spent some time over the lunch-hour working to sort that out. It was a report done in 2004, so we don't have it at our fingertips. It was an engineering report. In fact, we believe it was published on our website at some point in time.

We'll continue to put the information together, but we certainly believe it was posted on our website. It was done in 2004 — obviously, before my time here as minister — and our staff is working to put that information together.

J. Kwan: I take it that the minister will give me that report when she has it assembled from her staff, and I would appreciate that. It would actually, then, save a whole bunch of questions that would follow. If I could look at that, it could update me accordingly. And if I do have questions following from looking at that report, I can certainly write to the minister and do that and not take up time in this House accordingly.

I am interested, though…. Related to that issue, the minister read off a list in the Vancouver school district — although not broken down into communities, and that's fine — in terms of what stages some of these schools are at. There are different phases, as we understand.

Can the minister tell me what the different phases mean and how much has been invested for each phase? And are there any schools at which seismic upgrade would actually be completed? If so, when will they be completed? What is the time frame for completion?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, that's an extraordinary amount of work, which we're happy to provide. I can't do that on the spot, obviously. We're happy to look at that.

The list for Vancouver school district is incredibly long, and they are in various phases of completion and start dates and all kinds of things. We'll have our staff do some work on that and be prepared to share that.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry; I don't mean to give staff a lot of work. But it's pertinent information that community members in my area are asking and which I'd like to pass on to constituents to be able to answer their questions. I simply don't know.

I appreciate the minister's commitment in getting that information to me, and I thank the staff in advance, as well, for their hard work in compiling this document.

I'm going to move on, then, to another area in my riding. Again, it's a major issue. I canvassed this with the minister previously, particularly with respect to the issue around capacity in inner-city schools. Virtually all schools in my riding are inner-city schools, and these are wonderful schools with fantastic staff, administrators and parents. God knows, people work and bust something to make things happen at this school in every which way they can.

Having said that, I can't be dismissive of the fact that in my constituency many parents are struggling. They're struggling for a variety of reasons. Many of them are dealing with poverty issues, housing issues, addictions, abuses and traumas of the past, and all of those kinds of things. They all come into play in the lives of those families and sometimes in the lives of the individuals, and that's a sad reality which we have to deal with.

I raise to the minister the issues around capacity. For a lot of these parents and schools, some of them are simply not able to put together functioning PACs. For some of them, if they are able to put together a PAC, it doesn't last for very long and the attendance is sometimes hit-or-miss — not because it's anybody's fault but simply because it's a fact of life. If you're trying to survive on a day-by-day basis and trying to make things come together, sometimes you miss meetings. Therefore, the representation in my schools is sometimes lacking.

I raised the issues around capacity. Related to that would be issues around fundraising and writing applications for grants in support of various school programs — again, not because the schools don't need the funds that need to be raised, just because we don't have the capacity to do that.

The minister had said that she would visit some of those schools and take a look at some of the issues that I've raised, so I'm particularly interested in what inner-city schools the minister visited.

D. Hayer: Yesterday I was in the chair around 4:45 p.m. At that time the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge raised an issue with the Minister of Education where he took some information from what he stated were the minutes of the Surrey school board going back to April 2004. He stated, "…where the member for Surrey-Tynehead asked this question," and made some comments. He goes further: "I'm going to read exactly what the member from Tynehead said at that meeting." Then he starts with a quotation on Fleetwood Elementary School.

What happened was that I had asked a question. The rest of the quote that the hon. member read from the minutes was not my quote, although it was information from the Surrey school board. I would ask the hon. member, when he has a chance in the House, to correct the information so that at least the facts in Hansard will be correct.

Hon. S. Bond: I don't have a list in front of me of the inner-city schools that I visited, but I have an unprecedented record of visits to schools in British Columbia. In fact, I'm probably the only minister to have ever visited virtually every school district in this province. Perhaps the most compelling inner-city school that I have visited is the one that my children attended.

J. Kwan: Well, given the minister's record, in which she says she's visited all these inner-city schools across the province, then she will know what I'm talking about in my riding. It really doesn't highlight the point, then, or the lack of reason why the government and the minister decided to go and allow playground funds to be allotted on the basis of a lottery.

This was on a basis that results in a situation where — and the minister would know this from the inner-city schools — many of the inner-city schools would not be in a position to apply for this lottery, for the reason that they would not be able to match the funds that are required as a condition, should they even be drawn. For some schools, they just don't have the capacity to make that application.

That is not to say that school playgrounds are not needed in these areas. I would venture to argue that in fact some of these schools would need the school playgrounds more than ever because a lot of these children simply don't have any other options in terms of accessing school playground equipment anywhere else. They don't have other recreational programs to which their parents could afford to send them. I raise this issue because it's an important issue.

I've talked to some of the school principals in my riding, and they're beside themselves when they learn of the situation. They're beside themselves when they learn that even some west side school had actually been allotted a lottery. When they looked around, the parents felt badly about it and wanted to actually share that money with other inner-city schools that are in great need, and they were not allowed to do so.

So then, my question to the minister is this. What is she going to do to rectify the huge error that the

government has made with respect to playgrounds for schools, and will she commit today to ensure that playground funds are allocated to these schools on the basis of need?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, it was because parents met with me over the course of a number of months, and we were inspired by parents that actually provide the leadership for us to become the first government that has provided funding to parent groups for playgrounds in this province. If the need existed previously, it certainly hadn't been recognized, or at least acted upon, in previous mandates.

Let's be clear that the program the member opposite is referring to is a program where, as government, we supported the leadership of the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, provided them with $1 million and asked them to administer the program, to make choices about how they managed those funds we gave. The member opposite, as a previous longtime member of government, would know that when you issue a grant to someone, you give broad outlines, and you give them the responsibility to administer the program. The program that the member is referring to was administered by the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils.

In addition to that, we also arranged and worked with the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General to provide, this year alone, almost $3.5 million for playground support for parents and worked with the Rick Hansen Foundation to provide an additional $2.5 million. In fact in British Columbia, for the first time, parents have access to over $7 million to assist them in playground-building.

J. Kwan: BCCPAC, by their own admission, have said that they don't have the capacity to evaluate on the basis of need, and that's why they went to a lottery system, which the minister and the ministry knows of and had approved. No amount of sort of passing the buck is actually going to cut it. The fact is that there was a million dollars for playground money, and the government decided that they don't have the capacity to figure out how to allot the money and decided to allow for a lottery program to be in play.

You know, I suppose that's one way of doing it. But I've got to tell you that the basis of need and the evaluation on the basis of need would be, I guess…. I don't know. What could I be thinking? The assumption that I thought that the government would adopt, especially when there isn't a whole lot of money going around…. The need is great, and I not going to deny that. The need is great, and it continues to be great. The government and the ministry will say: "Oh yeah. But hey, you know, we gave so much money out."

I invite the minister to actually come and look at some of the conditions of the playgrounds in some of these schools in my riding. One principal wanted to weep when she heard about this situation. It's not for her; let's be clear. It's for the children in the school. They don't have access to proper playgrounds and proper playground equipment.

At a time when the government is touting ActNow and all of that good stuff — to say that we've got to address obesity for children, and so on and so forth — you would think that the minimum requirement here is to ensure that schools have access to playground equipment and have proper playgrounds developed. That is not the case today. No matter what the government says and how the minister says it and how much money that she says is being put in, it is not meeting the needs. That's the reality.

I'll ask the minister again. Will she commit today to ensure that schools in need of playground upgrades and playground equipment will actually get access to government dollars in order to install the playgrounds in the respective schools, not just in my riding — I'm not just being parochial here to say that my riding is in greater need than anybody else — but for all of the schools in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: I can only reiterate to the member opposite the point that was made earlier. In fact, over $7 million has been allocated for partnerships with parents across this province. That is unprecedented in British Columbia. It has never happened before. I can certainly remember where my children went to school. We helped to raise the funds for the playground that was put in place at that school as well.

We stand by and support our decision to provide funding to BCCPAC. We actually trust and honour the work that that organization does. This is the first time that parents have actually had a response from a government in order to assist them with their playground development.

C. Wyse: I have a relatively straightforward question. The Thompson-Nicola regional district has written to the minister to question her support for the transfer of the former 70 Mile School. It is 13 months later, and I wish to inform the minister that the transfer still has not taken place.

I would ask for the continued support of the minister, to bring her support on hurrying this transfer through. This former 70 Mile School has been active as a community centre for a number of years, and the TNRD, along with the area director and the community residents, would like to see this very long, protracted process be concluded.

Hon. S. Bond: Our staff will get an update on that and will be prepared to share it as soon as we have the information.

R. Austin: I'd like to just begin my series of questions by putting in a little bit of context here. I'm not sure when the minister last visited school district 82. I know that she was there last year, but I just wanted to share what has been happening recently.

As the minister would know, I attended a public meeting on education that was held in the community of Kitimat two Saturdays ago. Actually, it was very

well attended for a Saturday night, a night with a hockey game on. I was actually surprised to see about 125 people come out. I understand there are public meetings held in Vancouver where you'd be lucky to get 125 people coming out on a Saturday night. I think it shows the concern that so many citizens in northwest B.C. have around educational matters.

As the minister I am sure is aware, in school district 82 we are in a geographic area of the province that has a very struggling economy, in spite of the central message of this government. I'm sure the minister would acknowledge that northwest B.C. is still a part of British Columbia that certainly hasn't seen any kind of boom times. As a consequence of that, we have lost a large percentage of our population.

Now, the minister has alluded many times in these discussions about the general rate of decline amongst the provincial school population. I believe that she says 50,000 students. In school district 82, because of our economic situation, that general decline is then further imposed upon, as so many families have left to find work in other parts of British Columbia.

So that is the sort of context upon which school district 82 has been trying to make, as the minister has mentioned many times, the difficult choices that all school board trustees need to make. We are now in a situation where we have undergone four years of a four-day school week. The school district made several school closures in the early days, two to three years ago.

We now find ourselves faced with a general sort of uprising, I would say, amongst the parents, who have essentially followed a committee that was set up to try and put pressure on the school district to come back to a five-day school week. In order for them to come back to a five-day school week, they have chosen to choose a modified five-day school week, acknowledging that it's impossible for school district 82 to come back to a regular five-day school week because they just don't have the money to do that. But at the same time, they are still looking at further school closures.

What we have in school district 82 is possible further school closures and a modified five-day school week, yet there's a huge hole in our budget to try and accomplish that. Of course, that huge hole in the budget means that inevitably there are going to be very, very large cuts in services right at the core — I'm talking about teachers here — of school district 82.

Just over a year ago our district made very, very huge cuts to special service assistants, SSAs, in the school district. What that did was take away a great deal of specialized assistance in the classroom for many of the children that would fall under special education funding.

Having laid this context down, I would just like to begin and ask the minister whether, when we look at the funding formula and how it affects school districts in rural British Columbia, particularly those that have, on top of it, a very fast declining population…. Even though there has been a rise in per-student funding, does the minister not recognize that when you look at the funding formula and the changes and some of the things rolled into the per-pupil student funding, there isn't necessarily enough money that has been covered by the increase in per-pupil student funding to make up for those block grants that were there, especially in the rural school districts, to mitigate some of the forces that are specialized to rural school districts?

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the words of the member opposite. He is correct. I visited there last year and have not been there, obviously, this year, with the House in session for the balance of most of this year. Certainly, the circumstance facing rural schools is a challenging one, and it's not simply here in British Columbia. It's a challenge that's faced in numerous provinces and certainly in other jurisdictions around the world. I have spent some time looking at some of their circumstances.

The issue of more funding for some schools and some school districts is one that has some validity. In fact, that's why we built in supplementary and additional funding for districts that are in significantly declining enrolment circumstances. For example, Coast Mountains school district actually is expected to receive almost half a million dollars of supplementary funding in the '08-09 budget to recognize declining enrolment.

Over the last number of years, when you look at operating grants, this district is expected in '08-09 to receive nearly $1 million more in operating grants than they would have had last year, despite a decline in enrolment of almost 3.1 percent.

Certainly, there are significant challenges. When I look at the enrolment numbers, we have seen over the last five years an almost 18 percent drop in student enrolment. If you go back as far as 2000-2001, it's 2,000 students. That's a 28.2 percent decline. Those are very significant numbers.

It's complicated by the dispersement of the district, so we have a formula that recognizes climate, distance, dispersion — all of those kinds of things. In addition to that, districts like this one receive funding that is above and beyond that because of the degree of their decline. There are certain percentages that kick in another level of funding.

We have provided significant additional dollars. I can say to the member opposite that when I was a school board chair in the 1990s, I was saying then: "We need more money." I can't foresee a day that people in either education or health care aren't saying: "Give us more." The question is: how do we manage all that within the public's ability to pay?

We have seen significant increases. The member did — and I appreciate it — point to increased per-pupil funding. In fact, when we look at per-pupil funding, if we go back a number of years, in 2000-2001 it was $7,092. If you look at the 2008-2009 estimated amount, it's $9,841. So we've tried to provide the kind of funding necessary to ease some of those circumstances.

Now, the only other thing I need to point out…. This is a sensitive point. And when I visited there, I did hear both sides of this argument. There are very few school districts that, despite their challenges, have chosen to take on a four-day school week. So while this board has worked hard and has suggested that it's all about funding, virtually every other board in British Columbia has managed their circumstances without making the choice to go to a four-day school week.

Again, I think boards consider those things and make those choices, but it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, something that is done routinely in B.C.

R. Austin: I recognize her comments about the difficulties facing rural schools all over the world, not just here in British Columbia, not just here in Canada but worldwide. But I think one has to recognize that the purpose of a publicly funded education system is, at the end of the day, to try and mitigate those economic and social forces that happen within our jurisdictional boundaries. A child born in Terrace or Kitimat or Hazelton or Kitwanga still should have at least as good a chance as a child born in West Vancouver, North Vancouver or one of the more wealthier, prosperous areas of this province.

So it still is a requirement of government, and it's the whole basis of a publicly funded school system to try and put in place a funding formula that acknowledges not just how much we give per student or per school but what the outcomes are and what the opportunities are so that we have a more equal society.

The minister mentioned the increases that have been made to take into consideration school district 82's huge geography in terms of our travel times and in terms of the extreme weather, etc., but I'd like to, for a moment, just come to some of the changes in the funding formula that relate directly to special education funding.

Of course, prior to 2002, I guess, there were a whole range of categories. I'm not going to go through all of them, but the minister, obviously, would know, and certainly her staff would know, all the different categories. In large part, many of those categories have stayed the same or have been increased due to either the numbers of students who fall in that category or due to inflationary purposes to cover staffing costs that have risen as a result of any of those negotiations.

But there are a few specialized categories, such as the core special education services, the learning assistance, the identity and planning, special health services, hospital and homebound. Those special categories were turned into the per-pupil student allocation base. I'm wondering whether the minister would be willing to confirm that, if you look at some of those special categories in school district 82 and take the moneys that were granted to us in school year 2001-2002, and if you add that total up, the money that was then transferred over into per-pupil student funding didn't match that. So in that sense it's been a real strain for our school district to try to maintain special school funding.

I did hear the minister comment yesterday to one of my colleagues that when she was a trustee, it was often the case, as is often the case today, that school districts make their own choices to put more money than is officially given for special education out of other areas in order to try and give that special extra help in the classroom to individual students. But I would like her to comment on the fact that these are millions of dollars here in these categories I've just mentioned, and they don't seem to have come into per-pupil student funding at the rate necessary to maintain these services.

Hon. S. Bond: The member's question is causing us to have a good discussion about that. I think the general principle was this. Whatever had been allocated that had been targeted for those categories that no longer are targeted was rolled over into the block. The block has continued to increase, and so those funds have continued to go up.

But whatever had been in those targeted categories was maintained in the block. The new way of addressing those dollars would have been through per-pupil. In fact, the principle that it was based on was about flexibility. It wasn't about fewer dollars; it was about how it freed up boards to take those dollars and use them a bit differently, if that's how they chose to do it.

The principle was that this money was targeted. We're leaving it in. We did not take it out of the funding. We actually put it in, in the block. So that's probably the simplest way I can describe what happened. The money went in. It was assigned to per-pupil funding, and that has continued to rise as the per-pupil has gone up.

R. Austin: In many instances I think the minister is correct that that funding went in and that there has been reciprocal funding in the per-pupil student funding. However, I think that there are certain categories that…. If it went in as a block in per-pupil student funding at the time, whatever it was in 2001-2002 — if there was, say, a block of $24.4 million — that would have gone into the per-pupil student funding at that time. But in certain categories it hasn't increased based on the number of students who have come in with special needs. So I think that's what's caused a huge shortfall in school district 82 in trying to maintain special education services for those who have learning disabilities.

I'd like to take a minute to speak about special education funding overall in school district 82. I think the minister would appreciate this, because she also comes from a northern riding. It's that we have in our school district an increasingly larger first nations population. When I say that families in British Columbia are having fewer and fewer children — and we saw that in the recent census that just came out — there is one misnomer to that. That is that our aboriginal population are still having quite large families.

I think we have to appreciate that in the context of where the aboriginal population is socially and economically in this province. If you have people who have suffered historically from, essentially, 150 years of

oppression having large families now and lacking the capacity, necessarily, to prepare those children in the same way that other British Columbians who haven't had to go through some of the things they have had to go through…. That is causing a huge problem, I would suggest, in all of the communities in British Columbia that have large first nations populations.

It's particularly important in school district 82. We have children coming into the classrooms. In spite of the efforts of both the federal government and the provincial government to try and give early learning assistance to aboriginal families, we have large numbers of children arriving who are simply not ready to learn at the kindergarten level. Therefore, they start needing a whole bunch of help from special education funding.

I'd like the minister to comment on that, to see if there is a recognition that the ministry is aware of this trend and recognizing that maybe something else needs to be done for all of the aboriginal communities around this province in order to give them that extra helping hand so that they can be as successful in the school districts as other British Columbian children have been.

Hon. S. Bond: Again, I appreciate the member's very thoughtful comments and don't disagree with them. But I do want to add some other numbers to the mix there.

I absolutely agree; 50 percent of our first nations population is under the age of 25. I do live in a northern riding and recognize the challenges that aboriginal families face. One of the things we do — and again, the formula is so complex — is provide additional funding for those districts that have aboriginal children. We try to recognize…. It's always a matter of how much can you do.

Just recently — I think it was in '06 or '07; it was probably last year — we increased aboriginal additional funding from $950 per student to $1,014. So for every aboriginal child, and they self-identify, that is in a particular school district, that school district receives additional funding for the very kinds of things that the member opposite has referred to.

I think there is a recognition …. Certainly, the biggest recognition comes from the fact that we have an enormous gap in completion rates. I know that the member has mentioned that before. Aboriginal students do not complete at the rates that non-aboriginals do, and that's unacceptable. We need to do something about that, and we're working on that.

A key point there from our perspective is that we are providing additional dollars, and it has increased. There's always, I'm sure, a demand for more. We also agree on the early learning side. I think it's essential that all levels of government work together with boards of education to provide the kind of support that helps children be ready when they get to school.

We are looking at investing significantly in programs like StrongStart, but that's only one of them. There are additional challenges for remote and rural communities. How do you get people there? So we're looking at whether there are transportation issues.

I think there is much work to be done on the early learning side. I would totally agree that probably one of the best investments we can make is if we invest early. When they get there, they have a much better chance of being successful, if we can catch those in the early years.

Back to the other question about the block. I'd be happy to have my staff sit down and work through the numbers that the member opposite has presented. We don't have the exact number of dollars and years in front of us in terms of that initial transfer of the block and the impact that that's had. I think that would be helpful to us and to the member. I'm hopeful to have that discussion. We'd be happy to have someone sit down and walk through that argument with him.

I have a chart here which is basically a breakdown of all the categories within special education funding. It is very complicated, especially to do it publicly here. It's got, basically, what things were like in 2001-2002 and the changes as they are now. Maybe that would be a very useful discussion to have, and I look forward to having that discussion.

Getting back to aboriginal students and the difficulties and challenges that first nations students have within the public school system, I'd like to ask the minister: when you go up north or to any school district to do assessments of each school district, is there special accountability done for those 131 funds?

I recognize that you give an extra thousand dollars to each school district that has an identified first nations–status person. What is the accountability done at the provincial level to ensure that those funds are being used for aboriginal students and that school districts aren't taking those moneys and using them to plug gaps in other areas that they want to? Is there any assessment of the actual programs that are put on specifically to help aboriginal students to ensure that they can come up closer to the levels that we want from all students?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the accountability around those funds is indeed important. My staff can correct me if I'm inaccurate here, but they are the only targeted funds that we have left in terms of the funding formula, aboriginal funding. So yes, there is an accountability mechanism.

In fact, in the annual audited statements there is not only a clear outline of how those funds are disbursed, but even more importantly there are random audits done, student by student, to ensure that those students that have been identified for funding are actually receiving direct service — so even student by student. It is, however, random audits of that funding. So financially, yes, there is an accounting through both their annual audited financial statements and also random audits student by student.

In terms of results, there are a couple of ways we do that. There is an expectation in the achievement

contracts, which are new, of course. We had a different version of it before. One of the things expected there is a strategy around aboriginal achievement and planning — also making sure that they include cultural components and all of the things that funds are set aside for. In addition to that, a superintendent of achievement will be looking and reviewing with each district their achievement contracts, looking to see that all of the elements are included. One of those, a key one, would be aboriginal education.

The other important component is an aboriginal enhancement agreement. We have a number of those. We are now beyond 30. I'm trying to think of the number off the top of my head, but it is 30-plus. I'll get that when I next sit down.

Those, of course, give us opportunities to have strategic targeted planning, to include aboriginal people in that strategic planning. So we have enhancement agreements and a number of other mechanisms to try to ensure that there are strategies and programs and individual student plans in place.

R. Austin: I'd like to go back for a minute to special education needs and the moneys that school districts have to be able to identify children who have got problems in their learning in the classroom. What I'm hearing from parents and from teachers is that in school district 82, because of the difficulty in terms of finding the dollars to service all of the various IEPs and the various categories of special education funding, essentially children who haven't been identified are really no longer being identified. They don't have the moneys to do the assessments, and because the budgets are already so stressed for special education funding, if they were to go and identify any more children, they wouldn't have any dollars to be able to fund those IEPs.

I wonder if the minister could comment on that. Obviously, it's a huge challenge. If we have children who are starting out and aren't assessed early enough, then that's going to cost all of us in society a heck of a lot more money down the road as they fail in the school system. I'd like the minister to comment on that.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I think one of the things we know is important is that early intervention is pretty critical when it comes to a student's success. So one of the challenges — and I've shared this answer with a number of your colleagues as they've come through — is that there really isn't a formal mechanism, a list for knowing how many students are waiting and what is required.

I can assure the member opposite that it has been brought to our attention at the Learning Roundtable, for example, and by the B.C. Teachers Federation and other members, that the issue of assessments — how they're done, if they're done quickly enough, if the resources are there — is an issue. We are actively discussing what we need to do about that and getting, first of all, a better handle on, if there is a problem, how big it is. I think that's probably a pretty important first step.

Secondly, causing that problem to be enhanced is the fact that we don't have enough school psychologists in British Columbia. We don't. We're working very hard to try to make sure that, working with AVED and our post-secondary system, we're training more. But that also takes some time.

I know my circumstance is not nearly as complicated as the member opposite's in terms of retention and recruitment, but we both share it, just not to the same degree. It's much more difficult in the school district that the member opposite represents. I have a good understanding of how hard it is, if you do have one, to get them to go to places where we desperately need them. Again, it's part of a bigger piece of work that needs to be done: identify the problem and what some of the barriers are. Certainly, professional supply is another part of that.

That's not an excuse; it's simply a fact. I think that, together with the partners, we need to sort out: how big is the problem? What could we do to actually start to mitigate that problem? And then also connect with institutions that have to help us with incentives for training more people.

D. Cubberley: In that vein, the minister and I had a good discussion around the assessment and diagnosis problem. Certainly, that is part of the package of challenges facing special education and special needs kids. But there is another end of the problem, which is the allocation of resources post-diagnosis and how those resources do or don't travel with kids who've been diagnosed.

I think one of the challenges in the system today is that we don't have, as far as I'm aware, a monitoring process that would allow us to know when teachers are telling us that there are not the supports in the classroom for the number of special ed kids that are showing up and the complexity of the needs. We don't have a mechanism for sorting out whether that, in fact, is the case or not. I've heard from a lot of teachers. I know that the minister has, as well, and she's living with this issue on an ongoing basis.

But I have heard a lot of evidence from teachers of a deteriorating situation in the classroom, both because of the incidence of high-intensity, low-incidence special needs kids increasing in the school system and, at the same time, a substantial number of grey-area kids in the classrooms, all of whom are required to be put through a process of teaching integrated around a single individual. It's with some supports, but the anecdotal evidence, which is strongly confirmed in the Langley special needs inquiry report, is that there are not adequate resources at the classroom level and that the complexity of trying to manage this many IEPs and special interventions around grey-area kids is creating unmanageable situations.

I'd like the minister to comment on that. I would like to ask her, specifically: is she considering some kind of review to develop a picture of what is actually happening in the classrooms? There appears to be a very strong pattern. I think my colleague has raised this, in his school district; we've seen it in Langley; and

we hear it from many, many school districts — that this is pattern in classrooms. So I would like to gauge her reaction to that.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, we're not planning a significant review. I think that one of the things we do in the ministry — and the team does it very well — is just an ongoing work in progress about how we see improvement in the system.

We have a number of things in front of us that actually have done a significant amount of work — for example, the report that the member opposite references, the Langley report. I felt it was important to make sure that that report had a good vetting in government. In fact, it's been presented at the Education Advisory Council. I have also asked my deputy and staff to meet with the people who created the Langley report so that we could look at it and learn from it and talk about whether or not there were things there that we would be able to use within the system to improve circumstances.

There is no doubt that classrooms are complex places, and children with special needs are an important part of classrooms. Teachers need to be able to serve those children well. On the financial side of that, in British Columbia today we spend almost three-quarters of a billion dollars providing special education funding at various places at various levels.

The other thing that is encouraging to me is that when I look at the number of learning assistance teachers and special ed teachers, the people that are specifically designated. There are many others. I don't have the numbers in front me, but we'll get them, in terms of education assistance and the numbers that we've seen there.

We have seen a significant increase over the last three or four years of learning assistance teachers and special education teachers driving the ratio of students to those types of teachers down fairly significantly. If you look back at '04, we would have seen about 3,300 and a few, and we're up to almost 3,450. So we've seen some significant additional staffing added there.

When I look at the number of special education assistants, we have seen increasing numbers there. The number of special education students…. And one would expect this. If the student population is dropping, we would expect to see a somewhat similar drop in the number of children with special needs, and that's exactly what we've seen. In 2003 we had over 61,000 children with special needs. We now have 57,000. So we have seen a decline. What isn't addressed by these numbers is the complexity of who these children are and what their needs are. That's another piece that you'd have to analyze.

We're not planning an overall review. We are trying to work with our partner groups, including groups like the Langley group that presented us with the study, to say: "Are there things we need to address?"

In candour, it can't always be: it's just about the money. I think it is about looking at how we deliver services and how that's done in classrooms and how we support teachers. Part of it comes to the discussion we had yesterday in terms of training and professional development and ongoing support for teachers who have complex classrooms today.

D. Cubberley: Well, it's not always about the money, but it may well be about the money. In this case, three-quarters of a billion dollars is a substantial amount of money, but we don't know what that means relative to the population that has to be served under the conditions that those folks find themselves in.

Of course, if you said to a layperson there's a lot of money…. Of course, three-quarters of a billion dollars is a lot of money. Ten percent or more of the kids in the system are special needs. That's not counting first nations kids and not counting ESL kids who have special needs. Then there are ten to 15 percent of kids that we're aware of who are grey-area kids, which would include all those dyslexic kids that we were talking about yesterday who are undiagnosed. We don't know, actually, how many of them there are.

I can tell you that I was talking today at the function at noon that we all attended for the teachers who are here learning about decision-making to somebody dealing with a….

We were talking about the amount of money in play, and I was saying that while it is a large amount of money, in an abstract sense it really matters what's the level of known demand. And then there's the level of latent demand within the system from grey-area kids who may or may not be detected.

I guess the issue is whether we're at a point where we need a sorting-out of some kind. The provincial health officer says that ongoing monitoring is essential, that we have to assess and monitor initiatives on an ongoing basis. He says that the key purpose of monitoring is to assess how we're doing, what's working well and what might be improved.

This delivery of services to special needs kids — the assessment, the diagnosis, the creating of individual education plans, the tailoring of programs and services to their needs…. That's an area of great contention, which I know the minister knows, and it's throughout the system.

I think that one of the conclusions that was reached through the Langley study…. I just want to read this because I think it goes exactly to the point. It says:

That is the reflection, I think, of a balanced panel without an agenda in an open process of consultation and, reviewing all the data, coming to a conclusion that there are resource shortfalls.

Now, I want to be fair and clear on this. The report also says that it's not entirely clear how much of this is because the allocations to the district are insufficient to provide them and how much is due to decisions made at the school level that have directed the resources elsewhere to meet overall pressures in the system.

So there are two things embedded in there. One is that the business about the general amount of money may or may not be the case. We don't have a way of assessing that currently. That's just a statement. There's a lot of money in play. The fact of the matter is that we support a model where school districts get to decide on the allocation.

What we're hearing here is that, within schools, there's a further allocation of resources that occurs. But what the report is saying is that however it is occurring, there are resource shortfalls and kids are not getting the services they need in the classrooms.

My question to the minister around that is: are we not at a point, not where we say: "Okay, we know…?" I'm not suggesting for a moment that the minister would at this point know what is required to fix it but that we have to go in and do an assessment of it and see what's happening.

If school districts are under extreme pressure — as school district 82 is — and we know they've gone to a four-day week…. They are at a four-day week, as are others — the Gulf Island districts. They are in a crisis around resources already. Is there not the danger, where there is no tying of resources to the special needs kids in the classroom because districts are free to allocate them, that they will inevitably have to take some of the supports away in order to meet their overall budgetary obligations? Is that not a problem that we need to have the minister and the ministry looking at and assessing, to find out what's going on, on the ground?

Hon. S. Bond: I think that is what we do all the time. I don't think it requires a royal commission. I think our job, and certainly the job of the staff that work in the ministry and working with boards across the province, is to do exactly that.

First of all, we look at what's working. One of the ways we do that — and I know that we had vigorous debate about this last year in these estimates — is with the use of superintendents of achievement who actually…. Now, for the first time, we have senior leaders in education who travel across the province to our boards of education and ask about those things that are successful, monitor results and look at their achievement contracts.

In fact, we have a situation where, when we look at what's working, we find that, for example in the Kootenays, in the Kootenay-Columbia school district, we've seen diverse students move from…. So 75 percent of students have gone from not yet meeting the expected outcomes to fully meeting them. So great things are happening.

What we need to do is figure out what it is that that particular school district is doing and find ways to replicate that across the province. I think we work very hard, certainly, with boards of education to say regularly: what are we doing? How can we do it better? How are we using resources? We monitor how many staff are added — those kinds of things. So I think we do that on a regular basis.

D. Cubberley: That leaves me in the position of believing that all that is in here about a situation which is critical is simply somehow not correct. I know that that's not the minister's opinion, because she has received this report, and she has given an undertaking to reflect upon it. This is clearly saying there's a problem.

Perhaps if I went back up to the level of saying, okay, so the superintendents of achievement are now in the field, my question would be: is one of their responsibilities — and will the minister be explicit about this — to engage in a review of the adequacy of supports in the classroom for various categories of special needs kids with a mandate to do something about it — to make recommendations to her about change if in fact the resources prove to be inadequate? Will she take that step and ask for that review?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, certainly in terms of the mandate of the superintendents of achievement, they don't have a specifically articulated "Let's review resource allocation" mandate. What they do have is ongoing conversations with districts on special education and how that's delivered. What the outcomes look like is part of those conversations.

Our primary focus is on individual student achievement. That's what we have as…. Every time I've met with board chairs and superintendents and travelled through the province, our goal is to see individual students improve. That obviously relates to children with special needs, children who are aboriginal and children who are typical — more typical than some others. Our goal is to ensure that children in British Columbia have an opportunity to be successful.

Our superintendents of achievement meet regularly with boards, with districts, and work through issues like that. Is there a specifically mandated role for superintendents of achievement that suggests that they're going to analyze budgetary allocations? No, there isn't.

R. Austin: I'd like to move on to the FSA test results, and I don't want to engage with the minister in

any discussion about whether they're useful or not useful, or whether we should have them, all that kind of stuff. That debate we've had.

I'd like to know: once the test results of FSA come out and are published or collated by the ministry, what does the ministry then do with those? Does it look either at schools that are seemingly not successful or at school districts as a whole that appear to be in trouble? What do those results do to the ministry in terms of seeing some action? How do they react to schools or school districts that seem to be in trouble?

Hon. S. Bond: The primary role for foundation skills assessment results is actually to generate student achievement plans. I don't mean that in a formal sense, but the reason we feel so strongly about foundation skills assessment is because we believe that it provides information to administrators, to teachers and, certainly as importantly, to parents. It's a snapshot that says, "this child has this outcome," and then it allows us to use that base to say: "How do we move that child forward?"

The primary focus of the use of those results is child by child in classrooms today. That's the ultimate goal that we have. Certainly our superintendents of achievement do review those results to look at trends, to look at very general areas, to suggest that, if we see a significant drop, for example, in comprehension rates or whatever it happens to be, of course it informs the discussion that superintendents of achievement would have with a particular school district.

The primary driver of the utilization of that information is not the ministry; it's actually…. What we're hoping to ensure happens is that classroom teachers, administrators and parents use that information that is relevant to a child specifically for their plan.

R. Austin: Well, that takes me to my next line of questioning. I have recently been having numerous parents come in and speak with me to ask about what the process is for getting a special adviser to come in and look at school district 82 and their challenges. I heard the minister's comments earlier today to the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, and my understanding is that in that case the school board trustees requested a special adviser be brought in, and then the minister brought someone forward with the skills necessary to do that.

Is that the only process, or are there cases where the ministry itself looks at a school district, after having discussions with one of the superintendents of excellence, and recognizes that a school district maybe isn't achieving things? Or can it be that parents themselves can organize to have some kind of referendum to bring in a special adviser?

I'm not saying this to cast blame upon anybody. I recognize that teachers are doing more than their fair share, working very hard in the classrooms to accomplish their goals and to help students. I'm not saying this to cast aspersions to the people on the board, who are trying to do their best. But if a school district is perceived to be in trouble by the parents, how do they approach this?

I recognize that as the MLA it's not my job to be getting involved with superseding another group who have been duly elected to take care of this. But I think that in small towns — and I am hoping the minister will acknowledge this — sometimes it becomes a real challenge to do things politically, simply because in a small town everybody knows who you are, and it's hard to take action that might be deemed to be hurtful to certain people. So I hope the minister would like to comment on that.

Hon. S. Bond: I guess to begin with, appointing a special adviser is done very carefully and very rarely. It isn't something that you want to…. You don't want to see that happen frequently. It is something where a district finds itself with very challenging circumstances, and in the case of the one that I appointed recently, it came after a series of events, which indicated to me, as well, that there were some challenges there — things like communication…. There were capital issues. There were a number of issues. Again, I'm not being critical either. I'm simply pointing out there were a series of things that led to my being convinced that that would be an important thing to do for that particular school district.

I think the member opposite is right to bring those kinds of concerns to our attention. I can assure the member opposite that one of the things we've done, short of looking at a special adviser, is making sure that there is a superintendent of achievement that is working very closely with that school district.

We certainly do hear the concerns of parents, and I think that's an important thing as well, when there are those kinds of concerns. It does not, however, even in the event that we appoint a special adviser, alleviate the board from making very difficult decisions. You're right. Regardless of the size of the community, there certainly is a reaction when those decisions are made. I remember them well when I was a school board chair.

But the board is ultimately responsible. Even in the case of the current situation, the board will ultimately be required to make the decisions. It is an unusual process. It is one that one goes to very carefully and thoughtfully. But in the meantime, because of the concerns that have been expressed, we do have a superintendent of achievement working very closely and directly with the school district.

R. Austin: So I take it, then, from the minister's reply, that this doesn't have to necessarily come as a request from the school board itself — that the minister can appoint one, if enough parents were to become active on a file like this and request it with, say, support from some school board trustees but not a formal declaration from the entire board. Is that something that the minister would then consider?

Hon. S. Bond: I think we always consider those options. I have had some discussions in the past. As the

member pointed out, I visited there last year, I believe. So it has been a bit of time. My staff has been working with that district since that time.

I think what made the appointment of a special adviser somewhat less difficult to do was that the board itself requested a special adviser. That obviously makes it somewhat easier. That doesn't mean that in extraordinary circumstances and in critical situations, I would hesitate to appoint a special adviser. There is that mandate for the minister, and it should be used when that's appropriate.

What I would really encourage the member opposite to do is have that conversation with the board of education. Certainly, I know the parents have made that view clear to the board. I do understand that there is some difference of opinion about the value of a special adviser within the board itself. That's certainly the impression I have been given, the information I have been provided with.

I would obviously consider all of those circumstances. I can only once again reiterate that one goes there very carefully, because it does come with weight and significance and clearly sends messages about the need for assistance to a locally elected body. That's something you do thoughtfully.

R. Austin: I think the minister is correct. This is a very complicated issue. This is a very geographically large school district with lots of varying community needs. I think part of the challenge for school district 82 is that it has been cobbled together, through amalgamation, from lots of communities that still in some sense haven't really meshed well together. Let's put it that way.

So when you think of a board where you have such a large geographic area and you have members that think they're representing just their little section — whether it be "I'm the trustee from Hazelton" or "I'm the trustee from Stewart…." The trustee from Stewart maybe doesn't have the same interests as the trustee from Kitimat. It's very hard to come to a consensus. But certainly, as the local MLA, I'm sensing a group that doesn't really know how to make some of these difficult choices.

I'll give the minister an example. A few weeks or maybe a couple of months ago the board put up some schools for notification for closure. Really, the rationale for that was that if we are able to close some schools, there will be savings here, and that will enable us to go back to a modified five-day week. After agreeing to go back to a modified five-day week in a public meeting, the school board then met two weeks later and cancelled or put off those school closures, thus leaving a huge financial difficulty for the school board now.

Here we were going to get some savings. This was going to enable them to move to a modified five-day school week, and those expected savings have now been cut from underneath them. Now you've got a school district where the management, where the school board itself, is probably wondering: "Well, how are we going to be able to do this now? We've promised the five-day modified school week, and now the school board trustees have said no to this." So it's very hard.

I want to go back to my question to the minister. In those kinds of circumstances, where boards find it hard to make these decisions on their own, and not withstanding the fact that in a small community everywhere a school board trustee goes, they can easily be almost harangued by parents expressing one view or another…. I'm wondering whether under those kinds of special circumstances the minister would ever, on her own and with her own mandate, consider looking at this and suggesting an adviser to the board maybe just to get them moving in that direction if that's the direction that the people want to move in.

Hon. S. Bond: I think the member opposite has brought some valid concerns to the table. Certainly, I want to be fair to the board of education as well. They are grappling with some challenging circumstances. One of the things that amalgamation did, especially in rural districts — I know we faced it as well — is bring together groups that have very divergent needs and views and values and then expect them to operate together. This isn't the only district where I see some of that at play.

What I can do for the member opposite is request that the superintendent of achievement that's been assigned to work with that particular school district…. I will ask for a contact to be made, and I'd like to have a report back that outlines some of the discussion and addresses some of those concerns that the member opposite has presented today.

That would obviously give me the opportunity to have a much better update, to understand where that district finds itself and make sure there are the proper supports in place for the board, including all of the information necessary to make good decisions — tough decisions, but good decisions. You do need information, data and support.

I will request that our superintendent of achievement bring a report back and give me an update as to what's happening in the district and just look at sort of the gravity and what's happening on the ground there in a more updated way for me.

R. Austin: I hope that after that report comes down, maybe I could have some kind of contact with the minister just so I'm aware of where the minister is at in terms of the local school district, if that's possible.

I am getting a constant flow of parents coming in to see me. While I don't want to be seen to be pushing them off towards school board trustees, I do recognize that the trustees and the board themselves are in a place where some of these decisions are very difficult and challenging. Maybe they need somebody with a fresh outlook to come and take a look and review the books, the processes and all the complications of such a large school district as school district 82.

I just want to go back to a question around special needs children. If there is an IEP in place and specific

funding that has to follow that student, and then a school district finds itself where, due to the complications of trying to serve as many special needs kids as they can, and maybe not willing to take from another part to increase their special needs funding….

If an allotment of money that was supposed to follow a specific student is then shared, for example, by an SSA, who might have worked with a specific child for — I don't know — 16 hours a week, and the following year that child goes through to the next grade, and the child and the parents find that all of a sudden that child is now only going to get eight hours of SSA time because that SSA is now being shared with someone else….

Is that what is supposed to happen? Is that allowable, or should that money really be strictly staying with the student who has that special need?

Hon. S. Bond: When we look at the categories of funding, it is actually the diagnosis of the child that triggers the funding. I know the member opposite is well acquainted with these numbers because of his own personal experience. The diagnosis triggers the funding. It does not, however, bring with it a prescribed set of expectations around how those funds are used.

The best example I can think of is that a diagnosis of autism triggers a certain amount of supplemental funding, but two autistic children may be able to be served in different ways. It may require a higher level of support or not. So there is a great deal of flexibility in terms of the board's ability to serve that child.

We do not mandate what they do with those funds, other than it must provide for the specific needs of that child to be served in the education system. The specific decision-making about how that's done is through an individual education plan, and every child's is somewhat different. So the diagnosis triggers the dollars, but the board and their expertise make the choice of how to serve that child.

R. Austin: I'm correct, then, in saying that if a child has a diagnosis, that gives a specific amount of dollars. And let's face it. Those dollars are usually turned into labour because, obviously, most of the dollars that are used in the school system are to pay teachers or SSAs or some other staff member who is supporting the school.

In the case of special needs funding, it's usually an SSA. So if that SSA time is then dramatically cut from one year to another, that is really sort of breaking the rules. While the minister says that each school district is allowed to take those dollars and use them as it wants, it can't actually take those dollars away from a child who's been identified and requires those, and then go and spend them on another child. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: It's almost hard to describe this in a way that is fair to both boards and families. The diagnosis triggers the funding, and of course, the dollars are provided to ensure that a student is well served and served appropriately within the school system. An individual education plan is created, and those resources support that child.

The nuance I'm trying to capture — obviously, not very well — is that how that child is served may involve another student, in some cases, as the child grows older. It may involve socialization. It may involve a number of things which would involve more than one child.

The basic point is this. Funding is triggered by a child's diagnosis, but the decision about how to utilize those resources — primary — is making sure that child is well served. That is decided within a district with the expertise that boards use.

R. Austin: I want to thank the minister for those answers. I look forward to setting up an appointment to go through in detail the breakdown of the changing in the funding formula, especially around special education, so that I can have a better idea as to how we moved when we moved from the block transfer to the per-pupil student funding. I'd like to see that.

Then I also hope to speak to the minister in the near future, once she has had the opportunity to have a report back from the special superintendent.

Hon. S. Bond: That was going to be my summary, as well, to the member opposite. He has captured the two points very well. We have an excellent funding and capital team, and we'll actually have them contact the member to discuss that.

This afternoon we will make arrangements to begin that process around the superintendent, and we'd be happy to have that discussion with the member as well. So we will follow up as quickly as we can.

G. Gentner: Indeed, I'd like to thank the minister for taking the time and the effort to always be upfront with the taxpayers of British Columbia. I have to start by suggesting to her that I spend a lot of time looking at credit card entries in the province. I have to suggest that this ministry is the one that is the most frugal when it's compared to all the other ministries and how that corporate credit card is being used. I do have to give kudos to the minister on that score, though.

G. Gentner: No, but I do have to admit that I did find an entry for fudge at about $1,200….

But that's okay. I mean, that's a fudge-it budget, but compared to all the rest of the ministries, I'd suggest that your ministry has probably the tightest restraints on the use of the credit cards. So there you go.

Very briefly, I want to bring the context of my community here today — namely, that of….

I know those wonderful words I just mentioned may come back to haunt me one day. Nevertheless, I have to give the compliments to the minister on the credit card.

In the context of my community, that of Delta, of course…. We have a very diverse community, in that there are a lot of changes happening. It's a bedroom community. I represent North Delta, but it's only one part. The second part is Delta South. We have rural issues as well as aging populations, particularly in Tsawwassen, and a growing population. Particularly in North Delta where I'm from, there have been some changes, some decline in enrolment.

However, that is increasing in my community. My community has prided itself as being suburban and single-family-based, and there's always a recycling of new families coming in. There's a lot of greying happening with the empty-nesters. Those single-family residents do show up quicker than you realize for new opportunities for young families.

Now, if I have it correct, Delta receives $119.94 million in this upcoming fiscal year. The Ministry of Education has suggested that education spending has increased, but it's mostly for payroll. Yet it really isn't enough to meet the needs for the school district.

Delta's money for salaries went up 2.5 percent because of the contract, but the school board basic total went up less than 2.5 percent with regards to operations. The operating funds for Delta and other school boards have actually decreased. In Delta the school board is missing between $3 million to $7 million. The school district is very concerned — if you heard the discussion here earlier, and you've heard it over and over, I'm sure — because of the loss of certain one-time grants. It's the uncertainty of how to figure out its long-term planning.

The basis of my discussion here today in questions to the minister is: are those from the most recent letter sent to the minister from the school district — April 4, 2008? I have other documentation, but I think these are the most recent concerns of those on the school board, and that gives me an opportunity to raise them with the minister.

You know, putting politics aside, the Delta school district has followed the initiatives by this ministry. They support the minister and, up until now, have been successful in absorbing new programs within their means. Through the entrepreneurial effort, the programs define innovative means for funding, etc.

The Delta school district has certainly followed that tradition in spades. It has opened up various different academies, whether it's hockey academies, equestrian academies, softball academies…. In order to address the decreasing enrolment, Delta has been encouraging students from elsewhere to come to its district. Can the minister explain to me, with these academies, how they can offset — or whether or not they offset — the balance of other school districts in the confines of the Lower Mainland?

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciated the member opposite's opening comments, and I will certainly be getting to the bottom of the fudge problem. I'm looking at my staff as I speak, and they're all smiling. So we'll be checking out the fudge bill.

I would like to first of all agree with the member opposite about some of the initiatives that take place in the school district. He's absolutely correct. This is an entrepreneurial, innovative board that has looked at a number of programs. In fact, I've been lucky enough to visit the hockey academy and am incredibly impressed with the work being done there.

I think the member's question is one that certainly we've heard before — the concern that when you offer programs of choice, how does that impact other school districts? What does that do? I think the trade-off is that the benefit for parents and students is significant.

We support choice. We support educational opportunities that are different, so that students who happen to excel in a particular area can take advantage of that. We have not seen overly skewed results in other districts because of that. It's usually a small group of students who wants to pursue that kind of programming.

So I would certainly agree that the North Delta school board has worked hard to be entrepreneurial. They have some incredible programs underway, and we would see that as a benefit, as part of a greater public education system.

G. Gentner: Does the ministry have a regional planning strategy that addresses the migration of students to and from different districts, in particular, relative to these different academies?

Hon. S. Bond: A good question. In fact, in our discussion here momentarily — and I apologize for that delay…. We don't have a regional planning process as such in terms of the ministry, but there are ways that various partners work together. For example, the B.C. School Trustees Association has regional branches. Superintendents have zones. While I'm not party to the meetings of those regularly, I would assume that some of that discussion takes place there.

But in direct response to the member opposite, we do not have a regional planning process. We've based our policies and principles on the ability for parents to choose. We did, early in our first mandate, remove the restriction for parents to stay within a particular catchment area. They actually can make some choices, and some of them choose to do that.

G. Gentner: Well, thank you for that, hon. Minister. It's somewhat of a bit of downloading, in fact, because this is an initiative that has been encouraged by the ministry. It seems to me that if we are going to see programs based on choice and the movement of students across boundaries, this is going to be the future. We're going to see more and more of this type of transference or movement of students. It's going to change the demographics.

I know that close to my area in North Delta, we're seeing quite a number of students coming across from

Surrey. They're certainly welcomed. I think this type of initiative has far greater impacts, not only between Surrey and Delta, but it's going to be a trend that we're going to find throughout the urban and suburban interface, so to speak, because of the shifting demographic. There are areas that are losing students and areas that are winning students.

I'm hopeful that the ministry will take it seriously and look at more of a provincial perspective, take the initiative from a fiscal perspective and do the proper study, as opposed to just putting the onus on the region.

For the record, I am reading a letter here from the chair of the school board, Ms. Kelly Guichon. I've been asked to read this for the record because it summarizes for the most part what Delta is facing.

So Delta is in a real conundrum here. It's hitting the critical point. It's got a little money left in reserves, but those reserves are very quickly dissipating.

Regarding the labour settlement funding, the reason for the increase in the operating grant can be attributed almost entirely to $3.1 million in increased labour settlement funding. Did the ministry consider Delta's labour settlement and the funding involved when it came forward with its operating grants?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, in fact, the negotiated settlement was fully funded in all school districts. So that is contemplated.

I just want to put on the record…. One of the things I've tried to do, as each of the members has come forward, is put in context the situation that boards currently find themselves in.

When I look at the last five years in the Delta school district…. Over the last five years there's been a 7 percent drop in the number of students enrolled in the district, and the increase in funding has been 14.8 percent. Again, we see a trend that is similar in districts across the province, where we've seen declining enrolment but increased funding.

The specific answer around the funding of the contract is yes, it was fully funded.

The other piece that I wanted to just react to a little bit…. When the member opposite is talking about the ability for boards to have choice programs, we see that less as a…. I think the member referred to it as a downloading opportunity. We see that very much as enabling and permissive.

We think that one of the things that boards have been very excited about is their opportunity to offer choice programs. Also, those programs are fee-charging programs for the most part, because they don't necessarily fit the category within the School Act. So in many ways they are self-funded programs. We see and have learned from parents that those kinds of choices are very significant and very important.

The number of students that cross boundaries to actually attend a choice program specifically, like an academy, is very small.

G. Gentner: I guess I didn't quite make myself clear. The downloading I was referring to seems to be that of the research that should be conducted to find out what the patterns of migration would be for these so-called programs of choice — the downloading that seems to be placed more on the B.C. School Trustees Association to conduct such a study.

Relative to the labour settlement funding, Delta is again in the situation where the operating grant reverses what's happening with the labour increases. They're projecting a shortfall that's estimated at approximately $571,000. Is it going to be totally up to the school board to find that money?

Hon. S. Bond: Thank you to the member opposite. I appreciate having…. I know that that letter has been received, and I know that my staff will work as hard as they always do to look through that and follow up. Certainly we will follow up on that particular item, because the commitment and the delivery has been that the negotiated settlement is fully funded. We will certainly take the member's point, and as we work through that letter, we will follow up on that particular concern.

G. Gentner: That's heartening. I'm sure the school district will be more than welcome to hear that good news. Hopefully, there will be some resolve soon, as we get back into the planning process that we're conducting now for the next curriculum.

With regard to putting the labour component aside, the 2008-09 operating grant is actually $1.8 million lower than the prior year. Some of this reduction results from reduced enrolment numbers, and that's okay. But will the minister admit that the cost for operating schools should not necessarily be cut because of reduced enrolment?

I'm not going to get into the block funding and the old ways here, because I've heard it explained earlier, and I'm sure that I can go into Hansard and that it's the same old story here consistently. But there seems to be a need to maintain curriculum and, of course, operating costs, even though there could be a reduction in enrolment.

Does the ministry take into consideration the cyclical nature of enrolment? I specifically talk about suburbia here, because we have in North Delta, for example, an infill capacity. It's happening now as real estate of 1,200 new units within the next 20 years. We have a development called Delsom Estates, which is between 800 and 1,200 new units coming on stream in the next three to four years. Does the ministry consider that type of projected growth?

Hon. S. Bond: Good afternoon, Chair. Grandpa, should we say? Grand new grandbaby.

To the member opposite: in terms of the funding envelope for the school district, in fact the envelope that finally is received by this district will indicate that there is no district that will receive less funding than it did last year. One of the things that I can alleviate the concern of the member opposite about is that this district will receive no less funding than it did last year.

However, not all of the funds are distributed at this point in the year, because we do have a holdback which looks at second counts in students, children with special needs and those kinds of things. So not all of the funds have been distributed at this point, but I can assure the member opposite that this district will not receive less than they did last year. For any assumption around that, we would need to certainly have a discussion about why that would have been considered an issue.

Again, I just want to point out to the member opposite that in fact, as we look over the last five years, despite declining enrolment this school district has received almost a 15 percent increase in their total funding. We continue to see rising dollars, and again, they will not receive funds less than what they received last year.

G. Gentner: If real costs had gone down as a result of decreasing enrolment, this would not cause such concern. With all due respect, staying in the message box, but for the record, for Delta, I guess I've got to ask the question: will the minister admit today that real costs do not necessarily go down relative to decreased enrolment?

Hon. S. Bond: All I can restate for the record are the facts, and the facts would tell us that funding has increased in this school district by 15 percent while they've seen a decline of almost 7.5 percent of their students. The significant commitment we made was to fully fund the negotiated contract, which we've done.

If there is an issue, as the member has pointed out, with that, we'll certainly go back and have a look at that, because that was a commitment we made and have honoured that. We will continue to see increased funding to this school district in this school year despite the fact there's another anticipated drop in enrolment

G. Gentner: The funding model assumes one less enrolled student will result in a proportionate decrease in expenses. Can the minister basically tell me if she disagrees or agrees with the fact that enrolment expenses are not perfectly elastic?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, children don't end…. When we see declining enrolment, they don't leave in little class sizes; they are spread across districts. Of course there are some of the challenges that you have when you're trying to accommodate that. That's one of the big reasons that we face the challenge of closing schools in British Columbia today — because we see dramatic drops in the number of students.

In fact, when I look back at the numbers here, in 2001 in this school district we would have had 17,351 students. Today, or estimated in this year, we're going to see 15,758 students. So we have literally thousands of students. Do they all leave in the same school? No, they don't. Having said that, the proportion of funding…. As I pointed out, the increase in funding has been 15 percent, and the decline in enrolment has been 7 percent.

G. Gentner: For '08-09 the district will receive a $37,000 enrolment decline supplement. This amount pays for less than 0.5 percent of one teacher's average salary including benefits and in no way compensates for the hundreds of thousands of dollars in decreased block funding.

Another concern the district is finding is that they will receive a very small amount of declining supplement. If there is, let's say, a decrease of 1 percent enrolment, does that automatically mean that there is a cut of 1 percent in the operating budget?

Hon. S. Bond: No. In fact the opposite is true. While there is a 1 percent drop in enrolment anticipated, in fact funding is going up by 2.4 percent at minimum. We also have made the commitment that funding will not, in any school district in British Columbia, be less than it was the year before. So we have protected school districts.

We actually put in place…. Depending upon the degree of decline of enrolment, there are additional levels of supplementary funding provided. For example, I think it was North Coast school district we just looked at. They receive almost a million dollars in supplementary funding. So there are varying degrees of decline, and funding is added depending upon the percentage of that decline.

G. Gentner: The annual GAAP grant — $1.017 million, which was understood to be the ongoing part of the funding formula — has been removed in '08-09 as well as '07-08. Can the minister explain why?

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, GAAP funding has not been removed. It has not been identified as a line item. It was provided initially to assist districts in moving to generally accepted accounting principles. A vast majority of school districts have already reached the GAAP stage and, in fact, have been using those dollars for other things. What we did was de-target that line, and those dollars remain in the budget. So they certainly haven't been removed. The specific budget line for GAAP has been.

G. Gentner: I ask that the minister engage with the school board there to clarify that, because "to date we are not aware as to the rationale for this rollback of funding, given that budget instructions continue to require adherence to GAAP."

Hon. S. Bond: Simply by reiterating the fact that GAAP funds have not been removed. They're simply in the block, and we've actually taken the targeted expectations. I've just been informed by my deputy that in fact they have retired and completed their GAAP compliance so have likely been using those funds. Perhaps they've just recently done that. But GAAP funding remains within the block. It simply had the tag that's associated with it removed.

On the summer learning side of things, there are some concerns here. Many students, also special needs, stretch out their requirements through the summer. Of course, what's happening is that the district has received $181,000 for summer learning. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be enough, and students are burdened with higher summer fees in order to offset their winter load.

However, the question is…. Without certainty from the ministry and, of course, also from moneys, hopefully, from the operating grant, when the student registers in these programs, he or she may find that they're cancelled. Can the minister explain how we can rectify that?

Hon. S. Bond: We're actually excited about the summer learning program. In fact, two years ago we set aside $2 million for summer learning, and then last year we set aside $4 million.

Then there was a serious concern about the fact that students were being charged fees for courses that they shouldn't have been. It is clear under the School Act that you may not charge fees for courses that lead to graduation, and of course, a lot of summer programs do exactly that. What we did then was provide an additional, I think, almost $7 million — six-point-something million dollars — to supplement the summer learning program to make sure that students got their fees back. Last year alone we actually spent more than $10 million on summer learning.

The great news is that we've done a lot of work over the last number of months to talk to boards of education. We now have an interim policy in place which will compensate school districts for those summer learning courses. We have set aside notionally about $25 million for summer learning. That will come out of the $85 million holdback so that school districts can be guaranteed that there will be funding in place — significantly more funding than last year.

In terms of cancellation of programs, I can only imagine that it is based on student enrolment. One can understand that, you know, we can't be offering courses…. We have to look at the fiscal imperatives around that as well. But those are board decisions. They choose their summer learning programs.

Finally, I just want to indicate that fees cannot be charged for courses that lead to graduation. If a course that leads to graduation is offered this summer or any time of the year, a school board may not charge fees for those courses.

G. Gentner: Shifting gears briefly. Can the minister explain: what is the success rate of students taking on-line courses?

Hon. S. Bond: Just in order to allow the time that's necessary for other members as well. I don't have the specific completion rates. They're not as good as we would want them to be, to be candid. In fact, we're doing some work.

A number of issues on distributed learning. We want to make sure that the programs are high quality, and we are looking at completion rates. So we're funding them a little bit differently, looking at partial funding, I believe, partway through the course, monitoring whether or not students are being successful. Originally, districts were receiving the money, and then students just wouldn't finish, so we really had no way of measuring those outcomes. So there are some significant changes in distributed learning.

I'd be happy to get any of the relevant…. If it comes in, in the next couple of minutes, I'll be happy to share that with the member.

G. Gentner: Also, let's move quickly to school planning councils. I've got to tell you that in the urban areas, and probably in the suburban areas as well, the sense of community isn't as strong. It's more of a sense of neighbourhoods in the catchment areas identified by the elementary schools. Parent advisories are very important.

In many ways it was a good idea — the school planning councils — but I don't know if it's working in Delta, to be frank with the minister. In many ways it's pitted parents against parents. It has meant a lot of extra work for some officers. It has really caused a lot of difficulty in the role of the school board and, of course, that of teachers. I don't know how we encourage that collaboration, but there is a disconnect within, and it's similar to one of these portfolio programs. I don't know if it's going to work.

My question is on decisions made by these councils. Who is held liable, if there's anything to be held in joint and several liability? If there was, who would be responsible? Would it be the council itself, the PAC, the school board or the Ministry of Education?

Hon. S. Bond: School planning councils provide advice to boards of education. Boards are not legally bound by those decisions. Ultimately, the board of education is still responsible, as locally elected politicians.

I think it's fair to say that I would share the member's disappointment with the effectiveness of school planning councils in some parts of the province. I have, on the other hand, been to places where school planning councils are making a significant difference and people celebrate the fact that they exist. So I do think there is some inconsistency across the province.

I would share the concern that oftentimes it's the same parents that are involved, and there are issues about burnout and a number of other things. I was enormously disappointed — and shared this person-

ally with the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation — when there was a blanket decision that no teachers should be able to participate. I can tell you that I have been in places where prior to that decision, they worked incredibly well. They were working to the benefit of students, and teachers participated willingly and very positively.

That continues to be an item of discussion that I would like to have with the federation, because it's important. School planning councils are required by law, so I would share the member's disappointment, in that I think they could and should work better and that they continue to be an item of discussion, particularly at the provincial round table. So I appreciate the member's comments and don't particularly disagree with them.

G. Gentner: To put it in a nutshell, the situation in Delta — and in many other districts, I'm sure — is that there is a lack of proper representation on the school planning councils. Frankly, it's no one's fault per se, but the demography is very different. Affluence allows volunteerism to flourish. But when you're looking at a working class area like North Delta, it's very difficult indeed for all to participate, and that is not working well.

Those schools who don't have strong PACs and, in particular, school planning councils are left out of the mix when it comes down to the strong lobbying abilities of other schools or PACs.

I can attest to it. In my days on council — and this was, of course, before there were school planning councils — when it came to divvying up money for playgrounds…. I'm not going to deal with that relative to the lottery, because I'm sure that's already been discussed here. The schools that got the money were the ones that were organized, and the ones that were organized were the affluent, because they had the time and ability to go out and find the money.

For inner-city schools…. I have a couple now in my community. They're stifled in that ability. I think that's been the falldown of the school planning councils. In particular, with those who are from ethnic backgrounds, who lack the language, there are barriers there. They are working, and they don't have an ability to get involved in the school planning councils.

I guess my question is this: how do we make the system more equitable? Do we continue along the way with the school planning council, or do we go back to strictly parent advisory committees and find some way to assist those who are disenfranchised to get their voice?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things that I am most passionate about is the role of parents in education. Certainly, when I was involved through parent advisory councils…. Even though I get to be the Minister of Education today, I think that some of the most meaningful contributions I made were as a parent, being involved in my children's education.

I don't think PACs and SPCs are necessarily exclusive of one another. I think that there is a role for both of them. In fact, school planning councils are required by law, so it's not that we can simply say that we're not going to have them. We actually have to figure out how to make them work.

I do share the concern that parents have challenges in the world we live in, in terms of how they can be involved in their child's education. If they're going to make a choice about reading to their child or going to the PAC meeting, hopefully they make the choice to read. So parents struggle with how to be involved.

I think BCCPAC is working on how to engage parents in meaningful ways in the world we live in. A very exciting initiative is taking place, and I'm trying to think of the school district. It will eventually come to me. They're beginning to have on-line conversations for parents to be involved in the decision-making in schools. It makes a ton of sense for some parents.

I think we need to look for ways to be more inclusive. We need to break down some of those barriers. But certainly, under current legislation, school planning councils are required in the province.

G. Gentner: I'm down to my last question here. It's regarding the lack of funding, which is also found with…. There's been a change — maybe the minister can explain this — in the traditional means of fundraising, even such things as bake sales, my understanding is. I don't want to make too much less of it. It's an important issue.

They've changed in the fundraising, and we're witnessing, for example, that shop programs, cooking classes have been cut. In one high school, Seaquam, the culinary program is now gone, and the success of that program was in part based on their ability to sell baked goods.

As I said earlier, you know, this district of mine has an entrepreneurial spirit. But can the minister explain how a place such as Delta can be assisted in finding how to recoup those costs in order to keep those types of programs stable when the traditional means of fundraising has been changed?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, certainly there has been a significant shift, not only in British Columbia. We actually are leading the country at the moment in terms of our healthy schools initiatives, and they're driven very much by the health and status of our children.

When I was Health Minister…. I know the current Education critic was once the Health critic and spoke passionately about the challenge we face, as well, with childhood obesity. So yes, we recently created food guidelines that are now in place in schools. There is a longer transition period for secondary schools, but there are expectations about what products can actually be served to students on school property. We think that's an important statement.

I recognize that it does mean some changes, and I've certainly had lots of, at times, critical comments about my views of cupcakes and those kinds of things. Having said that, and just as recently….

Hon. S. Bond: We're working on that as we speak, I want you to know — the whole fudge factor.

What we've said is that schools have to be places that offer healthy alternatives for students. So we've laid down a series of guidelines that reflect the Canada food guidelines. It does mean that some things will not be served, particularly in vending machines. We've been very clear about that. But we also believe there's enough flexibility to offer the kinds of things that can be fundraised within those guidelines. The nutritionists in B.C. helped us with that in terms of creating the guidelines.

I understand there is some discomfort in some places about how we're moving forward with that. But we actually believe it's a matter of absolutely essential importance in British Columbia, and generally speaking, parents have been very supportive of those initiatives.

M. Sather: School closures are the big issue in school district 42. The board went through a process last fall and were looking at the possibility of closing three schools. Parents objected very strongly, and the board put off the closures for the time being, at least. Now they're going through a process of re-evaluation, and I'm told that we could even be facing up to seven or ten school closures. It's quite a serious issue.

We have schools on one end of our district that are not full to capacity and others in high-growth areas, on the other end, that are over capacity. What we're looking at, it seems to me, with the school closure process is concentration in larger schools. There's ample evidence out there that smaller schools are better academically, socially and emotionally.

The capital funding model, of course, comes up in my district as well as others, and the 95 percent functional capacity rule — that being the percent of a school that's occupied by K-to-12 students. We're at about 83 percent capacity in our elementary. Parents and the board are asking the government to redefine functional capacities.

Schools are multi-use facilities now. We have day cares, community social services. But these uses are not part of the calculation of functional capacity. So the board is wondering, and I expect they'd discuss this with the minister, if the minister would consider even, say, 15 percent of occupancy by social services groups to be allowed as part of that functional capacity?

Hon. S. Bond: I do appreciate the member's question, and I think it is one that's relevant and one that, certainly, the board has expressed on a couple of occasions. I think the circumstances we're facing in districts — very well expressed by the member opposite. Districts are just a microcosm of the province.

We have areas of incredibly rapid growth and dramatic enrolment decline, and they can be in the same school district. I think that is something we're grappling with. No easy decision, I can assure you, in terms of the board of trustees. I know the member would know that. In terms of how do you configure the district so that you're not pouring resources in half-empty buildings, I think that's really what boards grapple with, and they do grapple.

I think the capacity issue is relevant and one that we are committed to looking at. I think it's even more important when government has said clearly, and by its resources, that it is now dedicating spaces and dollars for StrongStart, for example, or for child care hubs — those kinds of things. So a couple of things to reassure the member, and he can reassure his board. We are looking at the capacity issue, because I think they are enormously important public assets — the buildings and schools.

The question is: does the school of tomorrow look different than the one today? I think we have a really good sense that yes, it does. It looks at how we serve families in a very complete way in a building. So I think we do need to reassess. It won't be an easy discussion, because there are significant fiscal implications of changing that capacity threshold. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look at it, and we are beginning that work.

We're looking at a couple of school districts who are facing this on an enormous scale, the Vancouver school district being one. For example, growth, decline, heritage buildings — you name it — they're all in one place.

We are going to look at the capacity issue. I don't know what the outcome will look like. I don't know if 15 percent is a reasonable amount, but I think co-location…. I think the critic framed it that way best. He talked about co-location and how we focus on that and recognize it. So that work is beginning to be done.

M. Sather: I'm pleased to hear that the minister and ministry are looking at that.

The minister mentioned the StrongStart centres being in schools now, and these kinds of services. With day cares and other services…. For example, day cares in particular, being in schools: what discussions are going on with the ministry of state for childcare and the Ministry of Education, regarding whether that ministry might be able to assist school districts with some funding, perhaps?

Hon. S. Bond: We're having a very productive and, actually, a very collaborative partnership with the Ministry of Children and Families and, in particular, the Minister of State for Childcare.

In fact, just within the last number of weeks in Prince George, for example, it is…. I use that only because it's my district and I know it best, as the member opposite knows his better than mine. In this particular situation, we looked at the ability to provide multi-age child care opportunities for families in one place. That will be supplemented by space that's being used by the Northern Health Authority for some of their programs, by the city of Prince George, the family Y. We've been able to co-locate all of those services in a school that was closed.

That school will now be open and will provide a variety of opportunities for families. I think it's really exciting work, and we hope to see those replicated across the province. That is absolutely because it was a partnership with the Minister of State for Childcare, who was able to put new child care spaces and funding for them in that hub centre.

So I think absolutely that the direction the member opposite is looking at is where we need to go. I do think there's a very positive working relationship, and we are looking at how to work across ministries.

One other initiative I might just mention quickly is things like how we work across ministries. We have StrongStart centres, which are beginning to make, I think, a significant difference in the province for children being ready to go to kindergarten. The challenge, we discovered, was that many vulnerable families can't actually get there. So we worked with our colleagues in the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance, who are now doing a pilot and trial program to provide bus passes, obviously in urban British Columbia — a lot less easy to do that where I live — for those families, to get them to a StrongStart centre.

M. Sather: That's very interesting, about the possibility of one school being occupied by these various services. I'll have to talk to my district about that.

The school and the parents are looking at various ways. The parents of course want to avoid the school closures. What are the minister's thoughts about busing as a tool to maybe not necessarily avoid school closures but to lessen the number of school closures, the impact? That's one of the things that they're discussing in my district.

Hon. S. Bond: If the member would like some contact information to talk to the school district about how that hub is working, that might be helpful before his discussions with his own board. It's just a really exciting project and, I think, has the potential to add a number of other things.

Busing is also under the mandate and authority of boards of education. I know that, as boards make those difficult decisions, those are the kinds of things they think about. Again, it may be something that you'd consider in one district. It may be used in the event of a school closure to transport kids. It may also be something that prevents a closure. It depends. I can assure you of this. In, for example, small rural districts…. That's another complicating factor, because then people are concerned about how long children are on buses.

So I don't think there's an easy answer. I wish there were. In many ways, if there was a template for being able to sort out how to do this, I wish that not only we had found it but jurisdictions around the world had. Transportation is a consideration, but again, that is under the mandate and authority, through the School Act, to boards of education.

M. Sather: Well, the other issues that the school board is going through right now in my district are around assessing French immersion programs and catchment areas as a prelude to whether or not they close schools.

Can the minister, from her high-level aspect in having dealt with these kinds of issues across the province, make some comments on…? I don't fully understand as to how that might or might not be effective, of use.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm reluctant to find myself speculating about how those pieces might fit together in a district. Perhaps, at some time in the future, if there are some specific questions around how that configuration might take place, we'd be happy to entertain them. I'm hesitant to sort of speculate on how that might be used in it a district that I'm not overly familiar with.

M. Sather: I won't have time to discuss it much further with the minister, but maybe I can contact her in another way.

One of the problems that I have around some of the…. We have a couple of inner-city schools too. The downtown core area is one, of course, like other districts, other communities…. It's difficult to get businesses to settle there and so on. We have a fairly high senior population in our downtown area.

If we lose those schools — and two of them have been considered for closures — does the ministry consider the whole aspect of community stability? If you lose the downtown core schools, if we do, then of course young families are not going to want to locate in that area. So that affects our whole planning process. Does the minister have some comments around that?

Hon. S. Bond: I know that people are often critical and want the ministry to sort of take a role or be involved. One of the reasons that we, in essence, are not involved in school closure decisions directly is because we don't understand the makeup and nature of your community. The best people to do that are locally elected politicians, and that's what boards of trustees do.

I can only assure the member opposite that having both participated in the process personally and also having observed dozens of school boards across the province, all of those kinds of things are considered. It's a painful, emotional process, and there is as broad a look as possible.

In fact, I got a note from a superintendent whose school district was discussed yesterday here in these estimates, where there was some concern that savings hadn't been derived and consultation hadn't taken place. You know, the response was: "It was painstaking; it was thorough. It was in fact painful, but we did a good job of looking at all those things."

So I can only assure the member opposite that boards of education try to, as much as possible, consider all of those things before ultimately making what is a difficult decision to close a school.

M. Sather: Just one more question to the minister. Has the minister considered sort of the return of public health to schools, because, as we know, prevention is very important? I remember when I was in school, the public health nurse came. I know our district is wondering about it. There might be a role again for public health to be in the schools. If the minister can just comment on that. And I thank her for her input.

Hon. S. Bond: I don't use this word lightly. We have a crisis with the health of our children in terms of obesity, not just in British Columbia but in Canada. Any time we can entertain those kinds of partnerships, where we bring professionals into schools, I think that's important.

We are looking at a curriculum that is constantly being reviewed to be relevant. But I think, even more importantly, on the ground we've designed a number of programs which recently…. And I would really commend to the member opposite the report of the provincial health officer recently released called An Ounce of Prevention, which does critique and look at health in the education system and things we could do better.

I was appreciative of that report. It did recognize we'd made some strides with programs like Action Schools, daily physical activity, healthy eating guidelines — those kinds of things. He also pointed out that we have more work to do.

So I think, absolutely, we should be considering how those things work together in a school setting. I think the health care system and professionals within it are often very key partners in the work that teachers and districts do.

I think all of the questions that the member has asked today have been thoughtful and relevant. We'll continue to consider some of those things, and if we can be helpful in connecting around the hub centre, we'd be happy to do that.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to participate in the Ministry of Education estimates. I know the minister has been here all week, and that's a very difficult thing to do. So good on you; we're almost done. We can see the end of the tunnel.

I have a comment, and one question, I've said to my colleagues. I'm hopeful that it will remain at that.

My colleague from Cowichan-Ladysmith has raised the Koksilah issue and first nations education in the Cowichan Valley. I won't go into that. But what I don't believe he touched upon was the single-track French immersion program that's so successful at Ecole Mill Bay.

I just want to go on record, for the minister's edification more than anything else, that the upside of the tragedy of school closures is the parents you meet who are so passionate about the success of their children and the programs that are available through the ministry.

The single-track French immersion is enormously successful across the province, and it was, and is, succeeding in the Cowichan Valley. My comment would be that I'm hopeful. I'm meeting with Dr. Southern next week. I know that he's working very hard in the district to try and find resolution. I'm hopeful he's able to, particularly with Koksilah and Ecole Mill Bay, find resolution — that the board can meet its objectives and satisfy the wishes of the community and the parents.

The question relates to district 62, where the minister will know we have an increasing enrolment. Although it appears modest in the numbers, the growth in my community, in Langford and Sooke, is significant for South Island. The board, district 62, has presented a strategic plan to the ministry, focusing on the two — a replacement for Belmont Secondary, as well as a new West Shore high school.

The plan that the minister will have from district 62 includes two smaller secondary schools of about 800 to 1,000 students to replace the existing Belmont, which is overcrowded at 1,400…. I believe it's up to 1,500 students, with 600 students in the catchment area that are going out of district, not necessarily by choice but because there's no room at Belmont. The minister is aware of this; her staff certainly are.

The district has put forward a strategic plan. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on when they could expect a response. We've had a closure announced and completed. It will be completed at the end of June for Glenlake Elementary, which the district argues is integral to their strategic plan to achieve these two secondary schools. So my single question is: can the minister advise the status of the strategic plan for district 62, particularly as it relates to the two secondary schools?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, we've enjoyed vigorous debate with one another in this place before.

Very simply, we are still looking at the proposal. I should say to the member opposite that we're very complimentary of the work that's been done. It is a significant fiscal ask. I asked my deputy, I think approximately two weeks ago or so, to meet with senior administration in the district to walk through that proposal.

I obviously don't have an answer today, but I can assure the member opposite that we are seriously considering it. We are very cognizant that there is a significant fiscal component to that. We will continue to work through that. We don't have an imminent answer, but I can assure you that it is being treated seriously. I'm trying, and we are working on that.

I want to, if I could, just go back to the comments about Ecole Mill Bay and Koksilah. I think the member opposite knows that I do share the concern about the loss of those programs, which is one of the reasons that we agreed to have a special adviser in that particular school district. I, too, met with parents from Ecole Mill

Bay — very impressed, as the member opposite says, with their passion with the program itself. I'm hopeful that Dr. Southern will come up with some resolution to those issues, and it is certainly part of his mandate.

J. Horgan: My brief supplemental would be with respect to the deputy meeting with senior officials. Has that meeting been set, or is there a date that we can report back on?

Hon. S. Bond: Actually…. I'm sorry. I must not have been clear enough, and I apologize. It took place about two weeks ago, so we're just waiting now to sit down and put that in context with all of the other asks across the province.

The member may even want to follow up with senior administration. I'd be happy to hear back what their perception of that was and how they felt about that. Certainly, you can assure them that we are taking the request seriously, and my deputy will be briefing me shortly about that meeting.

I wanted to quickly do two very quick items of administration just to flag for all of us the commitments made yesterday around the provision of the log, issues around FSA and the computer log that the minister committed to. Also there was a question that was to be answered that the minister wasn't able to answer immediately yesterday, and reasonably asked that we wait for that one to be answered. That was around how the participation rate in the FSA is calculated.

I don't need either of those right this minute. I just wanted to flag them for you and for us to make sure that they do get answered. I have one question that doesn't relate to what we were talking about yesterday, and then we'll get back to yesterday. How many schools have closed in the province since 2005?

Hon. S. Bond: My staff will just do the math. We have a number that doesn't link to 2005, so we'll work on that.

In the meantime, I will let the member opposite know that the FSA participation rates were read into the record this morning. That work has already been done. I also read into the record the fact that the technology report will be provided. We just haven't had the time, obviously, to work through that in the last 24 hours.

I do also want to knock off two other things while we're trying to just come up with that number. If not, the member can move on, and I'll come back to that number. I was asked earlier about the completion rates for distributed learning. At the moment they are at 60 percent. That is the number that was requested there.

This, for the benefit of the member opposite, which he can now share with his colleague — the credit card story. I want to be very clear about that. So indeed, there was an Okanagan Fudge and Sundae Co. in Kelowna, B.C. — $1,170 dollars. I would just like to read for the record that the society…. We had six staff members that were at a conference. In fact the society that was hosting the conference did not have the ability to have their own Visa machine. So our members — our six staff people at $195 each — went next door, or in the close vicinity, to the Okanagan Fudge and Sundae Co. to use the Visa machine.

So there was no caloric content for my staff, and I just wanted to have that clearly on the record. We did not purchase fudge; we borrowed the Visa machine.

D. Chudnovsky: I think I want to thank the minister for that. I make no further comment.

Yesterday we were talking about surplus real property, and we were talking about the process the ministry will use when districts, school boards, identify surplus property. The minister said the regulation indicates that the first part of the process is for government — that is, the provincial government — to attempt to do a matching exercise with respect to the land that's now available.

We were talking about if that matching exercise is successful, how that sale would work. The minister said that the sale would be done at fair market value, and we were talking about what fair market value means. That's where we got to yesterday, I think.

Hon. S. Bond: The number that we have, that I have been given…. This is just at a rough tally. The number of school closures since 2005 has been 36. We'll double-check that to make sure it's accurate, but that's the number my staff has just given me.

The member has described the disposal process accurately. We don't actually manage that negotiation. It's being done through Labour and Citizens' Services, which manages those things. But it would be done as any real estate circumstance would be. I am not an expert in real estate disposal, but it would be based on an evaluation and the way that real estate is actually managed on a regular basis.

D. Chudnovsky: Let me explain why I'm asking the question. Value, of course, changes. It changes partly on the basis of the use of the property. A piece of property that has a school on it which is going to be used for a school may have a value that's very different from a piece of property that no longer has a school on it, or is potentially not going to have a school on it, and won't be used for school purposes.

So the question as to how the fair market value is determined is a key question. Well, let me just leave it there, and then I'll come back to it.

Hon. S. Bond: Appraisals, as I understand it — and let's remember that I've said clearly for the record that I'm not a real estate expert — are given on current zoning and potential zoning.

D. Chudnovsky: Good. Okay. So the appraisal is done on the basis of current zoning and potential

zoning. We've got this situation where the province might be buying property from a school board — right? The purchase price is going to be for a fair market value, and that's determined partly by current zoning and partly by potential zoning.

So the question, then, is…. The implication of that answer is that the province might stand to make a pile of dough on some of this land. Is that not the case?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, you know, we could debate this all afternoon, and I mean….

Hon. S. Bond: Frankly, when the discussion takes place, a good place to have that would be with the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services, who actually manages the acquisition and disposal of property.

But let's be clear. When we talk about a match, it would be the government attempting to use it for a specific purpose, which would be identified. We're not planning to become, you know…. Let me put it this way. We're trying to find the highest and best use of what are assets in the province.

We're also trying to recognize that school boards actually own those properties. They are in their name, for the very most part. One of the things that trustees in this province said clearly is: "We're happy to engage in this process, but we want fair market value for those buildings, or for that property."

This process assures that government has the opportunity to consider some of the projects, for example, that many of the member's colleagues have brought forward — a use that government might have for a specific building or a specific site. It would be matched, and there would be negotiation.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister. Let me just see if I can get some slightly more specific answer to my question. I think the minister was just about to put her toe in the water, and I want to encourage her to get all wet.

In the case where a piece of property is purchased from a school board by government in this way, as a result of a surplus situation that's identified by a school board, is she saying that there is a commitment from government that government will use that land and not sell it afterwards?

Hon. S. Bond: What I'm saying to the member opposite is that there is a clearly outlined process, and the criteria require that government look for a match, for a use that government might have for that. Any other specific questions about the disposal process and how that works should be directed to the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services.

D. Chudnovsky: Okay. Well, we'll definitely direct that question, although it's interesting that it wouldn't be able to be answered here, given that the legislation and regulation about which we're talking is one that's operating under the Minister of Education. But I hear the minister, and we'll take her advice.

What about the proceeds from the sale? Where do the proceeds from the sale at fair market value go?

D. Chudnovsky: Is there a particular account, a place in the budget or an accounting category to which that money goes?

D. Chudnovsky: The capital reserve. There are two kinds of capital reserve accounts, as I understand it. Some school districts have a local capital reserve, and then there's the generic capital reserve. Which of these two are we talking about?

Hon. S. Bond: They are the board of education's resources. I wrote this down so I could be completely accurate with the information I've been given. Twenty-five percent would go into local capital, and 75 percent would go into shareable capital reserve.

D. Chudnovsky: Nice to see the new Chair. Not to say anything derogatory about the old Chair, but it's lovely to see the new Chair.

So 25 percent goes into local capital, and 75 percent goes into the shareable capital. Let's just talk for a minute about the 25 percent. Is it the case that for the 25 percent that goes into the local capital account, the board of education has complete and total autonomy as to what is done with that money?

D. Chudnovsky: Let's talk about the other 75 percent for a minute. That 75 percent is in the shareable capital, and how is that account managed? Who decides how that account is used?

Hon. S. Bond: It can be used for capital projects, but it requires ministerial approval.

D. Chudnovsky: That money would be used, the 75 percent of the proceeds of the sale of the surplus real property, which the minister described before as the property of the board of education. That 75 percent cannot be expended by the school district unless it's within the ambit, within the decisions made by the provincial government.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, two simple points. First of all, that is current practice. It has been today. It has been for decades in British Columbia. Shareable capital reserve…. Decisions around capital are always made….

The final approval is made by the minister. That's not a change. So that's one thing.

Secondly, the important point to be made here is that resources gained as a result of disposing of a capital asset remain within a capital plan. They are to be used for capital projects.

D. Chudnovsky: But isn't it the case that what has changed are the rules and regulations and guidelines under which this surplus property, or any property that the school board owns, is used? For instance, to be very concrete, the land and the buildings of schools in Vancouver…. Many of them were purchased entirely by the people of Vancouver under their school taxes.

What the minister is saying is that 75 percent of the income, or of the increased value or the value of that at a certain point, gets to be controlled by the province. Isn't that what the minister is saying?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, to the member's point. In fact, if a board can demonstrate that a particular asset was completely purchased by the board, all of the money goes to local capital.

D. Chudnovsky: That's an interesting answer. So let's be clear. If there is a school that is determined to be surplus by the local school board…. I won't give an example, but in Vancouver, let's say, in my constituency there are a whole number of schools which are pretty old. I don't know for sure, but I would speculate that they were purchased entirely by the people of Vancouver.

If those schools were to be declared surplus, the minister is saying that 100 percent of the proceeds from that sale…. Whether it's to the province or anywhere else under the next few steps in the process, 100 percent of that money goes to the local capital fund. Is that what I'm hearing the minister say?

Hon. S. Bond: Boards of education across the province have title to buildings. What we're saying is, to the member opposite's point, that the difference is that if a board can demonstrate that it paid for those buildings, the money will be returned to local capital.

Hon. S. Bond: Yes. But for the record, we're not encouraging anyone to rush out and sell anything. It's an interesting debate we're having, and we're clearly outlining the process that's now in place — a process which will ensure that if an asset is disposed of, first of all, that there's been a lot of thought about that, and second, that there's a process in place that looks at fair compensation and that those dollars remain within a capital plan for the province of British Columbia.

So it's a pretty straightforward process, one that has met with a degree of agreement with trustees, particularly because they hold title to property. So they're pretty concerned about the process that would include fair market value and negotiations.

From our perspective, it is a change, and yet the distribution of dollars and ministerial decision-making is absolutely not new in this province.

D. Chudnovsky: Thank you to the minister for her answer. But it wasn't the answer to the question that I asked. The question I asked was: what about the land?

D. Chudnovsky: Thank you to the minister for that. I take seriously the minister's position that she's not encouraging people to go out and sell the land. Neither are we, certainly, but the process is there for something. It was brought in by this government, and we're canvassing it and want to know and understand what it means.

Let's go back to this money that goes into the local capital account. Is it the case, for instance, that a local school district that maybe gets frustrated that the seismic upgrading that was expected to happen at a much faster pace than it turned out to happen — it isn't happening — can go out and buy seismic upgrading out of its local capital account for a school?

Hon. S. Bond: I frankly am not going to speculate about what they would do with it. The fact of the matter is that local capital is used today. It's used for things like computers and, I think, roofs and a variety of other things that school boards make decisions about every day.

D. Chudnovsky: Let's talk about the money, now, that may accrue because of a sale of property that's been identified as surplus that goes to the shareable account. Does that money get used first when the province approves capital projects?

Hon. S. Bond: I think what's ironic is that we don't anticipate a lot of use in terms of this particular process, and we would certainly encourage boards to be very thoughtful about how they declare things surplus. There would continue to be a government agenda for replacing, building, renovating and acquiring sites. So all of that would go on as it normally would.

Perhaps an example and a way to describe this would be that occasionally there are opportunities for districts, who want to enhance a particular building that may not include something that they particularly want to have in it, to often raise funds and do a variety of things to make those things happen. Perhaps an addition of a building that's already going to be built might be something that those funds would be used for.

But if the member is beginning to work on an argument that would suggest government isn't going to continue to build buildings, aside from what's in shareable capital, that's not accurate.

D. Chudnovsky: Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been, or maybe I didn't understand well enough how the minister just answered that question.

This time I'm not talking about the local capital account. I'm talking about the 75 percent that goes into the shareable capital account. Perhaps I misunderstood, and if I did, I apologize. I'm asking the question: does that 75 percent have to be used first before money comes from the province to build capital projects that are approved by the province?

Hon. S. Bond: No, but it would certainly be part of a discussion we have with boards about their priorities, about the projects that they have on their list. As the member opposite would know, boards always have a long list. They have a long priority list. So that would be part of a collaborative process where we would work with boards of education. But from our perspective, the answer is no.

D. Chudnovsky: Again, I thank the minister for her answer. It's a bit arcane, but I think this is really an important issue to get clear.

The question I'm really asking is — in a different and roundabout way or maybe in a straightforward way, and I'll ask it now in a roundabout way: how much control does the local school board have over the 75 percent going to the shared capital account that is the proceeds of a sale of a school board asset that, as the minister said a few minutes ago, belongs to the school board? How much control do they have?

For instance, to be concrete…. He should have said that. The ministry approves a priority list for capital projects and says, "School A is going to be built first," and the school board says, "Okay, but we want to save some of that 75 percent from that sale for school B, which is coming second, because we've got some amenities we want to put in there." Does the school board have that much control over the 75 percent?

Hon. S. Bond: They will have as much ability to do that as they do today. Money that is…. They would still require ministerial approval for those funds today if they had money in those funds.

I think the other point that I want to reiterate is that while boards of education send priority lists to the government, the member opposite would know that it would be virtually impossible to do all of the priorities as identified by boards of education. The lists are provided. In the context of the entire province, we make the choices about which projects move ahead.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm getting close to being finished with this line of questioning. I want to go back to the issue of surplus itself for a minute. Now, what about a school board that wants to do what the Vancouver board did, for instance, a few years ago? They took the piece of land that the school district building was on, and they wanted to redevelop that. They made a deal with the developer to build them a new board office, to develop part of the land, and they gave them a 100-year lease on that land. They derive ongoing income from that land that was owned and is still owned by the people of the school board — therefore, the people of Vancouver.

If there's a building that's identified as surplus — and this is not just theory; I can think of at least two in my constituency that might fit this description exactly — is it open to the school district to do that kind of thing, rather than come and make a deal with the provincial government under these regulations, to say: "We can use this land and derive ongoing income that the school board can use, over time, to benefit the kids in the district"?

Hon. S. Bond: Once the declaration of surplus is given to a particular building or piece of land, it automatically kicks into the process. The definition of surplus is that it would no longer be necessary for educational purposes. But that is an independent decision by a board of education. Once they make the declaration that it is surplus, the first test is the provincial government, the second is local, and the third would return to school boards for their ability to deal with that in a different way.

D. Chudnovsky: And so am I understanding correctly that there are any number of uses to which a school board can put a piece of property that doesn't have…? There's a distinction to be made between: "It doesn't have kids and classes in it anymore," and "It's surplus." Those are two different things. "It doesn't have kids and classes in it anymore" is one thing. Declaration of surplus is a separate thing. They may be connected at some point.

Before that declaration of surplus is made, there are any number of uses that a school district can put that piece of property to. For instance, it can make a deal with a developer to develop it and derive income from it over time. They can figure out a way to work with community organizations to use it for a social and community purpose. There are any number of decisions that a school board can make — just to make the process go a little faster — and none of that prior to the declaration of surplus will have any impact on the province's decision-making around capital projects in that district.

Hon. S. Bond: I will just quote for the member the definition in the ministerial order. It says: "'Surplus property' means real property not required by a board for educational purposes."

D. Chudnovsky: Well, let's be clear. A little while ago the minister told me — told us, told the committee — that surplus means property that's been designated as surplus. One or the other definition is true. I may have misheard, and I stand corrected if I did. But that's not what I think she just read, so let's get this clear.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, there shouldn't be a need for clarity, and I can't imagine what the member is talking about in terms of a different definition. Here's the defi-

nition. A board must apply this definition to their decision. Here it is: "'Surplus property' means real property not required by a board for educational purposes." That's precisely how I've referred to it. That is wording in the ministerial order.

D. Chudnovsky: The definition that the minister gave a little while ago turns out not to be the definition. She suggested a while ago that it was a decision to be made by the school board. What she's saying now is that there's a definition. They don't get to make a decision. Is it just pro forma?

I will apologize if I'm not being clear. It appears to be the case, so here's my apology.

But there's a difference between…. One is a definition that says that if it's not to be used for educational purposes, it's surplus. The other thing that the minister said a little while ago is that a board gets to decide if it's surplus. What it seems to me she's saying now is that it's entirely pro forma. That decision isn't a decision of the board. That decision is a decision that's already been made by the definition that's in the regulation.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm virtually speechless in terms of trying to sort out how to respond to that. Here's the point — that here's the definition that a school board must apply in determining whether or not to indicate that something is surplus. If it is not required by a board for educational purposes, it is surplus. Who would the member opposite would think would actually use the definition to make that determination? The board of education, based on the ministerial order.

D. Chudnovsky: Therefore, what the minister is saying is that there is no room for school districts to choose to use property that fits that definition in any other way that might be useful to the students of that district over time or to the school board. There is no option for the school district.

The only thing they can do, if that definition applies, is to come to the province and begin the process. There's no choice. There's no discretion here for the local school board. If it fits that definition, the process starts. The designation is made, it is surplus, and you go to step one, which we've been talking about.

Hon. S. Bond: The criteria that a school board must use and apply to actually decide whether or not something is surplus is if it is not required for educational purposes.

D. Thorne: I appreciate getting to ask a few questions about my school district, which is the third-largest school district in British Columbia and a school district that is increasingly frustrated by what is happening with the provincial government, their budget and other kinds of things. A question that I actually didn't even have on my list…. I have three questions. I have promised the critic that I have three questions, but I just want to follow up on one thing that was said by the last member, if I may.

I would ask the minister, then, if I am correct. In my district I know there are several community groups that are working with the board of education to perhaps take over some of the closed schools and open community hubs with different ministries in them and youth services and all kinds of things.

I guess my first question to the minister is…. This is a process that can go nowhere. That is what I'm assuming from the answers I just heard. If the school district closes a school…. My district, I think, has a disproportionate number of schools that have been closed over the last few years. Just last winter alone in my district, two schools were closed — in my riding.

If the school board no longer is using a school for the purpose of education, like the two in my riding, then that school would be considered automatically a surplus school. There would be no point in the community trying to rent space from the school district on a five- or ten-year lease. It would be automatically closed because it would fit the definition that the minister read out.

So my first question would be: if it's no longer required for education by the board, is that closed school automatically a surplus school? That's probably just a yes or a no answer — maybe not.

D. Thorne: Then I, too, as with the past speaker, am confused. If the school board says they no longer need a school for educational purposes, how does this statement not fit the statement read out by the minister that a school not needed for educational purposes is in fact a surplus school?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite: two different propositions were presented there. A school that is closed does not necessarily mean that it's surplus, because a board may decide that it can be used in the short term again for educational purposes. So the bottom line is: it is not surplus simply because it's closed.

D. Thorne: I apologize if I was not as clear as I should have been. I thought I said a school that the board of education has said they no longer need for educational purposes. They will not be reusing it. It would be open for lease by community groups. That would not be a possible scenario under the statement that was read out.

Hon. S. Bond: There are projects across this province that reflect exactly the principles the member opposite was speaking about. Boards will determine it based on educational purposes.

D. Thorne: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. It's been a long time since I've been in estimates. I'll get the hang of it in a minute.

Okay. So back to my first question that I was intending to ask. District 43 trustees are frustrated about recent funding changes which could have resulted in a $1 million cash shortage and teacher layoffs, had not a significant increase in the number of international students helped to make up the shortfall. In fact, my school board is so frustrated that they have joined together with teachers, parents and staff to place ads in our local newspaper calling on the government to provide equitable, sustainable and predictable funding.

D. Thorne: I didn't realize that was a prop. I'm just breaking all the rules this afternoon.

I mean the essence of the ad put in by the school district in the paper…. I think it has to be a precedent of some kind that you would have a board of education so upset, so frustrated and so worried and concerned that they would put an ad in our local paper calling on our provincial government to provide sustainable and predictable funding.

I would like to ask the minister how she feels school districts can make the best possible plans for their students when her ministry imposes last-minute changes to funding without prior consultations.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, first of all, we need to be very clear about the fact that the funding formula that actually had a midyear adjustment…. All of the money that was committed to be sent to boards was actually sent, and it was $4.345 billion. That was actually sent.

For the member's information, school district 43, Coquitlam, in the last five years has lost 6.3 percent of their enrolment and, in fact, has received a 17 percent increase in funding.

D. Thorne: Obviously, I don't have time to sort out those figures, but I will be doing that with my school board when I go back home next week, Mr. Chair.

The next question I wanted to ask is about the hot meal program in Coquitlam, which is in our inner-city schools. It has been a very successful program for a number of years. Nutritious food is cooked at the schools, and for some students this is the main meal of the day. Now, due to government funding changes, the district is proposing to substitute those hot meals with trays of snacks that will be dropped off at the schools.

Do the minister and her ministry really think that trays of snacks are a suitable substitution to replace the hot meals which we are currently providing in school district 43 for hungry children?

Hon. S. Bond: While I appreciate the member's questions, it would be perhaps helpful if some homework was done. There has been no change in CommunityLINK funding for school districts, and meal programs are part of the decision that locally elected trustees make utilizing the more than $46 million that we invest in CommunityLINK funding.

D. Thorne: I think that the pressure on our boards of education — and I can only speak for my own — is so enormous these days that they're forced into making these kinds of decisions, which are really hurting the most vulnerable children who live in school district 43. Perhaps it's in other districts as well. I really don't know that.

I just want to read a couple of questions that people from Moody Elementary have asked me to ask. They would like to know where the teachers should send the students when the child is unmanageable and unable to focus because they have not had any breakfast.

Studies have shown, as the minister knows, that breakfast is the most important meal of the day and is not considered to be a snack. "Please don't allow these children to become another number and fall through the cracks. If we don't feed them, who will?" That's a question that I was asked to ask the minister.

Hon. S. Bond: You know, schools across the province today grapple with how to serve children every single day in British Columbia. The teachers we have in our public education system are phenomenal. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they deal with challenges that are very difficult.

But it is important that the record be clear. For that reason, I will take just a moment or two to read these numbers related to the Coquitlam school district into the record, because it's important that the member opposite put this in the appropriate context.

Next year's enrolment in this school district will be approximately 8.4 percent lower than it was in 2000-2001. Next year this district will receive $4.5 million more in operating grants than they received this year, despite an anticipated almost 1½ percent — it's just over 1 percent — enrolment decline. So they're getting $4.5 million more — fewer children. In fact, when I look at the per-pupil funding, and we're happy to share this information with the member opposite, this school district is expected to be $1,721 higher per student than it was in 2000.

I don't have an answer to the question directly. I don't know the circumstances, and I don't know the specifics. But I do know this: it is important to put in context the fact that this district, as well as other districts across British Columbia, is receiving additional funding while they have declining enrolment.

D. Thorne: I thank the minister for those figures, and actually, I would like it if you could send me all of those figures at a later date, because it would be a lot easier for me to sit down and look at them when I'm not under pressure here for time, etc.

But talking about the $1,721 more per student expected next year, I'm assuming that includes all inflationary costs, such as the wage increases for all staff, including teachers and principals, and heating costs and all of the cost of living and the general inflationary costs. So it would be helpful for me, when I get those figures, to not only have the increase per student on the plus side, but I would also like to know what the inflationary costs are projected to be, if you have those. I would think you would have those from the districts already, if you know how much you're going to be paying per student.

How much more in heating? How much more for wages across the board? How much more for all of those kinds of costs, the extra costs, which actually, if that's possible…? I mean, I just ask that you give me what you can. I would have to get the rest from the district.

But that does lead me into my third and last question, which is about another extra cost that my school district will have next year. They actually sent the minister a letter and copied the MLAs on the letter — all four of us from district 43. It was sent to you last month, regarding the introduction of the carbon tax credit without any increase in funding — that they know of — to offset the tax.

The district's estimates indicate that they will pay an additional $110,000 in costs due to this tax. The letter from the trustees to yourselves states: "This means that educational dollars that are best put into the classroom will now have to be redirected to pay for this new measure. Will the government consider providing additional funding to offset the effects of this new tax, the carbon tax?"

Hon. S. Bond: As I indicated to the member opposite, we continue to increase funding to school boards, and that will continue in next year's budget and the year following. So the good news is that as enrolment continues to decline, we will continue to invest in education in the province — at record levels, I might point out.

Having said that, one of the things that is important to us is that there is a technical review committee that actually looks at the funding formula every year. One of the things that we will be looking at is how the formula will relate to the climate change initiatives, and on that committee there are secretary-treasurers and superintendents from across the province. That is done on an annual basis. It will be done again this year, and any recommendations coming from that committee will be presented to the minister.

R. Fleming: I want to just change subjects for a moment to ask about literacy initiatives. As the minister is aware, the government's throne speech of 2004 was the first reference to goal-setting for literacy for this jurisdiction. Incredibly, it took until the summer of 2005, I think, before the Ministry of Education was tasked with providing a strategic framework on literacy by government. That strategic framework, of course, took 18 months to complete. So there we are to the early spring of 2007.

Just to bring it up to date, because this ministry is, of course, one of the lead deliverers of literacy services and has been charged with developing that strategic plan…. I want to ask the minister whether — since 2007, when the overall framework was announced — she can talk about additional funding for literacy initiatives that her ministry is tasked with and the cross-ministerial collaboration that they're also participating in.

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, when we looked at creating the literacy framework, it did take time, and it took thought and effort. Right at the moment I can tell the member that, since that time and the creation of ReadNow B.C., we've invested $131 million in literacy across the province.

Just as recently as this week British Columbia was congratulated and celebrated for bringing together, for the first time in Canada, all of the Ministers of Education from coast to coast to coast, to host 4,000 people in Canada to discuss the issue of literacy. We are the lead jurisdiction in Canada. The work that's been done by our partners across the province is exemplary, and we are being considered leaders across the country.

R. Fleming: While her ministry has put forward a strategic framework, one of the audit findings by the Auditor General in this February 2008 report was that the government has still not provided any funding or costed framework for implementing that strategic plan. I wonder if the minister could suggest to members here when such a fully costed implementation strategy of that plan might be available.

I also wonder if she could comment on some of the other key findings in the audit that her ministry is responding to. One of them was that there isn't even a basic awareness campaign in British Columbia right now that actually addresses people with literacy deficiencies, to make them aware of services that might be available to them in their communities. That seems pretty basic, in terms of trying to move literacy numbers within our jurisdiction.

Could the minister comment on a funding framework, on when it will be fully costed and available to the public to supplement that strategic framework and also comment on some of the key findings of the audit around the planning of literacy services for B.C.?

Hon. S. Bond: I welcomed the report of the Auditor General. I thought it was thoughtful, and it was certainly challenging for us as we move ahead.

But when we look at some of the key issues, there is indeed an ongoing public awareness strategy, and it does include a 1-800 number for learners. It has a database of literacy programs and services in every community in the province. We have a ReadNow B.C. website. We have

literacy promotion community toolkits. As I just suggested, as recently as Sunday night, Monday and Tuesday we convened across the country, something that is unprecedented in Canada.

We also took very seriously the findings of the Auditor General's report in terms of how to track progress, monitor and assess, and we're working on putting that together.

Annual reporting. We'll identify areas for adjustments in our policies, programs and services. We've taken the report very seriously. We intend to look at the recommendations and work through them. But I can assure you of this. The literacy agenda in British Columbia is moving forward in a way that has never taken place in this province before. We met with service providers, teachers, educators and others over the course of the last two and a half days. We will put together, as a result of that work, an even more aggressive strategy.

The fantastic news is that we continue to be amongst the best in Canada in terms of our outcomes in both adult scores — there is work to be done; there's no doubt about that — and also worldwide for students.

Much work has been done. There is more work to be done, but I can assure the member opposite that we will be working through the recommendations of the Auditor General and reporting back on the outcomes.

R. Fleming: I think one of the dangers of looking at B.C.'s positioning in Canada in literacy is that often there can be a complacency that sets in because B.C. has, for over a decade, had a strong position within the confederation of Canada on its literacy results. But the fact is that over the last ten years 100,000 more people, more British Columbians, lack the basic literacy and numeracy skills in this economy, and it's over a million people today. So while we can play with statistics and feel good that compared to our neighbours we may be positioned somewhat better, the fact is that more adults and British Columbians are facing literacy challenges today.

I think that one of the things that was missed by the standing committee was some bold recommendations, not just to be the best by 2015 — because we're almost there, except for the Yukon — but to actually reduce, say, by 20 percent, the amount of adults living and participating and trying to raise families in a knowledge-based economy that basically shuts them out. That hasn't been done, and I think that's what people are looking to this ministry and others in government to accomplish.

I think that one of the key findings I want to talk to the minister about, just to go back, because I asked her a minute ago and didn't get a clear answer, was around the frequent calls, which she's definitely familiar with — from advocacy groups; from government officials, federally and elsewhere; from people who are deeply involved in adult education and in literacy training — for more funding and for funding for the specific agencies on the ground, doing the training in our communities and addressing and working on this issue. They have had no commitment.

The Auditor General identified that, and I wonder if the minister could comment on that opportunity being missed in this budget.

Hon. S. Bond: One of the initiatives that we're really pleased about…. I don't disagree with the member opposite. Obviously, our goal is to reduce the number of adults who are having significant challenges, and there are a million of them in British Columbia. We have not set a target, such as the member opposite suggested.

But certainly, we are working aggressively, including my colleague in Advanced Education, who has recently funded regional literacy coordinators. We are now expecting school districts, also, to create district literacy plans, working in conjunction with the community. We also are providing free adult basic education, and we've created an education guarantee to allow adults to be able to access courses free of charge, even if they've graduated — or if they haven't. There are a number of initiatives in place.

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask the minister, then, because she did talk about the boards of education and their mandate change and their importance in working towards improving our literacy situation in B.C., if in this budget there are specific new supports that include both guidance and direction from the ministry but also resources to take on these new responsibilities. It's one of the audit findings — again, from the February 2008 report from the Office of the Auditor General — that said, in fact, that they found no evidence that either the direction or the resources were being provided to the boards of education to address and embrace that expanded mandate.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, there will be $5 million for literacy innovation grants, which will allow districts to utilize that in their planning and preparation. We're also working closely with Literacy Now and will be looking to them for a community funding process which would include the opportunity for boards of education to access.

D. Cubberley: In light of the hour, I would move the appropriate resolution. I think it's probably more appropriate, actually, that the minister be given the opportunity to move the resolution.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the committee rise, report resolution of the Ministry of Education and ask leave to sit again.

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


	YEAS — 37

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Christensen	Les
Richmond	Bell	van Dongen
Roddick	Hayer	Lee
Jarvis	Nuraney	Whittred
Cantelon	Thorpe	Hagen
Oppal	de Jong	Taylor
Bond	Hansen	Abbott
Penner	Neufeld	Hogg
Sultan	Lekstrom	Mayencourt
Polak	Hawes	Yap
Bloy	Black	McIntyre
	Rustad

	NAYS — 20

Farnworth	Kwan	Ralston
Cubberley	Hammell	Thorne
Simons	Gentner	Routley
Fraser	Horgan	Bains
Robertson	Karagianis	Krog
Austin	Chudnovsky	Wyse
Sather		Conroy