2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 5

[ Page 2793 ]

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2009

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have three guests who I'm pleased to introduce today. Malcolm Johnstone, who is the treasurer of CineVic; Diane Searle, a media artist; and actor Dennis Eberts. They're here to show their support for investments in funding for arts and culture. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. I. Black: I'd like to welcome Genome B.C. to the House — Dr. Alan Winter, president and CEO; Dr. Tony Brooks, CFO and corporate secretary; Dr. Richard Howlett, director of business development; and Ms. Sally Greenwood, the director of communications and education.

One of their major breakthroughs will protect some children with cancer from losing their hearing. Researchers have analyzed hundreds of variations in key genes and found that two of them are linked to deafness caused by a common chemotherapy drug. This discovery will allow doctors to modify treatment and protect these children's hearing. I would ask the House to help make them feel most welcome.

L. Popham: The Minister of Labour and I have something in common today. Bayside School, from his constituency, is visiting the precinct, and my son Kye goes to school there in grade 6. His whole class, his teacher Kathryn Verronneau and two assistants, Debra Butler and Sean Kenny, who are assisting the 27 students who are here visiting, are coming to have cookies in our caucus room after.

Hon. J. Yap: I'd like members to help me welcome two special guests of mine today who are in the gallery. I see they just arrived. One is Dave Rogers. He's a good friend and constituent and active member of Rotary.

The other guest is an individual who hails from South Africa, specifically near Johannesburg, and his name is Jaco Van Schalkwyk. Mr. Van Schalkwyk is a very special individual. He's the project lead for a project called the Refilwe Community, which is providing help, assistance, health care and support for orphans and families in communities that are called temporary settlements or squatter settlements. It gives comfort to many, many thousands of people in that area. He's here as a guest of Rotary to help with some fundraising for this project, the Refilwe Project.

I'd like to ask all members of the House to welcome this great humanitarian, Mr. Jaco Van Schalkwyk, to British Columbia.

H. Lali: Visiting us here in the galleries right up above are three fine gentlemen from the community of Lillooet. They are the mayor of the district of Lillooet, Dennis Bontron; also the administrator, Grant Loyer; and Chief Bill Machell of the T'it'q'et Indian band.

They're here since yesterday lobbying and meeting with ministers and MLAs and looking after the social and economic interests of their community of Lillooet and the surrounding area. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

Hon. B. Stewart: This year the Queen's Printer of British Columbia is celebrating its 150th anniversary. The Queen's Printer has been printing, publishing and providing an innovative service for nearly as long as the founding of the Crown colony of British Columbia.

Interestingly, up until the 1970s the Queen's Printer sat in this very chamber to support the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly. In the most natural and fitting of ways, the Queen's Printer has published a book on its 150th year anniversary, The Queen's Printer for British Columbia: A History from 1859 to 2009. A copy of this book will be delivered to each MLA's office today.

Joining us today in the gallery are some of the staff from the Queen's Printer in the Ministry of Citizens' Services who worked on creating this book — Mr. Vern Burkhardt, the Queen's Printer for British Columbia; Dawson Brenner, the director of print services; Don Swagar, the operations manager print services; Susan Taylor, print agent; Karen Garland, in pre-press; Kim Larkin in pre-press; Leah Renihan, graphic designer; and David Duncan, research and writing. Please make them welcome here today.

[1340]

J. Horgan: Joining us in the precinct today is Juno award–winning recording artist Josh Finlayson of the Skydiggers. Josh was in town to back up Blue Rodeo last night. I just wanted the House to make him welcome and also, through you, hon. Speaker, to let Josh know that it's now time to turn his back on the Maple Leafs. He can let that go. Break the cycle. Break the cycle for your children, Josh. Go, Canucks, go.

J. Thornthwaite: One of the side effects of being an MLA that I've just learned is that we are away from our family more than we would like. I just wanted to let the House know that my daughter Zoey Ann Walter is having her 11th birthday today, which I'm missing. I would hope that the House would wish her a nice, happy birthday. Happy birthday, Zoey.
[ Page 2794 ]

N. Macdonald: I have two guests with me here. One is Kelly Charlton. He has just moved to Victoria, and he's a special friend of — I almost feel guilty to say my daughter, who is here — Danielle Macdonald. She's joining us as well. I would like you to join me in making them both feel welcome.

T. Lake: It's a great pleasure for me to have in the gallery today a great friend and colleague, and a constituent of yours, Mr. Speaker — Dr. George Guernsey. Dr. Guernsey was one of the founders of Canada's first centralized veterinary hospital, right here in Victoria.

He has contributed to the profession in many ways: as past president of the British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association and, also, as past president of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. He's still involved in veterinary practice around the province and now resides in Summerland, B.C. I would like the whole House to make Dr. Guernsey very welcome.

B. Ralston: In the gallery are a number of Canadians of Ukrainian descent who are here to witness the introduction of a bill to recognize the Holodomor. Ludmilla Weaver, Peter Zachary, Myron Pilip, Maria Pomircha, Bogdan Fedorko, Myroslav Petriw, Alexandra Ciacka, Valentyna Kaspryk, Robert Herchak, Olga Zakariw, Ihor Stanley Osobik, Edward Kwiatkowski, Roman Brunwald and Alexander Teliszewsky. Would the House please make them all welcome.

R. Lee: In the gallery today we have 30 grade 10 students from the Burnaby Central Secondary School, led by their teacher Mr. Wayne Axford and two parents. The new $50.6 million Burnaby Central school is under construction right now. It will be ready to be occupied in 2011. So the students here today will be the first graduates of a brand-new school in Burnaby. Will the House please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

B. Routley: I have three guests with me in the Legislature today. Rick and Penny Whiteford. Rick was a construction millwright working throughout British Columbia in almost every sawmill at one point or another. Then he was the last chairman at the Youbou sawmill, who I worked with in the union hall in Duncan for almost a decade — a tremendous friend. I'm thankful for his support.

And his wonderful wife Penny and his delightful aunt Flora Whiteford, who is here for the first time. She's lived in Victoria, but she's delighted to be here in the Legislature and look at our beautiful building today. Please join with me in making them feel welcome.

J. McIntyre: I just wanted to add my voice of welcome to Dr. Alan Winter, as he's a constituent of mine. One of the very great pleasures of my job as MLA is to get to know Dr. Winter and the very, very impressive work of Genome B.C. So, welcome.

[1345]

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, I know that all members enjoy it when we have the opportunity to have family members come and join us here in the chamber. I'm very pleased that my sister Debbie Simpson and my nephew Kyle Simpson are here for the first time. Not only are they family, but they're also my constituents, and I have reason to believe they probably did vote for me in the last election. So if the House would make them welcome.

I notice, in the gallery here, that an old friend of many of us on this side, Malcolm Crockett, is with us today. I'd like us to make Malcolm welcome.

D. Routley: I would like to join the previous speaker in welcoming Malcolm Crockett to the Legislature. Malcolm put in many a day and many an hour going door to door in our constituency during this past election. He's a man of great flourish and panache. I took all of his advice very well to heart. Some of it I didn't follow. I didn't wear Hawaiian shirts to brighten up my demeanour at the door.

I'd like to thank Malcolm for his great friendship and help and have the House help me welcome him here.

M. Sather: I would be remiss not to also welcome my friend Malcolm here to the House. He's a longtime former resident of Maple Ridge, and we've known each other well and had many good conversations over the years. Would the House please join me as well.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M206 — Cosmetic Pesticide and
Carcinogen Control Act, 2009

R. Fleming presented a bill intituled Cosmetic Pesticide and Carcinogen Control Act, 2009.

R. Fleming: I move first reading of the Cosmetic Pesticide and Carcinogen Control Act.

Motion approved.

R. Fleming: Introduction of this bill enables our province to join other provinces, representing approximately 20 million Canadians, that ban the use of cosmetic pesticides in order to mitigate the threat that these toxins present to our environment, our children, pets and personal health.

The legislation is consistent with and supportive of provincial legislative reform efforts being made by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Toxic Free Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation.
[ Page 2795 ]
This bill is consistent with recommendations made by the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Over 20 local governments across B.C., representing every region of the province, governing millions of our citizens, have already enacted bylaws to ban the sale of cosmetic pesticides, but these bylaws are ineffective because they lack authority over retail sale of harmful products. The Community Charter act does not give communities legislative authority to ban the sale of pesticides. Only provincial legislation can accomplish this.

Our society faces a huge potential cancer burden from exposure to hundreds of known and possible human carcinogens. The New York Academy of Sciences has found that women exposed to pesticides as children are twice as likely to have breast cancer later in their lives. Research by the Harvard School of Public Health argues that chemicals in some pesticides may be linked to lower intelligence, behavioural disorders, autism, ADHD and asthma in children, even in low-dose exposures.

Cosmetics also put at risk our food supply, and new research links pesticide runoff as a contributor to the decline in salmon returns, from damaged immune systems of our iconic B.C. fish species.

For children and pregnant women, there are no safe levels of exposure to chemicals such as endocrine disruptors and neurotoxins. In protecting our young children, this legislation offers the promise over time of lowered cost of delivering health care services by reducing chronic disease. There is sufficient scientific evidence about the harmful effects of environmental and health effects from chemicals contained in common pesticides. We urge the government to take strong legislative action now.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day at the next sitting of the House…

Mr. Speaker: …after today.

Bill M206, Cosmetic Pesticide and Carcinogen Control Act, 2009, 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.

Bill M207 — Ukrainian Famine and
Genocide ("Holodomor")
Memorial Day Act, 2009

B. Ralston presented a bill intituled Ukrainian Famine and Genocide ("Holodomor") Memorial Day Act, 2009.

B. Ralston: I move that a bill intituled the Ukrainian Famine and Genocide ("Holodomor") Memorial Day Act, 2009, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

[1350]

B. Ralston: This bill recognizes the famine and genocide that killed millions of Ukrainians in 1932 and '33, during the period of forced collectivization in the Soviet Union. This tragedy — as many as ten million Ukrainians died, one-third of whom were children — is known as the Holodomor in the Ukrainian language. The name is derived from two Ukrainian words: holod meaning hunger, starvation or famine; and moryty, to induce suffering, to kill.

The Holodomor was set in motion because the Soviet leadership at the time feared the national awakening of Ukrainians and their aspirations for cultural expression and an independent state. Survivors of the Holodomor have immigrated to British Columbia and have made a positive contribution to British Columbian society. Some of them join us in the gallery today.

The government of the Ukraine; the Parliament of Canada; the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario; UNESCO; the United Nations; the United States House of Representatives and Senate; the European Parliament; and many other jurisdictions worldwide have officially condemned the Holodomor or recognized it as a genocide.

As well, by coincidence, a similar bill is being introduced today in the legislature of the province of Quebec. This bill will proclaim the fourth Saturday in November of each year Holodomor memorial day to memorialize those who perished as victims of the Holodomor. I look forward to support from both sides of the House in recognizing this tragic episode of Ukrainian history.

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 M207, Ukrainian Famine and Genocide ("Holodomor") Memorial Day Act, 2009, 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.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

PREVENTION OF
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

L. Reid: Ten years ago the United Nations declared November 25, the date, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. This was the date in 1960 that the three Mirabal sisters, political activists in the Dominican Republic, were assassinated on orders of Dominican ruler Rafael Trujillo.

The 20th anniversary of Ecole Polytechnique, the massacre on December 6, is also approaching — a reminder that violence against women is not just something that happens far away. It happens everywhere.
[ Page 2796 ]

Today awareness is much higher, and we are doing more than ever to work toward the goal of ending violence against women. The last few years have seen the expansion of transition houses and greatly increased funding so that women and their children can have a safe place where they can learn to live freely again. Multicultural services and increased public outreach offer more options for women facing violence.

Women's organizations are also doing important work to raise awareness to end violence against women. One such group is the Richmond Women's Resource Centre, which works to improve the status of women in the community and society at large. They are often the first point of contact for women facing violence and refer these women to organizations such as Chimo Crisis Services. Chimo is also based in Richmond, and they operate the Nova Transition House. The work these organizations do literally saves lives.

I would like to close by mentioning that today is the first day of the white ribbon campaign, the world's largest effort by men working to end violence against women. This campaign runs from today until the sixth day of December. I encourage everyone to visit www.whiteribbon.ca to offer your support.

SOOKE INTEGRATED HEALTH NETWORK

J. Horgan: I rise today to highlight the work being done by an important group of health practitioners in the Sooke region. The Sooke Integrated Health Network supports and improves the health and quality of life for anyone 19 years of age or over living in the Sooke region who is managing a chronic disease.

The network is a partnership between a patient, their family physician and other health care providers, which may include nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, specialist physicians and other community agencies. This team works together to support the health and chronic disease management of the patient.

A top priority for the Sooke Integrated Health Network is to make their work as community-focused as possible, partnering with six groups to provide services to IHN clients. The local Canadian Diabetes Association provides cooking sessions. The T'sou-ke Nation offers culturally appropriate healthy-living and -eating activities. The SEAPARC leisure complex provides passes for recreational activities. The Edward Milne Community School is the location for a weight-loss program, and the Sooke Family Resource Centre provides workshops and other assistance.

These groups provide supportive, community-based services. I want to congratulate the Sooke Integrated Health Network on having the highest utilization rate of the community support services out of the seven IHNs on Vancouver Island.

We all work better when we're working with other people — with our family members, with our colleagues — to provide positive outcomes in our community. The integrated health network is a positive achievement on Vancouver Island.

[1355]

I encourage all members of the House to support primary care facilities of primary care activities like the integrated health network.

Ridge Meadows Seniors Society

M. Dalton: There's a great seniors organization that I would like to recognize this afternoon before the Legislature — namely, the Ridge Meadows Seniors Society. On October 23 the seniors society celebrated their tenth anniversary of being located in the Ridge Meadows Seniors Centre, which is owned by the city.

The society has 1,700 members and offers a vast array of programs and activities for senior citizens. About 200 volunteers make the society what it is — a centre where our elderly citizens from all over Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows can come to learn, to have fun, to eat and to participate in physical activities.

There are all types of dance clubs here, including Hawaiian, tap, clogging and Spanish flamenco. There are also table tennis, cribbage, bridge, Scrabble and carpet-bowling clubs, and there's a crafts group. There's a singing group called the Silver Tones and an acting team called the Variety Plus, which has two shows a year with three presentations, all of which fill the 250-seat room.

The seniors society offers fitness programs called gentle joint and yoga and seniors tae kwon do. There's a snooker room, a hair salon and a large workshop.

A dozen retired nurses have clinics and take seniors' blood pressure and sugar levels and answer health questions. A volunteer optician and a pharmacist come by regularly. The restaurant serves a hundred meals a day and another 60 to 70 meals with Meals on Wheels.

This coming Sunday the society will be honouring its many volunteers. I want to publicly thank Betty Levens, the president, and every volunteer, who contribute so much to improving the lives of hundreds, even thousands, of senior citizens in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. They make our communities a much better place to live.

Prevention of
violence against women

K. Corrigan: It's been ten years since the United Nations General Assembly designated the 25th of November as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. In so doing, it recognized that the "human rights of women and of the girl child are an inalienable, integral and indivisible part of universal human rights and recognizing further the need to promote and protect all human rights of women and girls."
[ Page 2797 ]

The stated goal was clear: "An end to these inexcusable crimes — whether it is the use of rape as a weapon of war, domestic violence, sex trafficking, so-called honour crimes or female genital mutilation. We must address the roots of this violence by eradicating discrimination and changing the mindsets that perpetuate it."

These crimes continue around the world, but we have made some progress in Canada. According to a comprehensive StatsCan record from 2006, for example, we have a reduction of spousal assault. Some of the reasons for that include increased use of services by abused women and growth of provincial and territorial domestic violence legislation.

I applaud the government for restoring the cuts of $440,000 to transition houses, counselling services for women and children, and I hope that there will be a recognition of how critical these services are and funding these services are for their future as well.

I'd like to finish with a quote from Reimer.

"We have come a long way in the past decade in acknowledging the severity of different kinds of domestic violence and abuse, yet the problem stubbornly persists…The consequences — the hurt, anger, fear, violence, injuries and exhaustion — affect all of us over generations. We need to stand beside the strangers in our community — not only our family members, friends and neighbours — as they search for a peaceful way of life. Strangers need allies too."

Bison industry in B.C.

P. Pimm: I rise today to talk about the B.C. bison industry. The bison industry is alive and well in the province of British Columbia. The B.C. bison industry is relatively small but is home for approximately 12,000 bison, or about 6.5 percent of the total bison population of Canada.

There are approximately 200,000 bison on many farms across Canada, and this number is increasing annually. Most bison ranchers are concentrated in the western provinces.

[1400]

The bison population in B.C. is distributed as follows: 85 percent in the Peace River; 10 percent in the Cariboo; 3 percent in the Kootenay; and the remaining 2 percent split between the Okanagan, Lower Mainland and right here on Vancouver Island.

The B.C. Bison Association was formed by amalgamating the Peace and Interior bison associations, and they're also members of the Canadian association, which is a national organization that promotes and supports research, marketing, public awareness, food safety, quality programs and other initiatives.

I had an opportunity to attend the B.C. Bison Association's AGM recently, and it was refreshing to see such a diverse group of ranchers and to listen to the concerns they deal with on a daily basis. These ranchers have many of the same concerns that affect others in the agriculture industry, but they continue to keep their proud heads high when many would consider throwing in the towel.

The B.C. bison industry is unique in the fact that B.C. is the only province in Canada to consider bison as wildlife. As a result, all bison ranchers are required to obtain a game farm licence issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. Bison meat is extremely lean, and if you haven't tried bison, you really don't know what you've been missing.

I'd like to recommend to all of my colleagues to try the bison product, and I challenge them to help promote this great product throughout their ridings. Bison producers fall under many of the same regulatory regimes as the cattle industry, but they don't often receive the same benefits. I wish the best to the bison producers. Hopefully, together we can attain their future goals.

PROTECTION OF
FIRST NATIONS HERITAGE SITES

M. Karagianis: I rise today to talk about shared heritage and the exceptional work of first nations citizens in my community to preserve and protect sacred places that are under threat.

The middens, burial grounds and other traces of habitation that are being unearthed on our ocean shores and along creeks and rivers in British Columbia tell the story of occupation since before the pyramids. These places are our Stonehenge, our Machu Picchu — mysterious, sacred and irreplaceable. Yet they are under threat from development, from construction and even from the weather. Once they are gone, they will be gone forever.

There are Songhees First Nation leaders in my community, dedicated individuals like Cheryl Bryce and Ron Sam, who believe more must be done to protect and preserve this history. Three years ago, when ancient caves were found on Spaet Mountain, they fought to save them. But they were lost, and the caves were destroyed. Sadly, it is a story that is repeated over and over again across the province. Every time we lose a sacred site, we lose a part of ourselves.

By standing up for first nations heritage, Cheryl and Ron are standing up for all of those who have gone before and all of those who are yet to come.

As writer Stephen Hume put it so well in a recent article: "We are all citizens of B.C. together, first nations and settler society, fused by our braided history. When we permit the desecration of important first nations sites, it is our shared heritage that we abuse and our children's legacies that we steal."

I hope the House will join me in recognizing the efforts of leaders in the archaeological community and first nation leaders like Cheryl Bryce and Ron Sam. They speak to our conscience and remind us all of the urgency that we must do better before it is too late.
[ Page 2798 ]

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT HANDLING
OF SECURITY BREACH INVOLVING
PERSONAL INFORMATION

C. James: Mr. Speaker, troubling details have emerged about the theft of personal information of more than 1,400 income assistance recipients. We've learned that the RCMP uncovered these files in the home of a government employee in April. They handed them over to government in May.

The victims of this theft of personal information were not informed until last week that that had happened. For seven months the government knew about the security breach and did absolutely nothing about it. My question is to the Minister of Citizens' Services. Why did his government wait seven months to tell the victims that their personal information had been compromised?

Hon. B. Stewart: I want to make it clear that the government takes privacy matters very seriously, and we're deeply concerned by the breach of privacy of these individuals.

I also want to tell you that when I first found out about this some few weeks ago, I immediately notified the chief information officer of the government as well as the Privacy Commissioner and called in the head of the PSA to basically implement an investigation into why, as government, we weren't notified earlier. As such, we're doing a full review of that at the present time.

[1405]

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: This is a very serious matter. These files were found in the home of an employee under investigation by the RCMP, with the help of ICBC's special investigative unit, which deals with fake drivers' licences and identity cards. These were birthdates, social insurance numbers, personal health numbers — all prime information for identity theft.

Again, my question is to the minister. I appreciate that he says he's now looking into the issue, but letters went out from his ministry to inform people. The letters went out seven months after this occurred. Again, to the minister: has he looked into why those letters came seven months later?

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, I want to empathize with all of the people that have had their privacy compromised in this particular case. But the reality is that due to the fact that I wasn't notified until just some few weeks ago, it was very difficult for me to act on what I didn't necessarily know about.

That's what the investigation is all about. We're launching an investigation internally to find out exactly whether the procedures that the government has about privacy protection of individuals in government has been protected. That's what we're proposing to do.

I'll commit to you today the fact that as soon as we have that information and investigation complete, we'll release that information to make certain we're clear on this and exactly what happened during that time and what should have happened.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: I certainly think that British Columbians who apply for income assistance, who are required to give sensitive information, would expect that the minister would be a little more on top of this file.

They trusted the government to protect their information. After seven months the victims get a letter from government that says: "Oh sorry. You might actually want to check your credit records." The letter didn't even tell the individuals that a breach has occurred.

Again, while I appreciate the minister is doing an investigation on what happened, I think it's important that the minister explain to these victims why the letter came out and didn't inform them that a breach had occurred when the minister says he knew.

Hon. B. Stewart: I want to make it clear that, first of all, I personally was very concerned by this matter when I first learned about it. But the reality is the first thing that we had to do was find out exactly what had taken place. One of the first things that I was informed of is that during the RCMP investigation, they assured government that the reality is that this information, they believe, has not been compromised.

We've sent the letter to the 1,400 individuals to ensure that they're aware of the fact that their privacy may have been breached. We've detailed in that letter exactly what information may have been breached. We flagged their Medical Services Plan. The reality is that we're taking every precaution to make certain their privacy is protected.

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, 1,400 individuals compromised by government ineptness — 1,400 British Columbians potentially put at risk because of a lack of due diligence by the B.C. Liberals. And if that isn't bad enough, we now learn that the government sat on this information for seven months without informing these people that their identities may have been put at risk.

This minister has been on the job for over five months. How are we supposed to believe he only learned about this a couple of weeks ago, and if he only learned a couple of weeks ago, who else over there knew seven months ago?
[ Page 2799 ]

Hon. B. Stewart: Well, first of all, I can tell you that I only learned of this matter a few weeks ago. The reality is that I took the steps that I think were necessary in terms of asking staff as to what the government's privacy policy was in terms of a breach.

We do take this matter seriously — 1,400 people. We certainly believe that our job is to make certain that we do take that protection.

[1410]

As I stated earlier, I was informed that the RCMP believe that no information was compromised. As such, there's an ongoing, unrelated investigation by the RCMP that led to this discovery. The fact is that it's my ministry's objective in the investigation to make certain we find out how the time elapsed from the time that the government first learned of this incident until the time that I was notified — as to why that lapse occurred. We'll let you know.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, we can be assured that the RCMP didn't just come and drop the files at the front door of the Legislature. They returned those files to the government, and I'm sure they did it in a formal way. If this minister is telling us that he didn't know about this until three weeks ago, maybe the files were returned to the Minister of Housing and Social Development.

Has the Minister of Citizens' Services taken the time to ask his colleague when he got the files and why he never told this minister that this compromise had happened?

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, as I said, we're deeply concerned by this, and we take this matter very seriously. The reality is that the individual that was involved in this…. We took steps immediately to suspend, investigate to make certain that we had the facts right and terminate this particular employee — the employee that is involved.

I mean, we're basically looking at the information. Anybody that is involved in this will be held accountable to make certain that…. Basically, if there's any wrongdoing, they'll be held accountable for it.

D. Routley: This government proves yet again one of two things: its absolute untrustworthiness or its absolute incompetence. Take your pick.

It took seven months for this government to get its act together. These are the personal files of British Columbians. This is an important matter. How could any British Columbian believe that the government would find out and only seven months later the minister responsible would find out? It's incomprehensible.

Which is it, Mr. Minister? Is it incompetence in this government, or is it a lack of trustworthiness? Can British Columbians trust their government with their information?

Hon. B. Stewart: I just want to say that we have great confidence in the men and women that work in the public service of this government.

I want to assure the members opposite that once we have the facts, we will make certain…. Basically, we'll make people accountable for whatever wrongdoing has been done, and we'll release the information to the opposition in this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: Well, the minister talks about the members of the public service. I don't think any of our questions have been directed at the members of the public service. Clearly, they did their job. What we are directing our questions toward is a government that has failed to manage the information, personal information, of British Columbians.

The next question of every British Columbian would be: what is the minister doing about it? What is he doing to make accountable those people who have caused this breach of personal information in British Columbia?

Hon. B. Stewart: I said that we had great confidence in the men and women who are charged with the responsibility of making certain that they do the job for government, making certain that they ensure some of the strictest privacy laws in the country.

[1415]

The reality is that each one of them signs an oath of confidentiality, and we expect that the employees will adhere to that. As such, I said that we don't have all the facts. The reality is that when we have the facts, we will make certain….

A. Dix: I know that the minister's first set of questions were explaining why the Premier and the government covered up information about income assistance during the election campaign. Now he is having to explain away the incompetence of the Minister of Housing.

This happened seven months ago. People have been kept in the dark for seven months. He said he learned about it two or three weeks ago. During that two or three weeks….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: Can the minister explain when or if he has talked to his colleague the Minister of Housing? When did the Minister of Housing learn about this breach?

Hon. B. Stewart: You know, I empathize with all of the individuals whose privacy has been compromised
[ Page 2800 ]
in this situation, and we as government are deeply concerned. But the reality is that we don't have all the facts. I was notified, as I told you, a few weeks ago. At that time I believe that we took the right steps as a government that protects privacy and individuals, as we should, to find out exactly where the failure occurred. The fact is that the investigation is ongoing. As soon as that has been delivered, we're prepared to share that information with the opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Can the minister explain…? It's a very simple question. In the three weeks that he has known about this, in the three weeks since the public affairs bureau deigned to inform him about it — according to his own comments…. Has he in those three weeks, if he is so interested, walked across the House and asked the Minister of Housing and Social Development what happened and when he knew about this breach of personal information?

Hon. B. Stewart: You know, I can assure the member opposite that the reality is that all of the members on this side of the House take this matter….

Interjection.

Hon. B. Stewart: The reality is that all of the members on this side of the House take privacy seriously.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Stewart: The reality is that one of the things we're trying to do is basically find out the facts. The Minister of Housing and Social Development and the Minister of Children and Families are very concerned as well, and they want the facts. But the investigation is ongoing. Once we have that information, we're quite happy to share it — as well as the RCMP investigation that's unrelated — when it's concluded.

J. Kwan: My question to the minister is this. Did he talk to his colleague the Minister of Housing when he found out there was such a breach?

Hon. B. Stewart: You know, of course, originally when this first came out, my priority was the concern for the privacy of the individuals that had their privacy compromised.

As I have explained before, the fact is that the chief information officer, myself and the head of the Public Service Agency sat down, met and reviewed as to how we were going to proceed.

Obviously, one of the first things that we wanted to do was find out some of the facts that we'd only just recently been told about. The reality is that we launched an investigation, notified the Privacy Commissioner's office and took steps to make certain that the other ministries were informed of the privacy breach.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a supplemental?

J. Kwan: Seven months ago people's private information was breached. The public affairs bureau told the minister. The minister found out.

[1420]

Did the minister in that period take the time to talk to his colleague, the lead minister, whose clients' information had been breached and financial security may well be in jeopardy because of this breach?

Can the minister just get up and answer this question clearly. Did he take the time to talk to his colleague, the Minister of Housing, about this breach and to see what action he is taking to ensure that his clients' privacy information is protected?

Hon. B. Stewart: I can tell the member opposite that we are very proud of the fact that we have some of the strongest privacy laws in the country.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Stewart: I just want to reiterate the fact that we take the matter of privacy very seriously, and the men and women of the Public Service Agency are deeply committed to making certain that they administer it.

It's our intention to make certain that we fully investigate this matter and find out exactly where these issues have gone wrong, and we're prepared to act on whatever is necessary to make certain…. The fact is, that if there was any violation of the law, they will be held fully accountable.

IMPACT OF OLYMPIC SECURITY
ON AIRPORTS AND BUSINESSES

H. Bains: In the spring we heard from rural British Columbians about the impact of Olympic security on rural airports. Now we find out that at Boundary Bay Airport, the air traffic restrictions have been increased from two to eight weeks. This will have a profound impact on the businesses that operate out of Boundary Bay.

Can the minister responsible for the Olympics tell us today in this House what is being done to ensure that those businesses aren't being hurt by Olympic security measures?
[ Page 2801 ]

Hon. K. Heed: The Integrated Security Unit and the RCMP are working in conjunction with several agencies across British Columbia to ensure that we have safe games. Part of that is to review the aviation we have around the games during games time, before and after the games time.

The integrated security services unit is working with the people that are going to be affected, the areas in British Columbia that are going to be affected, number one, because of the security rules. We want to ensure that we do whatever we can to have the safest games here in British Columbia, and we are working with communities, we are working with groups to ensure that that takes place.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: The Professional Flight Centre at Boundary Bay will lose 75 percent of its revenue because of these measures. They will lose students. Many of them are from outside of Canada, and once they leave them, they will never get them again.

In a letter, the centre's president, John Montgomery, says this: "The truth of the matter is that once this two-month shutdown period is over, it's going to take a long time to build up a student clientele again."

My question, again, is to the minister responsible for the Olympics: will the minister commit today to work with these small businesses to offset the impacts that these security changes will have?

Hon. K. Heed: The 2010 Integrated Security Unit is working with all stakeholders to minimize inconvenience and to work out solutions for these communities so that we can not have disruptions and that we can carry on with business. But at the same time, we want to ensure that we have safe games for the visitors to British Columbia, the spectators, the athletes and all those around British Columbia that want to see the games and celebrate with us as we move forward on these great Olympic Games.

[1425]

K. Corrigan: Well, apparently, now we have four Olympic ministers, and absolutely none of them are accountable.

The Olympic spirit shouldn't mean that businesses have to shut down. Business owners are lying awake worrying about their very long-term viability. John Montgomery says: "We are effectively paying a huge personal price for the Olympic Games coming to Vancouver and, in fact, may not survive it."

Will the Minister of State for the Olympics commit today to taking some real steps to ensure these businesses are not paying the price for your government's poor planning?

Hon. K. Heed: This is the largest security event in Canada's history. We have more coordination of resources involved in ensuring this remains a safe and secure games for all to enjoy. We are working with communities. We are working with stakeholders that will be affected by this. We want to make sure that at the end of the day, we have solutions that work for them but solutions to ensure that we have a safe and secure games here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: It's the height of hypocrisy. Everyone is supposed to be benefiting from these games, but this government's actions are killing businesses. The Professional Flight Centre is expecting to lay off staff, and they are genuinely worried that some of those staff will leave and not come back.

In his letter, Mr. Montgomery says: "It is not a lot of fun walking around my house at 3 a.m. worrying about this. In short…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Corrigan: …we're going to be drastically affected. There's no other way to say it."

Businesses like this are worried about their very survival. When will the minister do what's right and ensure that businesses like the Professional Flight Centre aren't severely harmed by changes to Olympic security measures?

Hon. K. Heed: In 79 days the world will see all that B.C. has to offer. We want the world to come to British Columbia and to be safe and secure.

The Vancouver 2010 Integrated Security Unit is working in coordination with several of the other agencies out there. They've formed steering committees not only within local governments and within our government but with the federal government to ensure that, at the end of the day, we deliver the best games possible for all of the world to celebrate.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Port Coquitlam.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Depending on the answer we get, there may be time for an awful lot more questions.

Now, the Solicitor General has just stood up in this House and said that this is one of the largest security efforts in Canadian history. Well, one would assume, then, that he's learned from other major security efforts in our nation, such as the G8 in Kananaskis and the G8 that was held in Quebec City.
[ Page 2802 ]

In both those jurisdictions, when those major international security events took place, airspace was restricted and the businesses operating in those airspaces were compensated and made whole and did not suffer a loss as a result of the security exercise.

Given that you're supposed to have learned from those events, will you commit today in this House that those businesses that are being shut down and inconvenienced because of the security around the airspace will be kept whole, as they were in Kananaskis and as they were in Quebec City?

Hon. K. Heed: I was on the ground at Kananaskis. I saw the great security that was in place to ensure the security of the world leaders.

[1430]

There will be an Olympic control area around the Vancouver games. As with any major international event, such as what took place in Kananaskis, there will be aircraft that will be prohibited from entering and leaving the particular areas. There are security planners that are in place dealing with this right now. We recognize that this will have an impact on the aviation industry and communities. That's why we are working with them for solutions — so we can move forward.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The solution was clear in Kananaskis. They kept those businesses whole. The solution was clear in Quebec City. They kept those businesses whole.

The solution is staring the minister in the face. Make sure those businesses that are impacted by the closure of the airspace are not financially impacted. Give them the same solution that was done in other international conferences, and make them whole. Will the minister commit to doing that?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Heed: We are working with the stakeholders that are affected. We are working with them. We have committees in place to talk about solutions together, not to reach ends right now. We want to work with them to make sure….

Number one, our priority is to make sure we have the safest and most secure games. When you have such a large event anywhere, there are going to be security precautions that it's incumbent upon us to make sure take place. The Integrated Security Unit is doing their due diligence to make sure it takes place, but on the other end, they're working with the communities. They're working with the stakeholders that will be affected to ensure, at the end of the day, that we have a lot to be proud of, that we delivered the best and most secure and safe games for everyone to enjoy.

K. Conroy: Mr. Speaker, that's just not true, because they are not working with the smaller airlines in rural B.C.

It's not just the flight schools that are suffering; it is those smaller airlines like Pacific Coastal. They are seeing significant challenges in rural B.C. They're committed to the communities they serve. They want to keep providing the services, and they are not finding those solutions. There are no solutions coming from this government, so what is the minister talking about?

Perhaps the Minister of State for the Olympics might know the solutions. Maybe she can let us know: what are they doing to help the organizations like Pacific Coastal deal with these solutions and make sure that rural B.C. is getting the service it needs?

Hon. K. Heed: Aviation security, security planners, stakeholders such as the airlines that operate in these communities have been consulted for over two years. We are working with them. We will continue to work with them, because in 79 days we are going to celebrate here in British Columbia with the best Olympic Games ever.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

J. Les: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the first session of the 39th parliament, representing the 2010 budget consultation process.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

[1435]

Motion approved.

Petitions

N. Macdonald: I stand to present a petition from Columbia River–Revelstoke, almost 600 names signed on a petition to stop the HST.

M. Karagianis: I have a petition to present.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

M. Karagianis: I have a petition with 2,218 names on it asking the government to maintain the EIBI program, early intensive behavioural intervention, for autistic children.
[ Page 2803 ]

H. Bains: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

H. Bains: I have over 700 signatures on a petition from Surrey asking this government to scrap their plans to implement the HST.

B. Routley: I have a petition from constituents in the Cowichan Valley, 569 signatures in opposition to the HST.

M. Sather: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

M. Sather: I have signatures of 1,070 petitioners in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows calling on the government to scrap the HST.

Tabling Documents

Hon. B. Stewart: I think in the most natural and fitting of ways, the Queen's Printer published the book on the 150-year history of the Queen's Printer for British Columbia, and I'd like to present a copy to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Abbott: In Committee A, I call….

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, thank you very much. All that heckling is paying off, clearly, with the opposition.

In Committee A, Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: In Committee A, the estimates of the Ministry of Education. In this chamber, the continuing estimates of the Office of the Premier.

[1440-1445]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $11,535,000 (continued).

The Chair: I would take this opportunity, hon. Members, to caution against the repetitive nature of debate.

C. James: I want to start off this afternoon to take a look at the Premier's service plan and some of the particular areas in the Premier's service plan. I'd just like to read from that plan a couple of key points. This comes from the Premier's update '09-10 and '11-12.

It says that the Office of the Premier "articulates government's goals, commitments and priorities and works with ministries and Crown agencies to ensure communication of these goals, commitments and priorities and to track and monitor implementation of them."

We know that one of the government's goals and priorities, as outlined, is the HST. So I'd like to start this section by talking about the HST — to go through with the Premier the information around the HST and to again come back to the Premier's service plan, where he talks about his responsibility in articulating government's goals, commitments and priorities, and talk about how that relates to the HST.

I want to just start off by reminding the Premier what he and his party chose to make their public position on the HST during the election. I'll just read it out. Here's what the B.C. Liberal Party presented as its position in answer to a specific question that came from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association.

"While some British Columbians have suggested that a harmonized PST and GST might be beneficial, others have pointed out that it would extend the PST tax base to a broader range of goods and services that are presently exempt from the provincial sales tax….

"The B.C. Liberals are also mindful that a harmonized GST would reduce the provincial government's ability to unilaterally adjust sales tax rates. The harmonized GST would make it harder for future provincial governments to lower or raise sales taxes, which in fact reduces flexibility.

"In short, a harmonized GST is not something we are contemplating in the B.C. Liberal platform, but we are committed to improving the tax system."

Just to remind the Premier, that was the B.C. Liberal response to the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association.

My question is to the Premier. Would the Premier agree that this election pledge in fact gave the restaurant industry and other British Columbians comfort that his government would not introduce the HST?

The Chair: If I might, hon. Member. This does not have a bearing on the administration of the Office of the Premier.

C. James: Related specifically to the Premier's accountability statement, the Premier's office "articulates government's goals, commitments and priorities and
[ Page 2804 ]
works…to ensure communication of these goals." That is the responsibility from the Premier's office.

[1450]

Communication of the HST is one of the critical goals of government. So my question again is to the Premier. Would the Premier agree that the election pledge, given during the election campaign, gave assurances to the public and to the restaurant association that the government would not be implementing the HST — and therefore impacted his government's ability, according to his service plan, to be able to communicate the goal around the HST?

The Chair: Again, to the Leader of the Opposition: questions pertaining directly to the HST would have been more properly put to the Ministry of Finance during the Finance estimates.

Hon. G. Campbell: To try and clarify this matter, this was an answer that was provided by our party during the election. It did reflect the position of the government at the time. It also, I think, highlights a number of areas we were concerned about that we felt had been mitigated.

In fact, it's going to be a future tax policy. It's something that I would suggest will be appropriate to discuss in next year's activities with regard to what we're trying to do.

There's no question that the HST is going to strengthen our economy. One of the things we were clear about during the campaign is that we had every intention to strengthen our economy as it came out of this economic downturn.

The service plan, I think, speaks for itself. We have to ensure that we are delivering on the commitments that British Columbians expect, that the public service is doing its job, and I think it has been doing its job.

C. James: Will the Premier agree that the HST is one of his government's goals?

[1455]

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it is clear that creating a strong economy for British Columbians that creates jobs is a critical goal for our government. It was itemized in the five great goals. It's something that we have pursued over the last number of years while we've been in government.

It is important to note that there are a number of tax policies that help us do this. We believe the HST is one of those. It will strengthen our economy with the renewed flexibility that we have. It's obviously going to strengthen our economy. As many people are aware, it is the single most important thing we have been informed by leading economists across the country that we can do to strengthen the economy, to strengthen investment, to encourage job creation, to make us more productive and more competitive.

Making sure that we have a stronger economy as we come out of this economic downturn is clearly one of the government's goals. There are a whole range of activities that take place around that goal and that endeavour. Clearly, a competitive tax regime that encourages investment and encourages job creation is an important part of that.

C. James: Using the Premier's description of the HST as the single most important thing that this government could do for the economy, wouldn't the Premier agree that if this was the single most important thing that could be done, perhaps he should have given an opportunity to the public to be able to make a decision, knowing the government was going ahead with the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think the Minister of Finance has reviewed in some detail the steps that were taken with regard to the HST. All of those steps were after the election. I do think it's important to note that in this particular budget that we're discussing today…. We have identified in our strategic plan that we have an agreement with the federal government, which allows us to have the flexibility that we were concerned about.

It actually also provides for additional resources to try and support health and education as we go through this period of time. I think it is important to note that in protecting the health and education funding and actually being able to use those bridge dollars…. Those are important, but it's also important to note that we said throughout the campaign that we wanted to make sure our economy was stronger when we came out of this downturn as opposed to being static.

[1500]

As we looked at building that strength, and when we discovered what was taking place with regard to added flexibility, additional resources for transition funds that would come from the federal government, plus the fact that Ontario was going to move to adopt the HST, frankly, I think most of us in government felt we would be at an economic disadvantage were we not to act, and act immediately. We've stated that time and time again.

We would have been at a competitive disadvantage with Ontario for any major investment decisions that were being made. We did not want to put British Columbians at a competitive disadvantage, particularly when we had run in a campaign saying that we expected our economy to come out of this even stronger.

We wanted to be more competitive, and I think it's clear that the HST initiative will make our industries more competitive. It will create one of the best investment climates in this country, certainly, with what we currently have — a better investment climate than either
[ Page 2805 ]
Ontario, in terms of marginal tax dollars or marginal tax costs, or Alberta. Those are two major competitors that we have in Canada.

I think it's really important to note that there are thousands and thousands — in fact, over a million — of British Columbians that depend on competitive resource industries like forestry, like mining, like energy, like the many businesses that are represented by the chamber of commerce, all of whom in the past had said that they felt that they wanted the government to adopt an HST.

We were not ready to consider that. In fact, we did not consider that in our budget process in spite of the fact that year in and year out during budget consultations, it had been advocated by many of those same groups. It was clear, I think, that we did not feel there was the kind of flexibility necessary to have a made-in-B.C. tax regime.

With the agreement that we have reached with the federal government, it is possible to have a made-in-British-Columbia tax regime. It is possible to have the lowest HST in the country. It is possible to either raise that HST or lower that HST after two years. The decision-making is in the hands of the provincial government.

It was possible for us to look at how we would tailor the 5 percent of the HST universe that we would make sure was not going to be included in HST. All of those gave us the level of flexibility that we felt we could move forward with, in view of the fact that we were going to encourage investment, job creation, competitiveness and productivity in the province.

Again, when the forest industry comes and says, "This is the most important single step you could take for our industry"; when you hear the mining industry say, "It's the most important step you could take for our industry"; and when you hear the same thing from the energy industry, from transportation, from construction — almost $2 billion of economic benefits across the province — I think it was incumbent upon us to act in the best interests of British Columbians in the long term. That's what the government has done.

C. James: I would have also thought that the Premier would have presumed that being open and transparent was also important and that the millions of people in British Columbia actually had the right to be able to have full information about the government moving on what the Premier himself says is one of the most important measures that can be taken. Yet that didn't happen, as we know.

I just want to ask the Premier to come back to the comments that were made by his party during the election. I just want to come back again to ask the Premier whether he still agrees with the party's position that they put out during the election — that the HST adds a tax to a broader range of goods and services that are presently exempt from a provincial sales tax.

The Chair: I would ask the member to bring her questions in line with consideration of defraying the expenses for the Office of the Premier.

Hon. G. Campbell: The short answer is: yes, it does.

C. James: The Premier says he agrees with that election position, which was that a broader range of goods and services that are presently exempt from the provincial sales tax…. If that's so, if the Premier agrees with that statement and continues to agree with that statement, then I would ask the Premier why he's moving forward with the HST.

[1505]

Hon. G. Campbell: I will go back and review some of the things that we believe are important. First of all, this move will reduce British Columbia's marginal effective tax rate by 40 percent, below Ontario and below Alberta. The overall tax burden on British Columbia investments will be the second lowest in Canada.

By reducing input costs and actually having a transparent tax regime, we believe that consumers will save money over time. More importantly, we believe that our economy will be strengthened, throughout the economy. The entire economy benefits from investment, from economic growth and from people having jobs.

So when you see that there are substantial economic benefits, considering about $1.9 billion of benefits to the economy — $880 million in the construction industry, one of our primary industries in this province that drives economic growth; $140 million from manufacturing; $210 million in the transportation industry; $140 million in the forest industry; $80 million in mining and oil and gas industry….

When you know that there is approximately $150 million of compliance costs that will be removed and when you see that on top of that, British Columbia has the ability to set our HST at the lowest level in Canada, when you have the flexibility to adjust that HST over time…. It will be set at 12 percent for two years, but following that, it can be increased by whatever percent or reduced by whatever percentage.

We believe this is a decision that will strengthen our economy, as we said we would do; that will make us more competitive, as we've always strived to be; and that will provide for increases in productivity, reduction in greenhouse gases. There are a number of direct benefits that will result from the fact that we are adopting the HST. We will continue to pursue those benefits and continue to inform the public with regard to those.

I think it's a critically important step to take in view of the flexibility that we were able to obtain from the federal government in moving ahead with the harmonized sales tax.
[ Page 2806 ]

C. James: Given the description that the Premier gave — that he believes this tax will do so many things in British Columbia…. I do note that the Premier left out all the impacts of the HST, but I'll get to those as we're going along. He described it as the single most important thing that could be done.

Doesn't the Premier believe that he should have given the public a choice about the HST — told the public during the election campaign that the HST was going to be introduced and given the public an informed choice?

[1510]

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me reiterate that during the election campaign, we had no intention of dealing with the HST. In fact, it was not on our menu of actions that we would be taking because, as I've mentioned, there was not the flexibility. At least, we were not aware of the flexibility that later came, that we later learned about. So it was not there — right?

What we did say in the campaign, though, quite clearly, was that we intended to work to make sure that we would rebuild our economy, that we would be sure we kept British Columbia's economy going strong and that we would be competitive and productive.

Following the election, the Minister of Finance did meet with federal officials. There was a huge amount of flexibility that was built in that allowed us to do a number of things, which would have been critical to us at any rate. I think flexibility is critical.

We can set our own HST rate. That's why we actually have the lowest HST rate in Canada. Within the agreement that we have, we can exempt up to 5 percent of the HST product base. That included things like motor fuels, where this government decided that we were going to have a carbon tax that we were going to put in place, to put an actual price on carbon emissions. We decided on that.

Clearly, with HST, if we didn't have that level of flexibility, we would not have gone forward with that. So when the Minister of Finance discovered the flexibility that was built in, the long-term flexibility that was included, and when he considered the literally thousands of jobs that potentially could be created by a more competitive tax regime, we felt that was an important initiative for us to undertake.

In fact, as I've said, British Columbians…. Or at least, in terms of the Finance Committee of the Legislature, over a number of years people had advocated the adoption of an HST. Why did they advocate it? Because they saw, number one, that there were significant compliance costs that they were faced with every year. Small businesses, the chamber of commerce, the agriculture industry in B.C. and the forest industry — all of them representing literally hundreds of thousands of workers — had said that it was an important initiative for us to undertake.

With the flexibility, with the agreement we were able to sign with the federal government, we felt we had a tailor-made, made-in-British-Columbia decision, that we actually could deliver on the commitments we had made to British Columbians that they would have a more competitive economy, a more productive economy and less impact on the environment. All of those things, including the thousands of jobs, are encouraged by the HST.

The Chair: Members, Standing Order 61 clearly provides that debate in Committee of Supply must be strictly relevant to the item or vote under consideration. The vote today under consideration is Vote 10, the expenses of the Office of the Premier. HST was canvassed extensively in the Ministry of Finance estimates.

C. James: Considering that the HST agreement…. The Premier himself has said that the HST agreement was signed with the federal government, was negotiated with the federal government.

The Premier has talked about the fact that the HST was announced this year. The Premier was part of that announcement, and I certainly feel, as he's continued on answering questions around the HST, that this is one of the government's — as is said in the Premier's office, of the Premier's statement — goals and objectives, the HST. Therefore, the Premier's office is directly involved in this announcement around the HST.

Therefore, I'd like to ask the Premier…. He mentioned that there is flexibility around the HST. Well, I think the Premier's definition of flexibility and mine and this side of the House's and the public's definition of flexibility might be very different. To me, 5 percent exemptions do not seem like flexibility around using the tax system. In fact, 5 percent exemptions take away the ability for the tax system to be used for the purpose of British Columbia.

I think it's interesting. The Premier mentioned that there were a number of people who spoke in favour of the HST, but even the Finance Committee in 2008, in their report to the government, said that the government should review the HST with a specific caveat to do so with a view to ensure that there will be no negative impact on consumers nor on government's capacity to use the sales tax for public policy purposes.

I'd like to ask the Premier why he didn't listen to the advice of the Finance Committee in their 2008 report, because it's very clear that 5 percent exemptions do not give the flexibility for government to be able to use the sales tax as a public policy tool.

[1515]

Hon. G. Campbell: I will be guided by the Chair, but let me just respond quickly with regard to the government's strategy with regard to this, with the issue of how we build a strong economy.
[ Page 2807 ]

Yes, we have reached an agreement with the government of Canada, and we intend to pursue that because, as I've mentioned, it creates enormous opportunities for job creation in the fundamental industries of our province. It had been advocated for a number of years to the parliamentary Finance Committee.

I think it's also important to note, though, that even in the budget we have passed that was, I'm sure, canvassed with the Minister of Finance during the Finance Ministry's estimates, there are a number of steps we have taken to try and reflect the spirit of the recommendations that have come through from the legislative Finance Committee that she refers to.

For example, the province is going to provide a rebate for residential energy — oil, electricity, natural gas or propane used to heat or power a home. That's a provincial tax strategy. It had nothing to do with whether we were allowed to do it. We could make that decision as a provincial government. That's how we're going to do it.

We also provided for a significant $230-a-year credit for low-income individuals which will benefit over one million people in the province. We also decided that we were going to raise the personal tax exemptions that people had. All of those are ways that you can actually provide for a long-term, stronger economy.

Just in closing with regard to my comments with regard to this, when you think about the organizations that have said that this is a critically important thing….

B.C. Chamber of Commerce: "This measure saves business money…reduces government expenditures while providing protection for those on low income. In addition to these savings, the consumer will also be a winner, as business will pass the savings on they make, such as $150 million annually in compliance costs alone, onto consumers in the form of lower prices."

The Coast Forest Products Association: "Those regions that have introduced a value-added tax like the HST see increases in productivity and investment…for our industry, that means levelling the playing field with our competitors and providing us with an opportunity to invest in and maintain wealth-creating, high-paying jobs."

The Retail Council of Canada: "Harmonization will result in a simpler, more efficient tax system for B.C. businesses. This will help smaller retailers in particular, who find administering two separate tax systems difficult and costly."

There are a number of them. As we move to make the decision with regard to the HST, we continue to encourage input from the public on how we can mitigate any challenges they face.

[1520]

There is no question that we have given up some flexibility. The world is not exactly as it was before. In British Columbia it will be more competitive; it will encourage more investment; it will create more jobs; it will encourage the forest industry; it will encourage the mining industry; it will help small business.

All of those things are changing as a result of that. All of those things, I suggest, will allow our economy to come out of this downturn even stronger, which was one of the fundamental commitments we made as a government in the election.

C. James: We know that the Premier, as Premier, is directly involved in decisions made by government and certainly in decisions such as this, which the Premier calls the single most important thing that could be done. So could the Premier tell me when he approved the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: Obviously, not just the Premier but cabinet was informed about the discussions and the negotiations that had taken place between the Minister of Finance in British Columbia and the Ministry of Finance at the federal level. It was a cabinet decision that was made in the middle of July of 2009.

C. James: Just continuing on, then. The Premier says that the cabinet decision was made in July. The Finance Minister has said that he knew about the HST by the end of May. Could the Premier tell me what conversations he had with the Finance Minister at the end of May about the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: I had a number of discussions with the Minister of Finance once he commenced having discussions with federal officials around the end of May. Those were ongoing discussions right up through to the cabinet's decision. It might have been, you know…. I don't know the number. I had a number of discussions with them, I'm sure.

C. James: I think these are very important questions, and I recognize that the Premier says he doesn't remember. But I think this is very important for the public, because the public was told during the election campaign that there was no HST. After the campaign, until the middle of summer, there was absolutely no word about the HST.

So I think that, for very good reason, the public is questioning where the information came from, what discussions had occurred previously, and why they weren't told about this major regressive tax shift that was going to occur in British Columbia.

[1525]

Just to ask a few more specifics, then, of the Premier. As has been said, the Finance Minister said that by the end of May he knew that the HST was on the table. He started having discussions. The Premier said that he had a conversation with the Finance Minister. Could he tell me, the timeline between May and mid-July of
[ Page 2808 ]
the cabinet meeting, what kind of discussions were going on?

The Chair: Again, I will remind the members that Standing Order 61 clearly provides that debate in Committee of Supply must be strictly relevant to the item or vote under consideration, and debate will not be allowed to canvass details associated with other ministries.

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned, there were a number of discussions. The Minister of Finance had his initial discussions at the end of May. He reported back on some of his progress to me as we went through that. The decision was made by the cabinet, and very quickly after the cabinet made that decision, it was made known to the public.

I think what's really important is that the public does know, and we identified at the time, that we felt that we were acting to keep the economy strong, to actually make it stronger as we went forward, to reduce our marginal effective tax rates in British Columbia.

That would encourage job creation so that we could come out of this economic downturn as a place where investment would be attracted, where jobs would be created and where we would generate the resources necessary to support our public services through what I think is unquestionably one of the most challenging economic times we've faced in the province in almost 30 years.

C. James: Madam Chair, thank you for your cautions. I appreciate them, and that's why I'm staying focused on the Premier and the Premier's office — which is part of these estimates — and what the Premier was involved in around the HST, what discussions were being had and what staff were involved in the HST, which is directly related to the Premier's office.

The Premier mentioned that he had discussions with the Minister of Finance at the end of May around the HST. Did the Premier ask the Finance Minister to talk to the federal government about the HST?

[1530]

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me read from the Ministry of Finance estimates that concluded a couple of days ago, hon. Chair. The opposition Finance critic asked the Finance Minister: "And the minister then initiated that discussion post-election — so beginning in this fiscal year in May, at the end of May 2009. Is that the minister's position?"

Minister of Finance: "The very first indication that anyone in the federal government would have had that British Columbia was reconsidering its previous position on HST was a comment I made to the federal Finance Minister during a break in the deliberations of the Finance ministers' meeting that was held in Meech Lake at the end of May. It was only subsequent to that that there were discussions that commenced at the officials level."

C. James: Just to come back to the Premier, I understand the conversations the Finance Minister has said that he's had with the federal government, and he mentioned the end of May date. But I just come back, again, to the Premier and the Premier's office and how they were involved in this decision to ask the Premier whether he asked his Finance Minister to have those discussions with the federal government.

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned during our discussions yesterday, I had asked our Minister of Finance to look at ways that we could meet our budget projections of a $495 million deficit. Our deputy ministers were examining all of the options that were available to them.

The Minister of Finance raised that issue with regard to the federal minister. As he was going to the federal ministry, he informed me that he thought that would be a responsible thing to do. I said: "Fine. You're going to the Finance Ministry. Find out what's taken place with regard to the negotiations between the federal government and Ontario."

C. James: I want to make sure that I have the Premier's dates and times accurate. So the Premier is saying that he did have a conversation with the Finance Minister before the end of May about the HST as one of the options to address the deficit issue.

Hon. G. Campbell: There were many, many options that were considered, but one of the things that the Finance Minister felt was important was that he could canvass the situation with regard to Ontario. He felt that in light of the situation we had, we were going to be at a significant competitive disadvantage with regard to Ontario as we came out of this economic downturn. I said: "Feel free to ask what's taken place with regard to that."

In no way was a decision made. In no way was there any kind of detailed discussion. The point was that yes, find out what they're reaching in terms of an agreement between the federal government and Ontario and see whether or not that would apply to British Columbia.

C. James: So the Premier is saying that the HST was on the table for discussion before the end of May. The Finance Minister went to Ottawa, had the discussion at Meech Lake, as he said, to have the discussion around the HST.

Could the Premier tell me when that discussion occurred between him and his Finance Minister before the meeting where the Finance Minister discussed this with the federal government?

[1535]
[ Page 2809 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, let me reiterate that. The Minister of Finance, as he mentioned during his estimates this week, informed the federal government, through the Minister of Finance, that British Columbia was reconsidering its previous opposition to the HST. It was a comment he made to the federal minister during a break. Only when that notification had been made were our officials in a position where they could even start to discuss it.

We were considering that among many, many other things. It was a reconsideration; it wasn't a decision. It wasn't: yes, we're going to do it. It was: what's the status in terms of the situation with Ontario, and how does that apply to the concerns that we've had with regard to flexibility, etc.? We couldn't even launch into that discussion, we didn't feel, at the officials level until we'd informed the federal Minister of Finance that that was taking place.

C. James: Again, just because the Premier has said that he had discussions before the Finance Minister went off to that meeting to discuss a range of options to deal with the $495 million deficit…. The Premier has stated that here. He said he discussed a range of options. He said he included the HST as part of that range of options. Could the Premier just clarify that with me? He's shaking his head, so I just want to make sure I've got that correct.

The Premier did say earlier that he had discussed a range of options. Was the HST part of the discussion of that range of options with the Finance Minister before he went off at the end of May, and what was the date that those discussions occurred with the Finance Minister?

The Chair: I would like to remind the member that much of this has been canvassed in debate yesterday and that the member is becoming repetitious in her argument and to bear this in mind when continuing the questioning.

Hon. G. Campbell: If I can clarify, if there was any confusion, I was referring back to yesterday. This was before I had even thought about the HST as being a potential solution. I said to our officials, when I had the report from our officials on May 14: "Look at how we can meet our financial objectives that we set in the February budget. Yes, this is challenging, but we want to try and meet our budget projections of a $495 million deficit." That was an important initiative.

At the end of May, prior to the Minister of Finance going to what was a scheduled Finance ministers' meeting, he said that he thought that we should be reconsidering our position with regard to HST. He mentioned that, as he said during his estimates, to the federal Minister of Finance during a break in the deliberations of the Finance ministers' meeting that was held at Meech Lake at the end of May.

[1540]

Only subsequent to that did we start to see what the federal arrangements were with the province of Ontario and how they might have direct impact on it. He did say to me, "I think that we should at least consider this," and I said: "Well, find out what's going on, and then we'll decide whether we're going to really consider it or not. But if we don't have the facts, we won't be able to consider it."

C. James: Just continuing on the HST as we did yesterday. We canvassed the budget. We canvassed the May 14 budget meeting. We're now specifically going into the HST — issues around the HST and the Premier's involvement and the Premier's office's involvement around the HST.

As the Premier has said, he had a discussion around options with the Finance Minister before the end of May. The announcement, as we know, around the HST did not come out until July 23. I would ask the Premier what kind of discussions were going on then, in those 53 days. And why did the Premier wait for those 53 days before we saw the announcement come out from the Premier around the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, in looking at how this took place, I think it was important for us to know what was being done between the federal government and Ontario. It was important for us to know what was possible. It was important for us to know what the framework was.

This was a very deliberative process. It took a significant amount of time. As I mentioned earlier, we made the cabinet decision in the middle of July. There's a whole range of issues that you have to consider as you do these sorts of things. The first thing is you have to find out whether or not the agreement between the federal government and Ontario was in any way applicable to British Columbia, what position that would put us in.

We had a number of decisions to make. These were cabinet decisions. They were led by the Minister of Finance. He reported to the cabinet, and the cabinet had many deliberations on it with regard to the pros and cons, the pluses and the minuses, of making a change of this nature.

[1545]

C. James: The Premier mentions the Ontario agreement. Just a reminder that the Ontario agreement was in place in March, and I would imagine that there would have been information from Finance officials.

But just to go back and take a look at the analysis, the Premier said there were a number of things that it was important to know as they came to the agreement. I do have to point out that I also believe it was important that the public had a right to know that this was a critical issue coming forward.
[ Page 2810 ]

It's very clear. In taking on a major tax change such as this, you would imagine that there would be extensive analysis done, extensive reviews done. The Premier certainly, who is known for getting involved in policy issues, would have looked at the pros and cons, would have looked at the studies and the analysis to back up the decision to take a look at imposing the HST on the province.

I'd like to ask the Premier what kind of analysis he used and was given to be able to come forward with the HST on July 23.

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me refer again to the estimates of Finance, the committee that concluded this week. The Finance critic for the opposition asked:

"Is the minister saying that from January, when Mr. McGuinty first publicly said that, until the end of May, after the election, he took no steps to begin to analyze or formulate a position on behalf of the British Columbia government?"

The Minister of Finance answers:

"Over the years that HST has been encouraged in Canada, the province of British Columbia — certainly in this government — has looked at it in advance of every budget. It's certainly one of the subjects that comes up, and the decision was made that we would not pursue the harmonized sales tax for a variety of reasons which we've discussed publicly.

"As I've mentioned to the member, I was not aware of the consultation process that the Ontario government had initiated. It's actually interesting. I've gone back and done a search of all of the B.C. news media outlets, and there's absolutely no reference in any British Columbia news media of that consultation process. Quite frankly, I'm not a regular reader of the Toronto Star, and I don't intend to become one."

That's a little harsh.

"In terms of the British Columbia media that I read on a regular basis and watch and listen to, there was absolutely no discussion of that consultation. As far as ministry officials were concerned, they knew the position we as a government had taken when we had previously been encouraged to look at the HST was that we were not going to go down that road. That was the policy decision that stood until such time as we reopened that consideration in the middle of May."

C. James: I'd just like to read goal No. 5 from the Office of the Premier, the Premier's service plan update. Goal No. 5 reads: "Cabinet and cabinet committees are able to make timely and well-informed decisions." The objective 5.1 says that cabinet and its committees are supported with timely and effective advice.

One of the strategies of the Premier in goal No. 5 is to support cabinet committees by ensuring they have "appropriate advice on key policy, program and legislative initiatives," including an ability to measure the success of these initiatives.

I'd like to ask the Premier what new analysis he or his office did to meet goal No. 5 as identified here in his service plan. What new analysis was done from the time period after the election until the Premier signed off at that cabinet meeting on the HST?

[1550]

Hon. G. Campbell: I think that actually in hearing the question, it's clear that analysis was done. It was done in the Ministry of Finance, and again, it was fully canvassed in the Finance estimates earlier this week.

There was also a timely decision made. As we said at the time, we had to make the decision rapidly, or we felt we were going to lose the window of opportunity. We would have been put at a competitive and economic disadvantage in British Columbia vis-à-vis Ontario, and we did not want to be put in a disadvantageous position.

We wanted to be put in a stronger economic position. We wanted to be put in a competitive position that would encourage investment and, through that investment encouragement, would encourage the creation of new jobs in the province.

C. James: Just to focus on the Premier and the Premier's office. Did the Premier direct the Finance Minister and the Finance Ministry to prepare information, as his goal No. 5 says in his service plan, and to direct information and analysis on the new information that would have come in to make the government change their mind on the HST?

Hon. G. Campbell: What I have been very clear about and what the government is very clear about is that we want our economy to be strengthened as we go through this time so that when we come out, we'll be a stronger economy as we go forward.

It is the Finance Ministry and the professionals in the Finance Ministry that carry out the analysis. I expect that to be done, and it doesn't require a direction. The direction is to come forward with initiatives, policies and tax regimes or tax programs that actually will allow us to have a stronger economy, will encourage investment and will encourage job creation.

Those are the kinds of directions you give to the minister. The minister then has an obligation and responsibility to look at the opportunities, look at the various options that they may have, analyze those, and come back and make recommendations to cabinet. Cabinet considers those recommendations and makes decisions.

[1555]

C. James: Maybe I need to get a bit more specific for the Premier. Again, related to his goal in his office, which is to ensure that there's timely information, to ensure that the committees have key policy program advice on directions that they're going forward, did the Premier instruct the Finance Minister or the Finance Ministry staff to do an analysis around the impact of the HST on, for example, the restaurant industry?

Hon. G. Campbell: If I can repeat myself, the Finance Minister and the Finance Ministry and the professionals in the Finance Ministry are required to provide full
[ Page 2811 ]
analysis. I am not about to discuss all of the analysis that was received by cabinet. I can tell you this was canvassed in the Finance Ministry's estimates. Again, I believe that we had timely advice, and we acted on that timely advice and analysis brought forward by the Finance Ministry as canvassed in the Finance Ministry's estimates.

C. James: So the Premier is saying that analysis was done on the impact of the HST on the restaurant industry?

Hon. G. Campbell: I do not intend to get into a discussion of the details of analysis that was provided to cabinet by Finance Ministry officials. I think that would be a breach of cabinet confidentiality.

C. James: Then in a general question to the Premier, did the Premier's office direct any analysis to be done on the impact of the HST on any of the industries in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Campbell: To repeat myself, the Finance Ministry and the Finance Minister responsible for carrying out that analysis…. That analysis of the impacts of these decisions on our broad economy was made, and the cabinet made a decision.

C. James: The Premier says analysis was done. The Premier will not tell us what analysis was done. The Premier won't say whether there was analysis done on the impact of the HST on particular industries or particular areas that will be negatively impacted.

My question to the Premier is: does he feel that the public has a right to see that analysis around one of the most regressive taxes that's going to be introduced in B.C.'s history?

[1600]

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, there is substantial information available to the public on the website. The Minister of Finance has asked for input from people about any mitigation measures that they feel should be undertaken.

Let me refer again to the Finance Ministry estimates of this week, where the minister pointed out that "I think this actually goes back to the start of our discussions two hours ago" and that according to most of the leading economists in Canada, this is "the single biggest thing that the province can do to stimulate the economy and create jobs in British Columbia" and that the more we can do to "stimulate the economy, create jobs, make sure people are working," it will provide more disposable income that people can use for "the occasional restaurant meal out."

It is important to note that the tax credit that has been announced will be in place with regard to the HST next July. In fact, the HST will be less regressive than the PST. The HST will be more transparent than the PST.

[1605]

The HST will provide for added benefits in businesses like construction, manufacturing, transportation, forestry. It provides for $150 million in savings for compliance costs. It provides an additional $30 million in administrative savings for government that can go back to other services.

There is a plethora of information that is available on the website that people can access. It would be a breach of cabinet confidentiality for me to suggest beyond what we've already put out, but I'm sure if the opposition believes that there's something that's been withheld, they can access it through freedom of information.

The Chair: I'd again like to remind the member, while the Chair gives considerable latitude, to keep the questions relevant to Vote 10, the Premier's estimates.

C. James: Hon. Chair, I appreciate the caution, and that's why I'm talking about the Premier's office, the Premier's staff and work done by the Premier related to one of his key goals, which is the issue of the HST.

What I heard from the Premier is that we can go to the website and find out information. But the Premier left out a big piece of information, which is: there was not specific analysis on the website about specific industries and the impact of the HST.

I would certainly imagine that any government that's taking on a major initiative like the HST — a major tax change in our province that has been acknowledged as a major tax change in our province — would do an analysis of the impact of that tax on individual areas: public service, consumers, individual industries.

The Premier has mentioned a list, and he went through a list of individual industries that he said had spoken out, and that's what the government based its information on. But I'd like to remind the Premier that there are a number of industries that he didn't mention that, in fact, have raised concerns. If the Premier would just take a moment, I'll just read a few of those.

Ian Tostenson, the president of the restaurant association, predicts the HST will cost the average consumer between a thousand and $1,800 a year and that the restaurant industry will lose $750 million in annual sales, or almost $50,000 for an average restaurant, because British Columbians will eat out less.

On October 20 the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia, or COTA, also expressed their concerns. They found that the implementation of the tax could cost the tourism industry up to 5,174 direct jobs and over 10,000 indirect jobs and may cause a drop of $545 million in visitors.

One area that COTA points out particularly hard hit is rural British Columbia and the whole area of the ski industry, which again, we know is going to have an impact.

Another area that the Premier didn't mention in his list is the whole issue of homebuying.
[ Page 2812 ]

I've mentioned a number of different industries and a number of different areas that will be impacted. So I'd just like to ask the Premier in a general sense, based on his goal, which is to make sure that cabinet has timely information: did the Premier, or did the Premier's staff in his office, put together any kind of analysis? Did he feel it was important to put together any kind of analysis on individual industries or areas in British Columbia that would be impacted by the HST?

[1610]

Hon. G. Campbell: Again to repeat myself, the analysis was carried out by Finance Ministry officials. That analysis is clear — that this has an enormous benefit on our overall economy. It is an analysis that is reiterated and endorsed by groups like the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, the Canada West Foundation, the B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association, the Retail Council of British Columbia, the mining council of British Columbia, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia.

A fulsome and complete analysis was done on the benefits for our economy. It is one part of our tax system in the province of British Columbia, which is one of the most competitive in the country. We were clear that we wanted to maintain that competitive edge. We do have the lowest personal income taxes in Canada. We have been able to eliminate taxes for 325,000 British Columbians, with the personal exemption.

Already we see the small business taxes by 2012 are going to be down to zero, which will be, obviously, the lowest in Canada. We're reducing our corporate tax rates by 39 percent by 2011.

I think that at the end of the day, one of the things that's important to note is that, actually, with the adoption of the HST, we will have a less regressive tax than the current provincial sales tax; we will have a more transparent tax than the current sales tax; we will have $150 million savings in terms of compliance costs to small businesses and businesses across the province; and we will have an environment that actually encourages investment, encourages job creation and will strengthen the overall economy.

Regardless of the sector of the economy that you're in, a strong economy helps all of the economy. That does not mean there are not changes that will have to take place, but I can tell you, hon. Chair, that I think it's clear. I think we've been very explicit with regard to that. The information is available.

I know that a number of times people decide that their analysis will include not looking at any of the embedded tax credits that they will get as a result of adapting the HST. There is ongoing work that's taking place with regard to this, to how we can mitigate any of those challenges. As we do that work, we will move towards the budget, the 2010-11 budget and the adoption of the HST, if this Legislature approves that change in time for July of 2010.

C. James: What I've heard from the Premier is that the analysis that he used and the analysis they used in the 53 days between the time of the HST being talked about and the HST being implemented are basically those people who agreed with the government's direction, the position they wanted to take. In fact, they aren't releasing any information around any analysis that was done on industries that may be negatively impacted or consumers that may be negatively impacted.

I'd just like to read a quote to the Premier from his own Progress Board. This is a progress board that the Premier appointed. It's the Premier's Progress Board, and the report specifically identifies a key flaw in the HST. I'm quoting the Progress Board report here. It says: "A highly visible shift of the tax burden from businesses to consumers."

My question is to the Premier. Did he pay attention to the Progress Board report when they warned that the HST is, in fact, a highly visible shift of the tax burden from businesses to consumers?

The Chair: I'd like to remind members that we are talking about Vote 10 and to ensure that the questions are directed to Vote 10 and not questions which could be better dealt with in other estimates.

[1615]

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Chair, as you remind us, this was thoroughly canvassed in the estimates for the Ministry of Finance.

C. James: I'm not surprised that we continue on and that the Premier isn't interested in exploring the issue of the HST. I understand it's an uncomfortable issue for this government. I can understand why they wouldn't want to have discussions.

I also want to remind the Premier that, in fact, the HST is, as he described, one of the most important issues that he's bringing forward in his government. The Premier, through the Premier's office, has been involved directly in the issue of the HST.

I just want to talk a little bit about the flexibility as the Premier called it, and the Premier referred to that. He talked about the fact that the PST and the HST make a difference when it comes to flexibility for government. I just want to remind the Premier that in a previous budget that came forward, the PST was used by the Premier to be able to talk about his climate change goals. The Premier used the PST to be able to encourage changes in behaviour, to use the PST to remove it from various areas, to assist the Premier when it comes to his climate action agenda and his promises.

We know the HST is going to have an impact, so I'd like to ask the Premier what kind of discussions he and
[ Page 2813 ]
his staff have had around the impact of the HST on the Premier's climate change agenda.

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that this was thoroughly covered in the Finance estimates. Having said that, this action does not preclude us from taking activity in other areas of the economy and other tax initiatives.

This is actually an action that will encourage investment in the province of British Columbia. It will encourage increased productivity. It will encourage companies to invest in their equipment and their plant, because we will, in fact, have one of the lowest levels of effective marginal tax rates. It will encourage companies like Alcan, for example, which is looking at whether or not they can move forward with a major investment in a renewed, modernized smelter in Kitimat that will dramatically reduce greenhouse gas as well as other emissions from that plant.

This actually is a tool that encourages many of the initiatives this government has advocated. We will continue to advocate those initiatives, and as we advocate those initiatives with a strong economy, it will encourage investments in alternative energy. It will encourage investments in new bioenergy. All of those things are going to be critical as we develop a low-carbon economy in this province that will not just be a leader for Canada but will be a leader for the continent.

C. James: Could the Premier tell me what analysis he or his staff did on the HST and the impact on his climate change agenda and his promises?

[1620]

Hon. G. Campbell: I think I answered that question, but I'm actually interested that the Leader of the Opposition is so interested in PST exemptions, which your party voted against.

What I am very clear about is that our party and our government are going to continue to encourage reduction of greenhouse gases. To do that, it's going to require significant additional investment in the existing plant as well as creating the opportunities for new modern plant.

It also is critical, in terms of encouraging private sector investment, that we have a tax regime that is seen to be a positive tax regime that encourages their investment. It will encourage new energy investments. It will encourage bioenergy investments. As I said earlier, it provides substantial productivity gains for our entire economy, including the construction industry, the manufacturing industry, the forest industry, the transportation industry, the mining industry and the small businesses across this province.

All of those businesses will now be in a position where they can actually invest in their future because we have an open, transparent, less regressive tax regime in place as a result of the HST.

C. James: I'm going to move on to talk a little bit about one of the committees that the Premier chairs, but I think it's important…. The Premier used the words "open and accountable," and what we've learned through this section of estimates is anything but open and accountable.

What we've learned is that the Premier, in fact, had discussions before the end of May with the Finance Minister on the HST, that the public wasn't told about that, that in 53 days — because the announcement on the HST wasn't made until July 23 — the public wasn't told that the HST was on the table.

The Premier says that analysis may or may not have been done, and he's not willing to share it with the public. One of the biggest tax changes in this province's history, and the Premier didn't have analysis done on specific industries, on specific areas — everything from school boards to environmental areas to home-building to restaurants. Huge impacts, and yet the Premier won't share that analysis or didn't ask for that specific analysis to be done — neither he nor his staff.

So I think it's very concerning. I think the public will certainly feel, after this discussion, that they're even more concerned about the lack of transparency, the lack of openness, the lack of thought that went into bringing forward the HST.

Just to explore one of the roles that the Premier does have, which is the chair of a cabinet committee that has been described as functioning as an inner cabinet. That's the agenda and priorities committee. Could the Premier please describe the functions of that committee for us?

[1625]

Hon. G. Campbell: First, let me just say, with regard to the comments from the Leader of the Opposition, that the HST is the single most important thing we can do to encourage the strengthening of our economy in this province. It is more transparent than the current tax regime. It is less regressive than the current tax regime. It will encourage investment. It will encourage productivity. It will encourage competitiveness. It will actually lead to a stronger, cleaner economy for British Columbians.

I think I've said and reiterated on a number of occasions that a full analysis was done by the professionals in our Finance Ministry. Those people have an exceptional record. British Columbia has a triple-A credit rating, recognizing the strength of our Finance Ministry officials and the broad framework of analysis that we've done. In terms of the agenda and priorities committee of cabinet, I think we've been pretty clear about what our priorities are as a government.

We have said that we want to continue to encourage improvements in education. We want to make sure
[ Page 2814 ]
that we encourage expanding educational opportunities. We've said that we believe that we have to continue to pursue a goal of making British Columbia a healthier place for all of us to live. We've identified the importance of the environment and dealing with the challenge of the generation, which happens to be climate change.

We've said that we want to make sure we have sustainable environmental management. We want to care for people who are in the lower end, less able to care for themselves. We want to build an economy that actually supports those important public sector objectives that we have.

The agenda and priorities committee examines how we can encourage a healthy economy and looks at the broad range of issues we may have as government and says: "How do we focus our time, focus our attention and focus our resources to make sure that we accomplish the goals we've set for ourselves as a cabinet and as a government?"

C. James: Could the Premier just tell us how often the agenda and priorities cabinet committee meets and, again, talk about the functions of that committee?

[1630]

Hon. G. Campbell: The agenda and priorities committee meets regularly and as required. It discusses the priorities of government, and it is subject to cabinet confidentiality.

C. James: Could the Premier tell me: how does the Premier's agenda and priorities committee interact with Treasury Board?

Hon. G. Campbell: The agenda and priorities committee is a committee of cabinet and subject to cabinet confidentiality. The Treasury Board is a committee of cabinet and subject to confidentiality. I don't have, off the top of my head, the memberships of the two committees, but they have been made public.

C. James: I understand the confidentiality issues, as the Premier has outlined, but I'm just asking about the interaction of the committees. How do the committees interact with each other? Do they have regular, scheduled meetings and agendas together? How is the Premier's staff involved in setting the agendas of those committees, including the agenda and priorities committee?

Hon. G. Campbell: The Treasury Board and the agenda and priorities committee do not meet in concert. They report through to cabinet. Their agendas are coordinated by the cabinet operations and the cabinet secretary.

C. James: Are any of the Premier's staff on that committee?

Hon. G. Campbell: The cabinet members are on the committee, and they're identified in the public information.

C. James: Does the Premier's chief of staff attend the agenda and priorities committee with the Premier?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, my chief of staff often attends a cabinet committee meeting as a staff member. Appropriate staff are always asked and invited to be part of the cabinet deliberations.

[1635]

C. James: Just to come back to the interaction between Treasury Board and the agenda and priorities committee. The Finance Minister isn't part of the agenda and priorities committee, so I'm presuming that economic information comes to the agenda and priorities committee. I would assume that as part of their role of setting agenda and priorities, they receive fiscal information.

I wonder if the Premier could tell us, then, who from Treasury Board reports to the agenda and priorities committee that the Premier chairs.

Hon. G. Campbell: Ministers regularly attend cabinet committees if they have an item on the agenda of that cabinet committee. So the Treasury Board, to give you an idea, just to give you the names, includes the chair, who is the Minister of Finance; the vice-chair, who is the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure; the member for Surrey-Panorama; the member for Nanaimo-Parksville, I think it's called; the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport; the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; and the Minister of Agriculture and Lands.

The Treasury Board reports out to cabinet. Cabinet ministers and their officials often attend Treasury Board. That's in fact how items are dealt with on the agenda.

Similarly, with the agenda and priorities committee, the members include myself as the chair, the Minister of Aboriginal Reconciliation, the Minister of Housing and Social Development, the Attorney General, the Minister of Health Services, the Minister of Education and the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. That's the committee makeup.

Ministers and their officials could come, if there was an appropriate item on an agenda, to attend and make recommendations, to ask for advice from either of those committees. Those committees then report out to cabinet.

C. James: Then just to talk in general terms — I recognize the confidentiality issues the Premier has raised: could the Premier tell me how these two bodies, Treasury Board and the agenda and priorities committee, which I'm presuming sets agendas and priorities for government, interact in preparation for the budget?

[1640]
[ Page 2815 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, so that I can be clear, there are these two particular cabinet committees. The coordinating, the decision-making body of government is cabinet. Cabinet coordinates those things. The budget is prepared by the Treasury Board. It is submitted to cabinet. Cabinet makes the decisions with regard to the budget at the end of the day, so I think it's important for us to recognize that the overall coordinating, decision-making body of all of government is the cabinet.

C. James: I recognize that. I think it's just important for the public to know that the Premier chairs the agenda and priorities cabinet committee and what role it plays in relationship to the budget, in relationship to revenue, in relationship to funding for a program.

Just to ask the Premier specifically, then: could the Premier describe the process under his government where funding for a program gets approved and specifically what role the agenda and priorities committee, chaired by the Premier, plays in that?

Hon. G. Campbell: The development of the budget is a responsibility of the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board reports to cabinet. Cabinet makes the final decision.

C. James: Again, just so I'm clear. The Premier is saying that the agenda and priorities cabinet committee that he chairs plays no role in determining program spending?

Hon. G. Campbell: I do think this is important. The budget is established by Treasury Board. Agenda and priorities sets the priorities for government. Those issues can come forward that…. Should we put time, effort and energy into those issues, or should they be other issues?

As I've mentioned earlier, there are a number of major initiatives we've undertaken as government, including building a new relationship with first nations, dealing with the challenges of climate change, strengthening our economy. There's a whole plethora of things that you have to deal with, and the cabinet committee tries to deal with those things and organize them. But the decisions with regard to the budget are made by the cabinet, with the advice of the Treasury Board.

C. James: We'll all remember…. I want to talk a little bit about the Premier's economic statement — and it will relate to the agenda and priorities committee — which he made in October 2008. It was with regard to discretionary spending cuts.

[1645]

I'll just quote the Premier from that statement:

"We will act immediately to rein in avoidable government spending. It was a lot of work to make B.C. a deficit-free zone, and we aim to keep it that way. We'll continue to live within our means and within the taxpayers' ability to pay. We will not start digging ourselves back into a hole….

"We will re-evaluate our spending to protect our priorities and will focus on scaling back unbudgeted increases in spending. Government is no different than families. We can afford to do what we must, even in these times, but we won't be able to afford everything we'd like right now."

That was the Premier's economic statement back in October.

He vowed that he was going to start reining in government spending. Could the Premier please tell us when that plan was actually implemented?

Hon. G. Campbell: The initiative to rein in avoidable spending commenced right away, following the October statement, and in fact, it is ongoing. We understood that we had to take a number of initiatives that would result in difficult decisions. I identified a number of those yesterday, but I'm glad to do it again today if the leader would like me to highlight those.

C. James: The directive was implemented immediately, the Premier says. Press reports state that on the reserve of unfunded money after the discretionary freeze was put in place, there were two paths that ministers could take or bureaucrats could take to be able to deal with unfreezing that money after the Premier's directive came out.

According to the press, it said that bureaucrats could appeal to the deputy ministers' committee for those funds and that ministers could appeal to the Premier's agenda and priorities committee. Given that that's the Premier's committee and that he chairs that committee, could the Premier please describe for us how the discretionary spending review and the approval process worked during this time period?

The Chair: Again, I'd like to remind the member that we are talking about Vote 10, which is the 2009-10 estimates.

[1650]

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't speak to the media reports, but I can reiterate that all financial framework decisions are made by the Ministry of Finance. The initiatives undertaken around the restrictive spending review started immediately following the October statement. They continued towards February. In fact, they were one of the reasons that we were able to bring in a surplus that was in excess of what was budgeted for the 2008 year, in spite of the economic challenges. They were identified as an ongoing program in the February budget, and indeed, they're ongoing as a result of the September budget as well.

In terms of setting a fiscal framework, that is a responsibility…. It's a decision of cabinet, but the recommendations are made by Treasury Board. Once that framework has been set, it may well be that a minister comes and discusses the various choices they have to make within the
[ Page 2816 ]
ministry within that fiscal framework to meet the government's priorities.

C. James: As we know, there have been a number of decisions that had to be made from the time of the election until now — a number of decisions around spending, a number of decisions around priorities. The Premier has said that himself — that when it comes to the budget, a number of difficult decisions had to be made.

As the Premier has described, his agenda and priorities committee, the committee that he chairs…. Ministers come to that committee and have discussions around priorities and whether those priorities are going forward. Could the Premier tell me: in some of the discussions that have occurred from the election until now…?

I'll give a specific example to the Premier. For example, the reductions that have been made to Special Olympics and B.C. School Sports — would that discussion have come to the agenda and priorities committee that the Premier chairs to have a discussion about priorities when it came to spending? Recognizing that the spending decision was made, as the Premier said, by cabinet after discussion with Treasury Board, would those discussions around priorities and setting priorities have come to the Premier's agenda and priorities committee?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think I've been as explicit as I can with regard to how the process worked. I actually signed an oath of cabinet confidentiality. It would be inappropriate and would be a breach of that should I discuss how cabinet decisions are made or what comes at what time. I think I've been open with regard to how we deal with these issues at cabinet.

C. James: I understand the cabinet confidentiality, and I appreciate the Premier making sure that he's not looking at delving into that area. I'm not asking the Premier to delve into that area. I'm just trying to determine for the public what kind of process is used at an agenda and priorities committee that the Premier chairs in decisions that have to be made by government.

[1655]

So not a specific decision, but if a decision is being made around cuts to a program or increases to a program, would that issue come forward to the Premier's committee, the agenda and priorities committee, to make a determination about whether that was a priority for government to then go forward to Treasury Board for funding approval?

Hon. G. Campbell: I've tried to be clear about how this works within the confines and the constraints of the oath that I have taken, and I think I've answered that question.

C. James: Then I'll move on and continue on with the Premier's discretionary spending edict that he put out. I'd like to remind the Premier of another statement that he made, and I'll just read the quote again. This is a quote from the Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition:

"I believe that the Premier and the office of the Premier are the fundamental arbiters of accountability. They are the fundamental receivers. They are the fundamental referees of accountability within…government. You know, the challenge that we have and that the public has, it seems to me, is that the Premier must always lead by example. His office must always lead by example."

That was from July 8, 1999.

I'd like to ask the Premier whether he felt his office and himself as Premier had a responsibility to lead as head of government by example when it came to the exercise of cutting discretionary spending.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. G. Campbell: I do think it's important for the Premier's office to set an example and meet the same standards that we are setting for other ministries. I think this is a very important initiative if we are going to protect health care, education and other critical services.

I identified yesterday a number of areas where we thought that there could be a savings that would be applied to those critical and vital public services. Across government that will continue to happen.

There are more areas of discretionary spending in some ministries than the others, but certainly, in the Premier's office we look to meet the same standards that have been set in other ministries.

C. James: So the Premier says that yes, he does feel it's important to set the example, that as head of government he feels it's important to set the example when it comes to cutting discretionary spending.

Given that the Premier has said that and given that the Premier has said that everyone across government needs to tighten their belts, could the Premier please tell us why he named, then, one of the largest cabinets in B.C.'s history, a cabinet that also includes three ministers for sport at a time when the Premier has said he needed to set the example to tighten belts.

[1700]

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it actually is important that we have a cabinet that is able to manage the number of items on the agenda that are before us as a government. There is one Minister of Healthy Living and Sport in our government, and there will continue to be one Minister of Healthy Living and Sport.

C. James: We've spent a lot of time in these estimates going through the Premier talking about the financial situation in the province, the kind of economic situation we're in. So I do have to wonder how the Premier justifies paying for three separate offices for those ministers of sport,
[ Page 2817 ]
three separate ministers' salaries, extra staff, added cost — this cabinet put together by the Premier. This was something he did directly in putting this cabinet together.

My question is to the Premier. Given his edict to the rest of the cabinet, given his edict to the rest of government, given his edict to the public about cutbacks that were coming, why didn't the Premier decide to lead by example?

[1705]

Hon. G. Campbell: First, in terms of the Premier's office, we actually have reduced our budget significantly this year. It's a 17.3 percent reduction, or a $2.405 million reduction in spending from the 2008-09 budget. We expect that to continue. The budget for 2010-11 is $11.087 million, compared to $11.5 million this year. The budget for 2011-12 will be $10.6 million, down from the $11.08 million in 2010-11.

Both the political staff and the public service staff have been reduced in our budget. Our travel is down. Our professional services are down. Our office and business expenses are down. Our salary benefits due to vacancies are also down.

In terms of the ministers that the Leader of the Opposition has been referring to, the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport has an obligation to deal with public health. That ministry has been deeply involved in the issue of dealing with H1N1 and public health generally. We have set a goal for ourselves to actually break away from simply thinking of health as being taking care of people who get sick but actually trying to encourage people to stay well.

I think there is evidence in British Columbia that we have done well with that, and it's important for us to focus on that as part of an initiative that we face as we try and sustain our health care system. So today in British Columbia we have the highest life expectancy of any community in Canada. In fact, if we were an independent country in British Columbia, we'd have the longest life expectancy for males in the world, and we would have amongst the longest life expectancy in the world for women.

[1710]

In terms of physical activity, British Columbia is first in Canada. We have to continue to encourage that. We know there is an epidemic in place where there is a reduction in physical activity in our young people. We think it's critically important that we pursue that — again, not just in terms of the well-being of our children but in terms of the well-being of our community and the sustainability of our health care system in the long term.

We actually have the lowest number of people in British Columbia who are overweight. We have the lowest level of tobacco use in the country. All of those are coordinated and focused on by the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport and by our public health initiatives.

We want to continue to promote health. We want to continue with the program of health promotion, and that's why the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport exists. There is a Minister of State for the Olympics and ACTNow. That minister of state has a number of objectives. Most importantly, it's critically important that we take full advantage of the Olympic opportunity that is before us.

It is probably the single largest economic development opportunity that we will have in this province as we go through 2010. It creates literally hundreds of thousands of jobs. It creates and already has created thousands of small businesses in the province. We want to continue to focus on that. We want to continue encouraging investment. We want to continue encouraging the development of tourism opportunities as we come out of the Olympics. The Olympics is really a launching pad for a number of initiatives we can take as government.

Finally, the Minister of Education has a responsibility not just for the K-to-12 education system, but she has a responsibility to ensure that our young people have a full complement of services available to them, and she carries that out. So I think all three of those ministries are important. I think the undertakings that they've had are important. I think they reflect some important initiatives that the government has undertaken.

I do think it is important to note that even with that size of cabinet there is a significantly smaller political staff involved with that cabinet than was the case with the previous government. That again reflects the fact that we are trying to be prudent with how we manage our dollars. We're trying to be focused and effective in how we invest our dollars for long-term benefits for British Columbians.

C. James: I have to say that the public would expect that the Premier could do all of those duties without naming one of the largest cabinets in B.C.'s history, and that it's a bit rich, coming from the Premier, to say that they're looking at making sure they're cutting back and they have less political staff when they have the largest cabinet in B.C.'s history. That's not something that the Premier can dress up in any way.

I'd like to ask the Premier whether he did an estimate in his office. It was his office and the Premier himself that put together cabinet. Could the Premier tell me whether he took a look or asked his deputy or his staff to take a look at the cost of an expanded cabinet?

[1715]

Hon. G. Campbell: I am both aware of the costs and the benefits of a cabinet, and as I've mentioned, not just in the Premier's office but in every ministerial office there has been a significant amount of belt-tightening. In the government itself we are undertaking initiatives that will result in almost $1.9 billion of discretionary
[ Page 2818 ]
spending. I think that's critically important, and it does require political leadership to do that.

I understand some of the challenges that we're facing with regard to this, but I can tell you that the undertakings that have been made by ministers that have been canvassed in all the other estimates, I think, are clear. We are dealing with our discretionary costs in government. We are dealing with providing additional resources for health care. We are providing additional resources for education. We are providing additional resources for forest fire fighting.

All of those things are a response to the fact that there was a significant effort undertaken to be as cost-effective as possible as we went through these challenging times — including, as I mentioned, that the political staffs at this point are significantly lower than the previous government's political staff. I think that the size of the cabinet is appropriate from my perspective, and I think that British Columbians are getting real value from cabinet for the work that they're doing.

C. James: I'd just like to take a look at a comment that the Premier made when he was Leader of the Opposition, when he tore a strip off a former Premier for expanding cabinet to 19. At the time the Premier, as opposition leader, said he could run government with only 12 ministers. He said, in fact, that taxpayers were being soaked by a cabinet of 19 — being soaked — and he suggested that substantial dollars spent on cabinet should instead be going to textbooks or patient care.

So my question is: when the Premier was forming the cabinet himself just after June, after the election, in May and June, was he unconcerned about the substantial dollars that were being put together for a cabinet of 25 members plus six parliamentary secretaries? Was he no longer concerned about the taxpayers and ensuring those dollars went to — oh, I don't know — B.C. School Sports or parent advisory councils? Didn't he think that that mattered?

[1720]

Hon. G. Campbell: I actually think that the Leader of the Opposition…. I'm glad she's taken the time to find some of my previous comments.

I think in terms of when that decision was made, it was clear that not just were there 19 ministers; there were 13 parliamentary secretaries. One of the things I should say to you is that in fact I think you do need to have political leadership to deal with these. That's one of the things I've learned. I've actually learned things in the last number of years. I do think it's important to do that, and I think it's the political leadership that allows us to do exactly what I was talking about in that exceptionally articulate quote.

We are actually bringing forward substantial increases in health care investments. Just to give you an idea: a 70 percent increase since that time in health resources. We have had a substantial increase in the number of jobs that actually support our public services. We've had a substantial increase in public education expenditures. That continues to be the thrust of what we are trying to accomplish, and it continues to be, in fact, the record of this government.

Substantial increases in health care budgets this year. Substantial increases in patient care. Substantial increases in education. All of those things are because we have a strong economy, because we've had strong political leadership from the cabinet.

I can tell you today, hon. Chair, I would not be thinking of having a 12-person cabinet. I don't think that it's possible to run an enterprise as large, as complex and as multilayered as the province of British Columbia's government with only 12 ministers. In spite of how capable they are, without the reach of all of the ministers working on that, it would be very difficult to accomplish that goal.

C. James: I appreciate the Premier saying that he learned something, but I have to say that I think the public would have preferred that the Premier had learned how important education and health care and arts and culture and funding for Special Olympics was rather than learning that a larger cabinet was something that resources should go into. I think the public would have preferred the other.

I just want to take another look at an area that the Premier could have led by example and take a look at the expenses that the Premier's office has incurred. As we know, each year ministries report their purchasing or credit card charges through public accounts. These are the charges for restaurant meals, travel, office, pizza, etc. — the kinds of things you would think of as discretionary spending.

The Premier's office is in fact the only ministry that doesn't report out separately. The Premier's office charges for credit cards are rolled into the Finance list of charges. So just a question around transparency and openness and accounting from the Premier's office. Could the Premier tell me why purchasing card payments for the Premier's office aren't separated out?

[1725]

Hon. G. Campbell: I just want to deal with some of the assertions that were made by the Leader of the Opposition, and then I will deal with the final question that she raised.

First of all, in terms of health care I think it's important to note that we are seeing significant expansion of services literally every year as demand goes up. We are seeing significant expansion of investments in the Health Ministry, as was covered by the Health Ministry estimates. So there are 118 percent more knee replacements that are taking place. There are 58 percent more
[ Page 2819 ]
hip replacements. There are 42 percent more cataract surgeries and 55 percent more angioplasties. We have seen a dramatic increase in MRI scans of 163 percent since 2002, and CTs are up 86 percent.

You know, I think that the issue for us is that we are investing significant dollars. We are providing substantial increases in benefits. We are continuing to do that this year, and we will continue to monitor that and work to strengthen the economy so that we can do that.

In education this year alone we are spending $750 million on students with special needs. All of those things are important. We've invested over a billion dollars in literacy programs. We continue to invest in literacy and find ways that we can be more effective. One of the reasons we can do that is because we are thoughtful about how we actually get the results that we need for the lowest possible price.

So you take two small ministries like the Ministry of Finance and the Premier's office, and you bring them together with a coordinated service. We report into that service because it's a more economic way of doing it. Obviously, you could split them apart. It would cost taxpayers more for that service. It in no way restricts the availability of information. If people are interested in getting additional information, they can get it.

C. James: Just to ask the Premier, since this is an issue around discretionary spending and making sure that the Premier was looking at his own office and reining in spending: does the Premier then get a separate report printed out for his office to ensure that he's reining in spending, and will he provide that as a report?

[1730]

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, we get monthly reports with regard to how we're doing, and if the leader is concerned about our trends and how we've been doing, we have always had a trend in the Premier's office of underspending.

For example, in 2008-09 the budget was $13.94 million. The actual spending for 2008-09 was $13.524 million. For the 2009-10 year budget, spending has been reduced to $11.53 million, and as I mentioned earlier, it will be reduced further to $11.087 million in 2010-11 and $10.614 million in 2011-12.

We look as other ministries do. We are directed by the Ministry of Finance to find savings that are appropriate in keeping with the government's initiatives. The intergovernmental relations secretariat dropped from $3.4 million — almost $3.5 million — to $2.766 million.

The deputy ministers policy secretariat dropped from $2.69 million to $2.04 million, executive and support services dropped from $7.7 million to $6.725 million, and we will continue to look for areas where we can find reductions.

We anticipate that we will find those with a combination of directed Treasury Board STOB reductions, attrition of vacant positions, B.C. Public Service Agency budget centralization reductions and budget transfers that may have to go out to other public agencies.

Just to give you an idea, we have reduced operating costs. They're down 7 percent. Travel is down 22 percent. Professional services are down 66 percent. Office and business expenses are down 25 percent. Salary and benefits savings due to vacancies are down 15 percent. Grants and transfers are down 56 percent.

Those are all initiatives that we've undertaken and were guided by the directives of the Ministry of Finance that was developed and provided to the Premier's Office. We will continue with those.

For example, we're looking at cell and BlackBerry costs. We have achieved further savings with regard to reviewing IT costs. We will continue to do that. In the first six months of the Premier's office budget, we have seen a savings of over 30 percent in both our office expenses and our information systems.

I do think it's important to note that that information is all available in Public Accounts. It's all fully disclosed when we have budget documentation and when the budget is released. Should the opposition request further information, they can do so through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

[1735]

C. James: The Premier said the reason that there's one report, that they don't put out the purchasing card report, purchasing card charges, separately for the Premier's office is that it makes sense to collapse the two reports into one because they're small. In fact, some of the other ministries have smaller purchasing card charge accounts than the Premier's office.

The Premier obviously, as he has said, gets a monthly charge. So I guess my question, again, to the Premier is: why isn't the Premier's office putting out their own report when in fact it's larger than some of the other ministries? Where's the logic in the Premier rolling his purchasing card charge account into the Finance Ministry's?

Hon. G. Campbell: There are a number of service pods in government — for example, the Premier's office and the Finance Ministry; the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts and the Ministry of Community Development; the Attorney General's ministry with the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General's ministry.

There is a credit card arrangement which is made with the credit card companies. In fact, the reason that we went in this direction was because we wanted to be as transparent as we could. It may be that there are more savings we can find in terms of this kind of administration across government, and we'll be looking at those in the year ahead.
[ Page 2820 ]

C. James: I would suggest to the Premier: if the Premier wants to be transparent, he should be putting out a separate report for his office. I think that's very clear. It's very clear that it isn't transparent to roll it in with the Finance Minister's office and not have a separate report. For it to be one of the only offices that do that just leads people to believe that the Premier doesn't want to be open and accountable.

Just to put on the record, in 2007-2008 the Finance–Premier's office bill — because remember, they're on one bill — was $3.7 million and change. In 2008-2009 it was in fact $4.8 million — over a million dollars or 28 percent higher. I think it's important to get that on the record.

I now want to move to a couple of questions related to some of the Premier's great goals. One of those, in particular, that I'll start off with is the great goal No. 3: "Build the best system of support in Canada for people with disabilities, those with special needs, children at risk and seniors."

As we all know, this week marked the sixth year in a row that B.C. has the highest child poverty rate in Canada. Six years. I don't think there's anyone…. I certainly would expect the Premier, who has set a goal to deal with children at risk, would not find that an acceptable statistic.

[1740]

We've had six provinces that have now committed to child poverty reduction strategies: Quebec, Ontario, Newfoundland, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and most recently New Brunswick. We all know that it's the right thing to do to deal with child poverty. It's a moral imperative because, if we as a society don't provide for those children, then we all lose out as a society.

But it's not simply a moral imperative. It's also an economic imperative. Dealing with child poverty now means we won't have to deal with the costs later on as a society. Whether it's health, education, employment or justice, all of those issues will cost us if we don't address this issue now.

On May 26 of this year the Representative for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, wrote to the Premier and myself asking for a joint meeting to discuss this "significant opportunity" — I use a quote from the letter — "for both government and the opposition to work collaboratively on a plan to address issues relating to vulnerable children and families in British Columbia."

I would like to ask the Premier today whether he would commit to sitting down with Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond and myself and come up with a plan to address this shameful statistic in British Columbia and get on with addressing the issue of child poverty.

Hon. G. Campbell: There are a number of issues that the Leader of the Opposition has raised. First of all, of course everyone in this Legislature is concerned about child poverty, and my goal is to have it reduced to zero. In fact, I think that one of the things we have to recognize is when we are making progress in that regard.

Child poverty has been reduced every year since 2003. At times, for example, we've watched as it dropped by 32 percent from 2003 — from 19 percent in 2003 to 13 percent in 2007. It is important to recognize — and I think most people have concerns about this — that the so-called LICO standard is just part of the measurement. Even Statistics Canada has said it is not something that should be taken on its own.

What we've done is tried to ensure that we provide low-income people, particularly, with opportunities to have more disposable income. We have increased the shelter rates. We have ensured, for example, that employment insurance and income assistance will receive at least a further $50 increase, combined with shelter — a 20 percent increase — making them the second-highest payments in Canada.

[1745]

We have worked to provide for more affordable housing not just with major investments in affordable housing but also with the rent supplement program, which helps literally thousands of British Columbia families deal with the challenges of their rents.

We're spending substantial resources on providing subsidies for people who make $38,000 a year. That's a significant increase from the $21,000 a year that was previously there. Because of the tax initiatives that we've undertaken, there are 325,000 British Columbians who pay no personal income tax. That has resulted in significant improvements in the standards of living that people on low income have.

That in no way undermines the fact that we still have work to do. We've made significant progress. We want to continue to do that. We have the lowest level of child poverty that we've had in this province since 1991. Those are important steps. There is more to be done, and more will be done as we move ahead.

When the issue arises with regard to a meeting with the Representative for Children and Youth…. I've had a number of meetings with the Representative for Children and Youth.

I will remind the Leader of the Opposition that not just Mr. Hughes but this Legislature felt it was important that we establish an all-party legislative committee that the representative would report to. I think the way to maintain this as a non-partisan initiative that will ensure we continue the progress that's been made over the last number of years is to have the representative make presentations, as she does, to the legislative committee for them to report out to the Legislature.

C. James: I'm guessing that the answer to the representative and to children living in poverty is no. No, the Premier won't meet with the representative and myself
[ Page 2821 ]
to actually put together a child poverty report. I think that's on the record and is a record of this government's failure to address those children living in poverty. This is an opportunity to show leadership from both political parties on a critical issue. What could be more critical than dealing with that? But it's very clear that the Premier has said no.

I'd like to speak about another issue that is a top priority for the Premier. That's the issue of new relationships with first nations. The Premier mentioned this in his opening remarks. I want to speak about a particular issue related to first nations. This is the crisis line that's been developed on Vancouver Island by the Nuu-chah-nulth, who developed this crisis line to deal with the issues of high suicide rates in the community.

These were crisis lines developed by first nations for first nations. They have a decade of experience, and they're valued by not only the aboriginal community but, in fact, the broad community.

The decision to eliminate these crisis lines was made unilaterally. The Premier has talked about a new relationship with first nations and how critical it is to make sure that they are involved and that they have an opportunity to control their own future. Yet the Minister of Health, appointed by the Premier, is refusing to meet with the first nations to be able to talk about this decision made unilaterally.

I ask the Premier on this issue today: in the spirit of the new relationship, in the spirit of the commitment that the Premier has made to address the issue of reconciliation and new relationship with first nations, will he direct his Health Minister to sit down and have discussions with the first nations on Vancouver Island about this critical service that they developed, that they are committed to and that is serving their communities?

The Chair: I'll take this opportunity to remind the member that under Standing Order 61, debate will not be allowed to canvass details associated with other ministries. The member has heard that caution previously.

[1750]

Hon. G. Campbell: The details of this particular issue I'm not aware of, but I know that these were discussed. There was the opportunity to discuss them fully in the Minister of Health's estimates.

What I am aware of is that we ask our health authorities to make those important decisions on the ground level. There was a decision made by VIHA, the Vancouver Island Health Authority, that there would be a one-line service that would provide for multiple communities. That in no way undermines the fact that this is the first province in the country that has signed a tripartite first nations health plan committing to improving aboriginal health outcomes and to including the creation of an aboriginal health adviser, which we have done.

The tripartite plan leads the way in Canada. Most recently the relationships that exist have enabled us to coordinate an effective response to the H1N1 issue and supporting other B.C. first nations communities. We continue to work on building this new relationship. We are anticipating some exciting new announcements in the weeks and the months ahead.

I think we have shown quite clearly to the first nations — both through the direct consultations that have been held with the leadership summit, with the health council of the first nations, by the appointment of the first-ever British Columbia aboriginal health officer, by the coordination and inclusion of first nations in dealing with the challenges like the H1N1 pandemic — that we're indeed building a new relationship with first nations.

As we do that, it is critically important that all of us recognize that there are particular health decisions or health care decisions that will be made on the ground. The service will be available. VIHA will continue to work with first nations and continue to provide those essential services.

C. James: I hear the answer from the Premier is no. No, he will not get involved in this issue. No, he will not provide an opportunity for first nations to have the basic consultation — the right to have the basic consultation — that they deserve.

You know, first nations are looking for more than words. They're looking for action, and they're looking for people to live up to those words and show it through their action. I have to say that this shows that the Premier isn't living up to his word, by not getting involved in those discussions.

I'd now like to ask a question that's related, again, to one of the Premier's goals and one of the key areas of government, which is the whole area of climate change. As we know, the world community is coming together in Copenhagen in December to consider and, hopefully, ratify the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's recommended greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

The reports and the discussion leading up to this have scientists demanding that all countries commit to a binding agreement in Copenhagen on climate change. It's an incredibly exciting opportunity that we have ahead of us, and I think that was seen yesterday when President Obama announced that he is actually going to Copenhagen, as well, to show his commitment to climate change, to make sure that people recognize how important it is.

Regrettably in all of this, Canada has really been seen to be blocking progress around climate change. The federal government isn't buying in, isn't signing on, and I think that's very disturbing to all of us who know how important it is that Canada show leadership in all of this.
[ Page 2822 ]

Now, a number of provinces are attending the UN international climate summit as part of the Canadian delegation, and we've seen the Premier of Quebec speak out to urge the government of Canada to start playing a constructive role, a cooperative role in reaching an international agreement on climate change.

We know that the Premier, as he's said before, has a strong relationship with the Prime Minister, that they have a good working relationship. I've heard that from the Premier before.

[1755]

I think there is a unique opportunity here that I'd like to ask the Premier about. It's to join, as we've called for, and urge the Prime Minister to commit to a binding agreement in Copenhagen.

My question is to the Premier: will he use this moment? Will he use this opportunity as we build towards December to talk to the Prime Minister and urge him to make sure that he gets it involved and starts, as I said, a constructive, cooperative opportunity to be able to show leadership in Canada in an area that is so critical to all of us?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I want to be clear with the Leader of the Opposition that we do have a tripartite aboriginal health program that is in place. It's an agreement that is in place. It is led by an aboriginal health officer for the first time ever in the history of the province.

We will continue to build a positive and a constructive relationship with aboriginal communities in health — just as we have in education, where we have the first-in-the-country education agreement that was signed in the province of British Columbia to include aboriginal people; just as we have as we negotiated the central coast and north coast land use plans with aboriginal communities, industrial communities, environmentalists and local communities; just as we have as we have negotiated and will continue to negotiate on treaties with six first nations, the first treaties we've had under the Treaty Commission; just as we have as we work with the Klahoose First Nation to build an economy that will sustain their community, provide them with jobs and provide them with the supports that they need.

We are, frankly, doing tens and dozens of economic and strategic agreements with first nations communities. We will continue to work with them and to build a new relationship.

I am very pleased to see the Leader of the Opposition suddenly embracing the idea of climate change. I can tell you that I will be going to the conference in Copenhagen. I will be advocating for the western climate initiative. I will be advocating for the cap-and-trade system, something that the opposition voted against. I will be pointing out the value of the carbon tax that has been brought forward in British Columbia to build a more competitive, productive, lower-carbon economy, which the opposition was against.

I have encouraged the federal government to join the western climate initiative. It includes not just the province of British Columbia, which is the first Canadian signatory, but it also includes the province of Manitoba, the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec — representing almost 70 percent, I believe, of the gross domestic product that we have in this country.

If we want to have a continent-wide cap-and-trade system, I believe and we have believed since the outset — in spite of the opposition's opposition to the cap-and-trade system — that by being involved and helping to lead the development of that cap-and-trade system, we would be in a position where Canada could benefit, where the climate could benefit, where our economy could benefit, where the United States could benefit. Our goal in developing the cap-and-trade system is to make sure it's not just adopted by the entire country but adopted by the United States.

By partnering with the states of California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Montana and New Mexico, we have an opportunity to drive a truly continent-wide agenda with regard to cap-and-trade. Our goal through our partnership in the International Carbon Action Partnership is to ensure that that system itself can be adapted to the European system.

I don't think anyone has any illusions about this government's commitment and our advocacy with the federal government. We have had meetings with both the Minister of the Environment…. I have consistently laid out the benefits of the approaches that we've taken to the Prime Minister, but I do not presume to tell Canada how they're supposed to negotiate at the international front.

One of the reasons that I am going to Copenhagen is that I am hopeful that we can arrive at an agreement. I think it's very important. The federal government has asked me to attend as a participant. It is at their invitation that I am going. I think it's very important, though, to recognize…. It is important that President Obama is going.

However, having said that, President Obama will make statements. Hopefully, he can bring the Congress to the table as well, as we do that, and that's why it's so important that Governor Schwarzenegger will be there. The governor of Washington will be there. There is a concerted effort by all of us to be constructive voices as we deal with the climate change challenge.

[1800]

I think one of the real challenges we have is that when people decide that they're going to follow a path of political expedience to deal with this issue, we lose the opportunities. I would say that for those who are opposing President Obama in the United States just as I say that for those who are opposing us in British Columbia.

I think this is a critically important issue. I will be there. I will add my voice. I would love the Prime
[ Page 2823 ]
Minister to come, but I can tell you this. I intend to work in concert with Minister Prentice as he requests. I will be there representing subnational governments and discussing in Copenhagen the benefits of us adapting a rigorous climate reduction strategy which calls on all of us to meet our moral and long-term obligations, not just to this generation of British Columbians, but to the next generation and the generation that follows.

C. James: I just remind the Premier that if Canada doesn't get on board, and if the Prime Minister doesn't get on board, then all of the initiatives in the world that we put together through the western climate initiative and through British Columbia will not be as strong.

I think it is critical that the Premier be not only a cooperative voice with the Prime Minister but, in fact, a strong voice, raising the concerns because, as I said, otherwise we lose the opportunity here in British Columbia.

Just a final question and then I'll move to wrap up and hand over to my colleague, who will finish up in the rest of the Premier's estimates. I just want to talk for a minute about a task force that the Premier announced at UBCM. That's the task force to write a new local government election act. The Premier said that this will be stand-alone legislation that will "modernize your election rules and create a single provincewide electoral process for local government elections."

This task force is being chaired by the new president of UBCM, the Minister of Community and Rural Development and two representatives of UBCM as well. This task force has set a date to complete its work by May 30, 2010. We're now approaching the end of November, and there has been no confirmation on the terms of reference of the task force.

Since the Premier announced this — it was the Premier announcing this task force — I would just like to ask the Premier: could he provide an update on the status of the task force, and does he have any concerns, with only five months left, how they're going to be able to carry out the tasks that they've been given?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I want to go back to the issue of climate change again, if I may, for a second. I think the initiatives that we have undertaken with what have become known with the catchy title of subnational governments…. We are actually taking a leadership role. I think that Governor Schwarzenegger in California is seen as a true advocate for climate action, not just in the United States but around the world.

I have had the opportunity to meet with people from not just Portugal and Australia and Europe but also from Africa who have been engaged with Governor Schwarzenegger in looking at how we can deal with this.

I think the critical component of this is if you think of the western climate initiative already engaging 80 percent of the Canadian population, 73 percent of the Canadian economy and 20 percent of the U.S. economy, and you look at the fact that it is going to be imperative in the United States, as in Canada, that we end up with a system that maximizes the market reach of cap-and-trade….

I actually believe that the western climate initiative will reach across our country from coast to coast and will provide us with the tools we need for a continent-based cap-and-trade system. I believe that if we waited for federal governments or the international community to entirely come to a conclusion, we could be waiting for a very long time, and I don't believe waiting is the way that we are going to go forward.

Obviously, I am, as I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition is, interested in the international community coming to a resolution that will work. It will work for the north and the south. It will work for the eastern hemisphere and the western hemisphere.

[1805]

It will maintain our economic advantages. In fact, I believe it will be a springboard for economic advantages, and I think it's important for us to deal with that.

In terms of the UBCM, the membership from the UBCM itself has not been confirmed as yet. The president of the UBCM, Harry Nyce, will be co-chairing the committee with the Minister of Community and Rural Development. We have two MLAs that we have appointed to that, and we are awaiting the appointments of the UBCM.

The leader rightly asks: are we concerned about the time? Yes, I am concerned about the time frame. I think it's important that we get on with this, but I also think that it's something that has been actually fairly well canvassed both at the local level and at the provincial level and publicly discussed. We have a strong provincial electoral framework that has been subject to lots of debate. Decisions have been made. Improvements can potentially be made in our act, and they can certainly be made as we move forward.

I don't think it's necessary to reinvent everything all the time. I think this is something that's important in terms of public confidence, and I have confidence in the committee that they will be able to deliver the proper legislative package. Hopefully, they can deal with it before their deadline, and it may be that our Legislature will be able to deal with it before the May 30 date. But there's no question; there is urgency behind this, and we are going to have to continue to pursue it. We're looking forward to the results of the deliberations of the committee.

C. James: I'd just like to make some closing remarks and then turn the chair over to my colleague to be able to deal with intergovernmental affairs.

I want to thank the Premier's staff and the Premier for taking the time over the last two days to go through
[ Page 2824 ]
the Premier's estimates. I have to say, though, in going through the estimates over the last couple of days, I think it's pretty clear why the public has lost trust with this government. I think it's very clear, if we take a look at the lack of openness and transparency, that we didn't see anything different over the last couple of days than we have over this last number of years and certainly through the election campaign and going into the budget.

We heard from the Premier that in fact he learned that revenue had dropped in British Columbia by $500 million to $600 million on May 7, during the election campaign, and he didn't tell the public. We learned that then, on May 14, the revenues had dropped $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion, a huge drop, and the Premier didn't bother telling the public.

We learned, as well, that the Premier in fact had had discussions with the Finance Minister in mid-May around the HST being one of the options to put on the table to deal with the fiscal challenges. He didn't tell the public. We learned that the Premier may or may not have done some analysis around the impact of the HST, and he won't tell, and he won't share that information with the public. We learned that he may or may not have done individual analysis on different sectors, but again, he may or may not have done it, and he won't tell the public and won't share that information.

We heard that although the Premier told the public they needed to tighten their belt, the Premier felt he'd learned that it was important to have a large cabinet. That was what he learned, and he didn't think it was important that he set the example of leadership by showing fiscal restraint and not having one of the largest cabinets in B.C.'s history.

Just to close, I have to say that I think the saddest thing of all is that the Premier also admitted today that he won't meet with the Representative for Children and Youth to deal with one of the critical issues facing British Columbia, which is the issue of child poverty. I think it really shows, as I said, why the public has lost faith in this government, why this government has not brought forward any kind of policy direction to assist people as we go through these difficult economic times and why people are saying that they've had enough.

Hon. G. Campbell: I appreciate the time that the Leader of the Opposition has spent in discussing the estimates of the Premier's office and a number of other issues over the last couple of days.

I do think it's important, though, to recognize that what we've tried to do is outline the actions that were taken by government. The fundamental principles behind a strong economy is critical to the future of our province. A low-carbon economy is critical to the future of our province. You know, I have heard a number of those comments from the Leader of the Opposition in the past.

[1810]

We have one of the strongest freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy acts in the country. We have been cited by a former Auditor General as having one of the most transparent sets of books in the country.

We have been open about the challenges that were presented to us with regard to the HST and the reasons that we have taken that on as the single most important economic measure we can undertake as we vie to strengthen our province's economy, to make it more competitive, more productive, more encouraging to investment so that we have the jobs that people need, particularly in some of our core industries.

It's not good enough to say that we care about forestry but we won't do anything for them. This is something that they have defined as the single most important thing we can do in the forest industry.

The mining industry has huge opportunities, creates huge opportunities across our province, particularly in rural British Columbia. They have said it's the single most important initiative we can undertake with regard to the economy.

When you look at the initiatives that we're undertaking to become an alternative energy powerhouse…. Again, a competitive tax regime that encourages that is not just going to be critical to our economic future, but it's very critical to our job creation future and the jobs that families will depend on across this province.

The reason it's critical that we actually have economic activity is so we can support those very critical public services that are required and that we have actually been able to deliver: top-quality health care, top-quality education, a top-quality transportation system — investing in infrastructure that meets the needs of British Columbians and communities all over our province and opening up the opportunities of the Asia-Pacific gateway.

We have been very clear about the opportunities that the Olympics represent, not just in terms of job creation, where over 240,000 jobs are anticipated to be created. In terms of investment opportunities, economic promotion, connecting and making new partnerships and actually introducing British Columbia and Canada to the world — all of those things are critically important as we go through these challenging times.

Why do we do this? We do it for our children. We do it to make sure that our children and their children have a better province that they can live in.

It is not correct to say that I will not meet with the Representative for Children and Youth. I do meet with the Representative for Children and Youth. I will meet with the Representative for Children and Youth.

It is correct to say this Legislature said that the way to depoliticize that entire exercise was to have a legislatively appointed committee that she would go and report to. That takes place. It is appropriate. It was the Hughes recommendation, and it will make a difference in the long term as we deal with the challenges that young children
[ Page 2825 ]
face in this province — high-income, low-income, mid-income.

Those children who are still in poverty — obviously, we want to eliminate that. We're going to continue to make progress, we're going to continue to think about them, and we're going to continue on the track of reducing childhood poverty, which we've seen from 2003…. As we do that, we will not just have the lowest level of childhood poverty since 1991. We will exceed that and continue to make progress in the years and the months ahead.

Finally, let me say this. We are all fortunate in this House to sit in service of the people of British Columbia. I welcome the ideas of the opposition. I welcome the debate that the opposition brings to the House and to the public square. I think it's critically important that we engage in that debate in a constructive and a positive way.

There is no doubt in my mind that every member of the opposition shares our commitment to top-quality health care. We may have differences in how we get there, but we share that commitment to top-quality health care, to providing the best possible education we can. This is a place where we can share our ideas of how we can do that.

To meet the challenges of child poverty — let's make sure we do that. Let's do it in concert, and let's make sure we use the vehicle that we've established as a Legislature to make sure that we can actually take on these challenges and continue to lead the country in so many areas.

The Chair: We will take a two-minute recess to allow the officials to come forward for Intergovernmental Relations.

The committee recessed from 6:14 p.m. to 6:16 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

G. Gentner: It's a privilege to be able to speak today and ask questions of the minister relative to Intergovernmental Relations.

I have to begin by suggesting or saying how grateful I am to the new minister who welcomed me when we met during a PNWER conference in Boise, Idaho. Her cordial welcome was quite overwhelming and was much appreciated. She's been very accommodating in many of the inquiries I have made.

Intergovernmental Relations. Here you are on the 11th hour on the 11th day, so to speak, and we're going to spend a very short time. But you know, Intergovernmental Relations is the face of British Columbia. Those relationships depict how we're seen in the world, how we see ourselves and how we're seen in the nation.

There are so many issues, but I'm going to begin, first of all, and talk about the relationship between Canada and that of the Canadian pension plan. I want to ask a question, because last budget it was introduced — or in the throne speech of February — and it's been discussed many times since that B.C. is looking at the ABC pension proposal, the Alberta-B.C. pension proposal.

In light of that, of course, it was suggested that by the end of 2009, B.C. would pursue either its own voluntary plan or it would seriously find new ways and means to the existing Canadian pension plan.

I'd like to know if the ministry can give an update as to what direction the province is going relative to the CPP. Are we going to pursue it? I know the Minister of Finance and perhaps, hopefully, the minister herself, will be meeting other ministers of Canada very shortly relative to bringing CPP into the 21st century.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Before I answer your question, I just want to introduce some people here.

I have, to my right, Lorne Brownsey, who is our deputy minister for corporate initiatives and intergovernmental relations. I have Pierrette Maranda, assistant deputy minister. Bryant Fairley is here, I believe — oh, he left. Bryant is executive director for U.S. relations and partnerships. Don Haney, executive director for economic policy and Asia-Pacific relations; Marc-Andre Ouellette, executive director and chief of protocol; and Paul Craven, the executive director of federalism and Canadian intergovernmental policy. I thank them for coming.

To the member opposite, I appreciated getting to know you in Boise, Idaho, at the PNWER conference, and I hope we can maintain a cordial relationship as we go forward.

To your question. The Minister of Finance is working closely with his colleagues in Ottawa and with our neighbouring province in Alberta. Our interest here is to ensure that B.C.'s interests become a priority, to hopefully engage private businesses and people in the pension system that they don't currently have access to.

[1820]

G. Gentner: I'm trying to get on the record where the government is going. Does it believe in a defined pension plan such as the Canadian pension plan? It truly is somewhat different than a private sector money management, and there are costs and disadvantages associated for it.

Can the minister state on record whether or not the government is going to pursue the improvement to the Canadian pension plan before…? You know, my understanding is that the government is going to be discussing this shortly with the government of Canada.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: B.C. has been the leader in looking for a change to our pension plan. We're particularly concerned in ensuring the viability of our pension plan and access to more Canadians. But on this particular file, the lead is being taken by the Minister of Finance, and as
[ Page 2826 ]
I mentioned, he's working with his colleagues to lobby the Canadian government for these changes.

G. Gentner: Well, just perhaps on record, relative to the Alberta-B.C. pension plan, is the government favouring a defined benefit plan, or is the plan being presented with Alberta a defined contribution plan?

The Chair: Hon. Member, the debate will not continue in terms of canvassing details more properly placed before the Ministry of Finance.

The member for Delta North has another question.

G. Gentner: Thank you, hon. Chair. My understanding was, of course, that this was a relationship between Alberta…. Saskatchewan is now buying in. You'll just have to excuse my indulgence or my naivety to think that this was a relationship that was being built between provinces. My understanding was, of course, that that's what intergovernmental relations was about.

If that's the case, hopefully we'll have a good outcome relative to the negotiations with the Ministers of Finance throughout this great country of ours.

There was a draft resolution at PNWER presented by the government, and it stated, quite briefly:

"Be it resolved that PNWER members will work with local governments to ensure open procurement policies are established that assure equal access to Canadian and American vendors of goods and services and the adoption of policy measures that will open trade between PNWER members.

"Be it further resolved that PNWER member jurisdictions agree to work to remove regional development and local preferences in purchasing and procurement that could impede trade and other members of PNWER.

"Further be it resolved that PNWER member jurisdictions agree to undertake concerted efforts to build regional awareness and appreciation for the mutual benefits of our open, two-way trade system."

This was presented by the hon. minister to PNWER.

My question is: how does this work with the Wood First bill whereby the province is now suggesting that it will be promoting wood first with all the construction of provincial buildings within the province?

[1825]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Just to go back to a comment the member opposite made about our building relationships. This is one of the good things that B.C. does quite well. We have built good relationships with the western provinces, with the leaders at the Council of the Federation and with our colleagues at PNWER. This province and particularly the secretariat is good at working these relationships and finding areas of common interest where we can collaborate and take a leadership role in pursuing our interests.

We've also looked at open procurement. We've talked to our colleagues in Washington, we've talked with our colleagues in Ottawa, and we've talked with our colleagues at PNWER.

With respect to the resolution that you just read out, I think the strategies that we're embarking on with wood first are very consistent with the resolution that we put forward at PNWER. There is nothing wrong with promoting wood. In fact, we believe in our product, and we believe that wood will win out because of our quality.

G. Gentner: Regarding the resolution, I'm making the assumption, therefore, that if it's to have open procurement for wood — and there's also a contradiction here with wood first…. Is the minister suggesting that the wood-first policy is using American wood?

[1830]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: There is no contradiction in this. It's all about choosing wood over other building products. We know that we have good-quality wood. We know that we're a low-cost producer. We lead the world in wood technologies. All we're saying is that we want to ensure that people are aware of the option of using wood and to use it creatively, because we are very proud of wood.

Wood is all about jobs, and that's what the buy-American provision, we believe, is harmful to. It's not just B.C. that is concerned about the buy-American provisions. Our U.S. counterparts, our bordering U.S. states, are also very concerned that this will cost jobs.

G. Gentner: I see that the clock is ticking away here. I'd just like to thank, again, the minister for her information relative to the Flathead situation, an international situation. B.C. previously is on record regarding the last International Joint Commission's recommendations on Cabin Creek as stating it was satisfied with the IJC's findings. Consequently, the province had some permits that lapsed.

Knowing that there was a precedent, my question, therefore, is: why does British Columbia persist towards resource development in the Flathead when there's a precedent that's been set relative to the IJC?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: With respect to the IJC, I understand that they simply recommended further study and actually didn't oppose mining in the Flathead Valley.

G. Gentner: I'm going to leave that one alone. I disagree with the position of the government on that one.

Nevertheless, what I will ask is the question: did the Premier, the government or the minister take the Governor of Montana's invitation to tour the North Fork Flathead River this summer?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: No.

[1835]

G. Gentner: UNESCO and the world heritage committee are coming forward with recommendations
[ Page 2827 ]
relative to the protection of the Flathead Valley north of the 49th parallel. I'm interested to know what the government's position is relative to UNESCO's position. How binding is their decision or their recommendation when it comes forward this next spring?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The recommendations are not binding. But just to remind the member opposite, the draft report will actually go to the federal government. They've taken the lead on this.

G. Gentner: It's an interesting retort. When I talk to Canadian officials, it seems as though B.C. took the initiative. Nevertheless.

When we talk to Montana, they're quite upset, of course. They suggest that there has not been a comprehensive baseline assessment of the transboundary Flathead drainage before permitting mining extractions. Why hasn't there been one?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'm just going to go back a couple of years for the member opposite. I don't know if you recall some of the information that I gave you on Monday, but it had information on a joint action plan. That joint action plan is something that we're working on with Montana right now. We actually gave that same action plan to the UNESCO delegation that was here to visit the Flathead.

But since 2006 B.C. and Montana have been working very closely in negotiating the…. The objective of the negotiations is to finalize the action plan that was pursuant to the 2003 B.C.-Montana — I think it was called — environmental cooperation arrangement, and that was signed by the Premier and the former governor of Montana.

What we're doing there is that we're looking at three areas, and I'm actually pleased to say that staff have come to an agreement on this. We are looking at water quality objectives, we're looking at increasing knowledge of regulatory practices in the Flathead Valley, and we're also looking at a comprehensive joint inventory of existing Flathead research and data.

Staff have completed the negotiations with Montana on these areas, and there are still discussions ongoing. So I can't tell you that this action plan is complete, but we are in continuing discussions with Montana at this time. That's the level that we're working with Montana on, because we're very concerned about the environment. We consider this a very, very special place, as do the first nations, as do the local residents and, obviously, the people from Montana.

[1840]

G. Gentner: Well, it's a draft of the action plan. It's been completed by the province, and the province is undergoing negotiations with Montana. But how can you conduct negotiations if you have not given the draft plan to your friends south of the border?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Montana does actually have the draft plan.

I'd like to remind the member opposite that B.C. has a world-class regulatory…. We're so stringent with respect to our environmental protection measures in this area that I can actually say — and I think our Minister of Environment has said this — that the Flathead Valley is in no danger. In fact, we're very proud of our environmental stewardship in this area, and I think it's fair to say that the Flathead Valley is in better shape than it was a decade ago.

G. Gentner: There was a delegation from the State Department that came and visited British Columbia. Was the minister involved in that this fall?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The reason why I took so long to respond was because I wasn't sure if you were talking about the UNESCO site visit or the visit that they made afterwards. It's the visit they made afterwards that I think you're referring to, and no, I was not involved in that, although there were members of my secretariat that were involved in that visit.

G. Gentner: Was any cabinet minister involved in these discussions with Montana on September 11 this year?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: No, there were no ministers present at that meeting.

G. Gentner: It's come to my attention that the delegation that was here was told that…. They were of the opinion that there'd be no further exploration in the area. Yet how is it that Max Resource's gold exploration was announced ten days after they left? Can the minister explain what that does to good relations and goodwill?

[1845]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I believe the permit that you're referring to was already in the system. But I'd just like to remind the member opposite that in the last 25 years, there has been no active mining in the Flathead Valley. The quality of our environmental management system is world-class. It's rigorous. We're proud of it, and the Flathead Valley is in no immediate threat.

G. Gentner: Can the minister explain to us, therefore, if there's been no relative or significant mining, why there was an exploratory permit awarded to Max gold?

The Chair: I would remind the member that debate is not permitted when it canvasses the details specific to other ministries.
[ Page 2828 ]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I was just going to ask the member to redirect his question to the Minister of State for Mining.

G. Gentner: Relative to the budget and estimates and money being spent on negotiations, there was a precedent at the Trail Smelter Arbitration. Does B.C. adhere to the international law's preventive principle that "no nation may undertake activities within its borders that will cause significant injury to another nation," which is considered a basic tenet of customary international law?

Does British Columbia believe that any of the proposals — namely, coalmining, gold mining, and/or coalbed methane, either singularly or cumulatively — will not significantly harm the watercourse of the Flathead running to the United States?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Fourteen percent of B.C. is in protected areas. We have excellent regulatory practices and processes, and we're proud of our environmental standards. We probably rank favourably or better than most jurisdictions in Canada and in the U.S.

G. Gentner: Well, I significantly disagree with that statement. Obviously, if we were ahead of the ball game, we wouldn't have a United Nations committee coming in here and investigating some of the complaints that have been put forward by our NGOs.

[1850]

But I just want to get back to the Trail Smelter Arbitration, since the minister doesn't want to answer it. Does she believe that there will be potential significant harm attributed to mining exploration of the Flathead, without proper baseline studies? Does she believe that this would be a violation, as a signatory, under the watercourse convention of 1997, which Canada is a part of?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'm just going to take you back to the joint action plan that we're working on with Montana. We're very proud of the work we've done there. We've negotiated, I think, on some areas that are very important: the water quality objectives. We're looking at re-establishing long-term water monitoring in the Flathead Valley.

We are increasing our shared knowledge of our regulatory practices in B.C. and Montana, and we're establishing a joint inventory of the existing Flathead environmental data and research.

I'd just like to remind the member opposite that these discussions are still ongoing. We have a good relationship with Montana, and there is no active mining in the Flathead Valley.

G. Gentner: Well, knowing that many letters from the Governor have been sent to the Premier in the last couple of years, I don't believe that the Governor has received a reply yet from the Premier.

Nevertheless — quickly; I know time is of the essence — there was a joint cabinet meeting with Washington State in October 2009. Can the minister explain the six items, I think, that were on the agenda and whether or not Shanker's Bend was also discussed at that meeting?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Shanker's Bend dam was not discussed. It was not an item on the agenda.

G. Gentner: Can the minister explain what items were on the agenda when you had discussions with Washington State?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: It was a joint cabinet meeting, and it is subject to confidentiality, as all cabinet meetings are. But the intent was to collaborate on areas of mutual interest. I can tell you that we did release to the public some frameworks that we did sign, and I'll just go through them.

[1855]

There was a framework on transportation, competitiveness and prosperity. There was a memorandum on cooperation on H1N1 and other public health threats. There was a memorandum on action on regional transportation planning and coordination; a memorandum to enhance competitiveness and prosperity in Washington and British Columbia; a workplan on cross-border issues relating to firearms, illegal drugs and organized crime; a memorandum on traffic safety collaboration; and finally, there was a release on the Columbia Basin rapid response plan on invasive species.

Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $11,535,000 — approved.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:56 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
[ Page 2829 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:42 p.m.

On Vote 23: ministry operations, $5,042,558,000.

The Chair: Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to Committee A. We're going to do the budget estimates on the Ministry of Education, but first of all I would like to let everyone in the gallery know that there's no use of handheld devices — BlackBerrys, Palms.

There's no use of a cellular phone, and in this committee room there's no use of voice communications at any time, whether the House is in session or not. MLAs and support staff may use devices for the minister, but the devices cannot be read from when you're recognized on the floor.

Minister, would you like to make an opening statement?

Hon. M. Stilwell: It's my pleasure today to rise to introduce the estimates for the Ministry of Education. As I indicated in my opening remarks during the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development, I say this both because of the important role of the public services this ministry provides in the lives of British Columbians and because the debating of estimates has such an important place in our parliamentary heritage.

It is a rare honour for me to participate in an exercise in democracy whose origins reach back to the Magna Carta in 1225. The section of the Magna Carta reading, "No scutage nor aid shall be levied…without the common counsel of our kingdom," was used by the English parliaments as a departure point for increasing their authority over taxation and spending in exchange for providing kings of England with a means to wage war in France.

Here we are today, 784 years later, the heirs to this wonderful system of providing the means not to conduct dynastic wars with our neighbours but to provide public goods and services to British Columbians.

I would like to introduce the Ministry of Education staff members who work for the people of British Columbia and who are here to help me respond to the questions. They are: James Gorman, deputy minister; Keith Miller, assistant deputy minister, resource management division; Paige MacFarlane, assistant deputy minister, partnerships and planning division; Renate Butterfield, assistant deputy minister, knowledge management division; and Rick Davis, superintendent, achievement division.

[1445]

We also have additional staff members who are available should we need them, including Peter Owen, assistant deputy minister, governance and accountability division; Sherri Mohoruk, superintendent, liaison division; Pat Brown, executive director, senior finance officer, finance and administrative services branch; Susan Kennedy, executive director, diversity, equity and early learning.

This past August the Speech from the Throne addressed the challenging fiscal realities we currently face and outlined the direction we must take in order to strengthen our economy for the future generations of British Columbians. The September Budget Update set out the commitments that will carry us through the current global recession and on to new levels of prosperity.

Our vision for the future will not be realized through a quick fix. It will require that difficult decisions be made and that discretionary spending be reduced in order to not risk creating a financial burden that would be carried by our children and our grandchildren.

We are working to minimize non-essential spending and find ways to be more effective. At the same time we are working to protect the vital health care and education services that British Columbians rely on.

There is no better investment we can make toward B.C.'s long-term health and stability than to invest in the education of our children. Today's students are the workers, innovators, leaders and citizens of tomorrow. That's why we are focusing our efforts to raise graduation rates and improve student performance from the earliest years and why we have placed an increased emphasis on early learning and early childhood development that will set young learners on the road to success.

It's why we are working to link schools more palpably into the framework of the communities they serve, why we are involved in new strategies to create more inclusive, culturally relevant learning opportunities for B.C.'s aboriginal students and why we are using the opportunities presented by the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games and Paralympic Games to engage all our students in this once-in-a-lifetime learning experience.

We are fortunate in this province to have one of the best education systems in the world. We must continue to support that education system to ensure that we reach our goal of becoming the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction in North America.

Though K-to-12 enrolment has declined by an estimated 60,000 students since 2001, funding in education has risen steadily. At more than $4.5 billion, we are now providing optimal and one of the highest fundings to school districts ever in this province.
[ Page 2830 ]

The budget update tabled in September lays out a further increase of $84 million in operating funding for 2009-10. Per pupil funding is increased for the ninth straight year, going up by $205 to an estimated $8,323 for 2009-10. Budget Update 2009 ensures that we have the resources to protect the world-class level of British Columbia's K-to-12 education.

We are working towards a brighter future that involves new approaches to benefit our youngest learners. Government has committed $151 million over two years to implement full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds in British Columbia. Starting in September 2010, full-day kindergarten will be available for half of all kindergarten-aged children. Full-day kindergarten will be available to every five-year-old starting school in our province in 2011.

In the meantime we're continuing to expand our StrongStart B.C. centres, which are preparing early learners for success before they even reach school. We've invested $43 million to expand this invaluable program, and we now have more than 300 centres serving early learners and their caregivers in communities all across British Columbia.

This government has a vision for school facilities in British Columbia. It is a vision that will see schools and community organizations partner to create neighbourhood learning centres where people can access educational and community services under one roof.

Nine model neighbourhood learning centres are being developed in six districts throughout the province, and more schools are looking for ways to incorporate community elements into their school construction projects. The first two neighbourhood learning centres in Revelstoke will include a community centre, coordinated health services for vulnerable teens, an early learning hub and medical services.

We believe in vibrant, connected communities that are socially responsive and environmentally sustainable. Neighbourhood learning centres support our commitment to see that schools and school lands are used for the maximum public benefit.

The government is committed to working with school districts and aboriginal communities to help improve educational outcomes and grant increased educational opportunities for all B.C. students. Working with our partners, we are involved in new strategies to create more inclusive, culturally relevant learning opportunities for B.C.'s aboriginal students. We have developed courses that help to increase awareness of aboriginal world views and create greater understanding of aboriginal student identities.

[1450]

Aboriginal education enhancement agreements between school districts, local aboriginal communities and the Ministry of Education are helping to ensure that aboriginal culture is integrated in public schools. To date, B.C. has signed 45 enhancement agreements, and more are coming.

Aboriginal students have made important gains, but there is still more work to be done. We are working to develop ways of sharing information between public schools and first nation band schools in order to improve overall communication and our service to individual students throughout the province.

This school year in British Columbia is one of considerable historical significance as we play host to the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. The games are creating many opportunities for British Columbia. They're bringing investment and tourism, while showcasing the successes and possibilities of this great province. Students are taking part in the excitement, and educators are using the opportunities presented by the games to engage those students in an educational experience they will remember for the rest of their lives.

Despite the fiscal challenges we currently face, there is much to be optimistic about. Through the vision of the throne speech and support of the Budget Update 2009, we are not only protecting but also improving educational services for all British Columbians.

As we examine and discuss the items in this budget, we must look at each item as a step on the road to ensuring the legacy we leave behind for future British Columbians. Education lays the groundwork for our province's success, and this budget is the path we must follow in order to realize our goal of building a stronger B.C.

R. Austin: Thanks to the minister for her opening statement. I won't be following up with an opening statement here, because we have very limited time. But I think we can agree on one thing: the Magna Carta was a wonderful concept and a wonderful document.

I'd like to begin by asking a few questions relating to the budget, comparing the pre-election budget that was delivered just before the election and the budget update that came in September. I'm asking these questions over the 2009-2010 year and the three-year estimates following.

A comparison of the September 2009 and February 2009 estimates for education program funding shows a significant reduction — $128 million less in funding in 2009-10, $127.5 million less funding in 2010-11 and $64.5 million less funding in 2011-12 than was originally allocated in the February 2009 budget.

I assume that a lot of this funding decrease is due to the cancellation of the annual facility grant. The ministry indicated that this measure was temporary, instructing districts to use up unspent cash reserves of $98.6 million. However, many of these districts reported that most of these funds were already committed. Thus, they're facing significant budget shortfalls.

My first question is: can the minister tell me what figures the ministry used to estimate the amount of cash reserves?
[ Page 2831 ]

Hon. M. Stilwell: The amounts were identified from the audited financial statements from March '09, where the statements are required to identify funds segregated for the purpose of AFG. That's where the $98 million earmarked for that purpose comes from.

R. Austin: Can the minister tell me if she has revised estimates on the amount of uncommitted cash reserves the districts actually have access to?

[1455]

Hon. M. Stilwell: Can the hon. member clarify whether he means cash reserves or AFG reserves specifically?

R. Austin: The uncommitted cash reserves.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Besides the $98 million, which we've already discussed, there are restricted and local capital reserves of a total of approximately $50 million.

R. Austin: A comparison between the earlier budget and the budget update shows that there's $127½ million less funding in September compared to February 2009. After accounting for the $51 million that was transferred of CommunityLINK funding, which went to the Ministry of Housing and Social Development under gaming grants, there's still about a $78 million decrease in the projected 2010-11 education program.

Can the minister please tell me what sources of funding are affected by this $127½ million reduction in planned education funding for 2010-11?

[1500]

Hon. M. Stilwell: As you know, revenues declined substantially between February and September due to the global economic crisis. Indeed, in September the budget was adjusted, as you said. However, the operating block funding was protected and, in fact, increased by $84 million for a total of $4.551 billion.

R. Austin: As the minister is aware, one of the changes that were made, of course, was the removal of the AFG just a week prior to school coming back in September. It's been indicated by the government in several answers, both in question period and in estimates when we met with the minister responsible for gaming, that this was a one-off thing, and it was done because of the fiscal situation that the government found itself in this year.

I guess school districts and trustees are very nervous and would like to know: is this actually a one-off thing? Can they expect the AFG to be reinstituted for 2010-11 and 2011-12?

Hon. M. Stilwell: As you do know, there were a number of very difficult decisions that we had to make, including deferring the annual facilities grant for one year and asking the school districts to draw down their cash reserves. To the extent that government revenues recover, we do recognize it as a priority, and we certainly are mindful of it as we go into the next budget planning cycle.

R. Austin: Could I then ask…? There was also some dispute as to whether school trustees were in on the conversation prior to the decision to remove the AFG, because of course, they had set aside dollars that were actually being spent over the summer. In some cases they had been spent over the summer, and then they were informed of the decision afterwards that, "Oh dear, this money isn't coming," putting some of these districts presumably into deficit.

If there is bad news to come next year or the year after, can I at least ask the minister whether school boards and trustees will be told ahead of time so that they don't go ahead, thinking it's coming, and spend money in the summertime which they then find they don't have?

[1505]

Hon. M. Stilwell: As you know, because we were in an election year, although we had a fall budget, we weren't in a position to confirm that budget until it was passed in September. As soon as that happened, we did let the districts know.

I think it's important to point out that the school districts are not in deficit due to the deferral of the annual facilities grant this year. In fact, what they were doing, in fairness, is drawing down on fairly substantial cash reserves. Certainly, we are working with districts who are in a position to need some guidance and support to manage through that, and we expect that they will.

In response to the final part of your question, normally we communicate the budgets at the end of March, and we will certainly be communicating information about the annual facilities grant with that budget in March.

R. Austin: Of course, some school districts didn't have reserves, and some of the reserves that are counted can be considered to be spent. It's money set aside to pay for the things in the summertime. They are reserves only to the extent that they're already accounted for, so in that case it still made things very difficult for, I think, a majority of school districts.

I just want to speak for a second here about another issue, and that's all-day kindergarten. In the September budget update the ministry announced an additional $44 million for 2010-11 and $107 million for 2011-12 in order to implement all-day kindergarten provincewide.

Now, there are some studies done which suggest that in 2010-11 this $44 million really accounts for about 34 percent of the annual operating costs of doing all-day kindergarten and 82 percent of the annual operating costs in 2011-12.
[ Page 2832 ]

So my question to the minister is: how much of the $151 million funding for the all-day kindergarten program in 2010-11 and 2011-12 is being taken from other areas of education program funding?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The fiscal plan of September '09 indicates that there will be new funding for all-day kindergarten — $44 million this year, $107 million next year. So the whole total of $151 million is new money.

[1510]

R. Austin: School trustees are suggesting that it will cost more than $151 million to actually implement all-day kindergarten. So can the minister please tell me how school districts will fund the cost of all-day kindergarten operating expenses not covered by the $151 million budgeted for all-day kindergarten?

Hon. M. Stilwell: First of all, having offered half-day kindergarten in British Columbia since the '70s — and we also have more than 5,000 students currently in full-day kindergarten — and based on our experience and other funding models, including elementary students, we are confident that our funding model that includes the $151 million of new money will fund this new program.

R. Austin: I'd like to move over to CommunityLINK funding. I did come and speak with and ask a couple questions around this to the Minister of Housing. He indicated, as a one-off in this particular year because of the fiscal challenges, that $48.5 million that normally is in the core funding under the Ministry of Education was taken from gaming in order to keep this program going. He indicated that if that hadn't happened, CommunityLINK might have been abandoned altogether.

My question is this. The programs that CommunityLINK funds are critical programs, I'm sure the minister would agree, in terms of food programs, after-school programs. It is very disturbing to see core programs that are essential to students' success being funded out of gaming grants, because as I'm sure the minister is aware, those are largely discretionary. We saw this year a huge number of various groups who traditionally get their money from gaming being denied it because, of course, LINK funding now was pushing them aside.

My question to the minister is: given that it is core funding for essential programs which the Minister of Housing has alluded to, can we expect this to go back into the Ministry of Education in the future when we aren't under these fiscal challenges? Or are we going to see an important program like this continue to be funded out of gaming?

Hon. M. Stilwell: You know, the government is not so concerned about the source of the funding. It has come through other ministries in the past. I think what's important is that we were able to find the funding in a year where there were significant fiscal challenges, and we are committed to protecting vulnerable students.

[1515]

R. Austin: According to the Minister of Education, the Ministry of Housing and Social Development provided $48½ million, as I've already alluded to, from community grants for this year's CommunityLINK. Of course, the Ministry of Education provided $2.5 million for a total of $51 million for this year.

My question to the minister is: has the Ministry of Education allocated funds in the budget projections for 2010-11 and 2011-12 to supplement the CommunityLINK funding, if indeed it continues to be provided by the Ministry of Housing and Social Development?

Hon. M. Stilwell: We are committed to protecting vulnerable students. We were able to find the funding this year in what could be described as an extraordinary fiscal climate, and we are committed to continuing to support vulnerable students in the education system.

R. Austin: I'd like to ask a couple questions around the 2008-09 holdback funds. Some $84½ million of the $4.467 billion in operating grants for '08-09 was included in the holdback to be released over the years, subject to enrolment changes. The December 2008 recalculated operating grant shows $37 million remaining in holdback funds, earmarked for enrolment increases in distributed learning — students, of course, who take courses on line and students with special needs.

In early September some school districts reported that they did not receive the final disbursements of 2008-09 enrolment supplements from the ministry. Some reported receiving '08-09 operating grant funding, but that was then retracted by the ministry. My question is: what amount of the $84.5 million holdback for '08-09 was actually released to school districts as of September 2009?

Hon. M. Stilwell: My understanding is that it has been allocated to school districts in its entirety.

R. Austin: Can I ask, then, how much money that was disbursed to school districts and then retracted in late August and September…? When the minister says it's all been given out, does that include the money that was retracted in late August and September?

[1520]

Hon. M. Stilwell: There was $3.7 million left in June — at the end of June. It was distributed to boards. I understand that there was some discussion of potentially needing to recover it due to cost pressures, but in fact, that's not happening.
[ Page 2833 ]

R. Austin: In July of this year the Ministry of Education service plan, page 23, indicates that the Treasury Board froze $18 million in distributed-learning funds. We've since found out from ministry staff that these funds would only be released if the ministry's updated enrolment projections for distributed learning showed an actual need for the funds.

According to the Ministry of Education's recalculated operating grants — I'm referring to table 2 here — the distributed-learning enrolment increased from 12,357 students to 13,616 students between '07 and '08 and '08 and '09, while the distributed-learning, full-time-equivalent students increased from 6,308.18 FTEs to 6,439.

My question to the minister is: was some or all of this $18 million included in the 2008-09 holdback, and if so, how much?

Hon. M. Stilwell: There, in fact, was sufficient money in the holdback to cover the increase in distributed-learning enrolments.

R. Austin: Can the minister tell me…? I'm assuming, then, that full funding for all distributed learning was given as of September 2009. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The distributed-learning enrolment was fully funded. In September we sent out $37,677,152; at the February count of students, an additional $17,342,797; and again in May, $10,867,378; for a total of $65,887,327.

R. Austin: I'd now just like to ask a couple of questions around the unexplained increase of 5,000 FTE school-age students between '08 and '09. The Ministry of Education report, Student Statistics: 2004-05 – 2008-09, shows that the number of FTE school-age students in B.C. increased dramatically in '08-09, signalling — good for all of us — a reversal of the long-term trend of declining full-time FTE enrolment.

A table that I've looked at shows that student FTE enrolment in public schools for school-age students increased by 5,258 between '07-08 and '08-09. This trend is in contrast to the report's student head-count figures, which shows a decline of 6,619 school-age students between '07-08 and '08-09. However, the increase in full-time-equivalent students does not appear to be due to a change in either distributed-learning or non-resident international students.

The number of funded full-time students in distributed learning has not changed appreciably over the past few years, although the head-count has, nor has there been much change in the number of FTE non-resident students between '07-08 and '08-09.

So my question to the minister is: why did the FTEs for school-age students increase significantly for '08-09, reversing the trend over the past five years? And could the minister also please let me know: which student groups account for this increase in FTE school-age students, and under which programs were these students funded?

[1525]

Hon. M. Stilwell: There was not an increase in funded students. If you're referring to the publication of key indicators, this is a changing number that included distance learning and summer students. Our September 30 actual enrolment shows a decline, and there has been a continuous decline. We can share the appendix. This year the forecast was for a decline of 7,000, but the head count showed an actual decline of 4,000. Our projections do indicate that the rate of decline will flatten in 2013.

R. Austin: In all but one of the last five years the FTE for school-age students in the Student Statistics report is roughly equal to funded, school-age FTE students plus the non-resident FTE students, but in '07-08, the 542,178 FTE school-age students plus the 9,504 non-resident equals 551,682. This is 8,569 more FTE students than are reported for school-age FTE students in the Student Statistics report.

The question is this. It appears as if non-resident students were not included in the '07-08 student statistics figures but were included in the figures for the other four years. Am I correct in this, and why was that?

Hon. M. Stilwell: First of all, just to clarify, offshore students are not in the funded because, of course, they are not funded; they are paying tuition. I just want to read the official total funded FTEs for the years I think we're talking about. I'll start in 2006-07. The total was 555,414. In 2007-08 there were 550,582, and in 2008-09 there were 545,269 students. So I'm not sure what you're reading from, but if you want to give it to us, we'll be happy to reconcile and get it back to you.

[1530]

R. Austin: School district 60, Peace River North, was one of, I think, five school districts — I think the others were Central Okanagan, New Westminster, Chilliwack and Powell River — which received some supplemental funds for unique geographic factors, enrolment and some capacity issues.

Now, school district 60, at the last minute, had this money pulled out. It was $499,000 in their case. I'm wondering why this was done. Was there any consultation done with either this school district or any of the others to let the trustees and the administration know prior to these unique supplemental funds being pulled?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I just want to start by referring to 2006-07. The per-pupil block funding was $8,506. That was with an enrolment that had declined by 1 percent.
[ Page 2834 ]

Then in 2007-08 the per-pupil block funding was $8,751 despite a decline again in enrolment of approximately 2 percent. In 2008-09 the per-pupil funding was $9,144 despite, again, a decline, although 0.5 percent.

In 2009-10 the enrolment did go up 2.8 percent, and again, the per-pupil block funding has been increased to $9,254. So through three of those four years enrolment declined, but the per-pupil funding rose, including this year.

R. Austin: I think the challenge for school trustees and for administration is that in spite of the per-pupil student funding going up, there are, of course, so many increased costs that are built into a system like public education where such a large portion of it goes to salaries.

There are inflationary pressures in the salary increases. There are also other costs that are downloaded each year. MSP premiums, as a result of this particular budget, are going to be an added cost. H1N1 came along. There are so many other factors that in many cases the costs that are added in don't account for the increase in per-pupil student funding. I think that's why we're having so much difficulty and seeing so many school districts challenged. But I'll leave that for now.

I'd just like to ask some questions around library funding. Of course, that's also part of the Ministry of Education.

Certain things happen during a recession. One of those things is that there are some social costs that go up as a result of people losing their jobs. We see that on the federal level. We see EI recipients going up dramatically. On the provincial side we see huge increases in those who unfortunately find themselves on social assistance.

One of the other things that is attributable to a recession is that libraries become extra important. I guess my initial question with regards to the library funding cut that was made in the budget update would be this. Knowing that we're in a recession — and that's the argument used to cut a lot of other things — why would the government have cut libraries funding at the provincial level, knowing that all that does is then reduce the number of hours open to the public when, of course, they need extra hours, especially during a time of recession?

[1535]

Hon. M. Stilwell: I certainly concur that public libraries across the province play a crucial and ongoing role in helping British Columbia become the best-educated and most literate jurisdiction. I want to put it in perspective by saying that the total cut to funding to libraries amounted to less than 2 percent of total library funding in the province.

To reiterate, we did have to make some important choices. Our choice was to protect core funding and protect money for the per-pupil funding and services and learning in the classroom. But just to put it in perspective, 78 percent of the funding is still there. It's only 10 percent of the whole, so it comes out to slightly less than 2 percent overall.

R. Austin: Of course it was a 22 percent cut of the funding. When the minister says that it's only 2 percent of the whole, one has to recognize that there are large cities that have access to all kinds of other forms of library funding, and then there are lots of small towns and small communities.

In some cases there are communities so small that they don't even have a library. They only have a reading centre. Those grant cuts meant, basically, that they had all of their funding cut. I think we need to put it in perspective and recognize the difference between large cities like Vancouver and smaller communities like Dease Lake and others.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Knowing that the recession is not over and knowing that we are still seeing unemployment figures increasing and knowing that libraries are the last resort for some of the most vulnerable people — because not everybody has access to high-speed Internet in their home; not everybody has access to go and find jobs without going to a public library — can I ask the minister whether, if this recession continues as it is, the libraries can at least expect to not have a further cut than the 22 percent that they've received in the '09 budget?

Hon. M. Stilwell: We are in the process, as I said, of building the budget, and literacy remains a high priority to us. We do recognize the importance of libraries and the contributions they make, as you say, not just for literacy but as a community resource and a resource for people looking for jobs. We are going to work hard to protect the library funding as we look at the revenues and build the budget.

[1540]

R. Austin: Can I also assume from that reply from the minister that…? Reading centres, as I've already alluded to, are in very small communities. The actual grants that they had cut, while completely insignificant in some cases…. They're like $1,800, $900. These are tiny, tiny sums, yet to a small community that has only a reading centre, it's of huge importance to them.

Can we assume from the minister's previous reply that reading centres will also be looked upon favourably as you build a budget for the following year?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I just want to go back briefly to talk about global library funding, to emphasize that library funding has, in fact, increased from $8.5 million in '01 to $13.7 million this year.
[ Page 2835 ]

With respect to the reading rooms and public libraries, we certainly recognize the importance of libraries. We are committed to reading. We're committed to literacy. As we build the budget going forward, as we watch revenues come in and look at expenditures, we are committed to literacy, and we are going to work as hard as we can to preserve that funding.

S. Fraser: Hello to the minister and your staff. Thanks for being here today.

I have two school districts that I represent: in part, district 69 — at least part of that overlaps into my constituency — and then the bulk of my constituency is district 70. I'm going to be asking some specific questions. I understand that probably some of these things may have been probed on a higher level, but I'm going to just try to go right to it.

I'm going to start with district 69 — Qualicum, Parksville and surrounding area there, Errington, Coombs, north of Qualicum, Bowser, Deep Bay areas — the district that I represent. The district trustees have been very, very frustrated. I know that the minister has numbers that show whether there's an increase or whatever, but on the ground the trustees are being put in a horrible position with the cuts to facility grants, with the cuts to school sports, with increases in costs like MSP payments and HST. All of these things are landing on the trustees.

This is available on line. You can find it in the Parksville–Qualicum Beach News. I'll just quote from a recent meeting of the trustees. Here's one of the trustees:

"'The most frustrating thing as a trustee is that we are being put in this position by systematic underfunding, and even worse, we are not even being consulted. They are taking the governance role away and saying it does not matter.'

"The board agrees that they will continue to try to make it clear they are unhappy with the provincial government's cuts and downloading of responsibilities."

I just read this to the minister because this is not unique. I know the minister will have heard this from trustees all over the province — certainly in both district 69 and district 70, which I will get to — that this is coming forward to the minister and the ministry.

[1545]

Can the minister try to assure the trustees — in district 69, in this case — that if there are further cuts or if there is next year a removal of the needed facility grants to basically maintain the schools in the district or if there is going to be a continuation of cuts to sports, to the PACs, there will be full consultation with the trustees and the communities before making those cuts? Give them some warning, at least, so that they can actually prepare for these devastating cuts.

Hon. M. Stilwell: First of all, I do want to acknowledge that these are challenging times for everyone. We are in the worst recession in 80 years. I also want to emphasize that I think that part of the challenge is the trend we talked about in previous questions — about declining enrolment that we're seeing in general throughout the province. Despite that, no district had a cut to their budget this year. In fact, you know that the operating grants funding increased.

I do respect very much that boards, first of all, are in a position to have unique insights about their local conditions, but most importantly, they need information to plan. That's completely reasonable. As you know, this year we were in an election year, so we didn't have a budget until September. When we had the information, we got it out.

This year we'll have the budget in March, and of course it is our responsibility and our commitment that boards will have the information in March.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for the answer.

Along with that, if school districts…. Historically, all school districts have relied on facility grants for basic maintenance of high schools, elementary schools, middle schools. In areas that are maybe more affluent or that have newer schools, that sort of thing, obviously the grants maybe have a different level of importance or urgency.

In district 70 all of the schools are old. I know that the minister will have received a letter from the trustees in district 70. I was at the meeting a month ago, and they were beside themselves. They could not believe the pullback of the facility grants.

Initially, they recognized it was a $1.2 million shortfall. Over the next two years they're looking at a $2½ million shortfall. They're all old schools. To not do maintenance on a regular and an annual basis means the schools…. The hard reality is that schools will have to just shut down because they can't be maintained and will no longer be safe. That is what the trustees are wrestling with now in district 70.

[1550]

Now, they're going to start a meeting. They are consulting with the public on this, something that I believe the minister and the ministry should have done before making these major cuts. The minister talks about budgetary challenges in these challenging times. Not long ago, prior to the election, there were all kinds of commitments made to protect these services, which are now being pulled away.

The reality is that, on the ground, the net resources going to the school districts…. When you take into account their costs and increased costs, it amounts to a dramatic cut to every district I've talked to, thus the rage and outrage from all of the trustees.

Of course, they're facing that from parents and members of the local PACs that actually get kids on the road in some cases. In some cases they don't get out of their jurisdiction without the meagre funding that the PACs were provided, and now those were cut in half. There are a lot of opportunities going to be lost.
[ Page 2836 ]

With school district 70 right now, they're going to be starting a public consultation, and part of the discussion will be what schools they might have to close down. There's talk about maybe four-day school weeks on the west coast. I've heard that.

I've heard of, potentially, school closures in Tofino and Ucluelet. These are relatively remote communities. Right now a high school student in Tofino has to travel…. There's an hour and a half of bus travel per day to attend high school in Ucluelet, which is 42 kilometres away. That's every day.

If that was to be dropped to a four-day week — their school week, from a five-day to a four-day week, the inconvenience and the problems that will cause…. The chaos for parents is one thing, but the students already have a very long day. If it were extended to facilitate a four-day week, I just can't see that being in the interests of education for those kids.

Does the minister have any position on trying to protect students from having to have a lot of hardship, being faced with that just to try to complete their high school years?

[1555]

Hon. M. Stilwell: Again, I think we all recognize the unprecedented, at least in our lifetime, economic challenges. I think that against that background there are changes in education that are overlaying — that affect some communities more than others.

Certainly, across-the-board declining enrolment in the province is a substantial challenge — for example, in district 70, 25 percent in ten years. That means we have empty seats that are not filled with students. The other factor that's growing in importance is that students and parents want more choices. There are more students taking advantage, for instance, of other choices such as distance learning.

Despite that, I think that this government's commitment to education is undiminished. We have increased funding for students every year, including this year. In district 70, for example, the funding has been increased to $9,150 per student. Despite declining enrolment and despite these economic challenges, we're also building a new high school in that area.

S. Fraser: I'm aware of the high school, and that's great. Of course, property was sold for that, to help facilitate that. That's part of the liquidation of public property, if you will, and it's not without controversy in its own right.

Let me just explain — I'm not being patronizing here — some of the realities for the minister. In the Alberni Valley there's a high school, ADSS. This is the school that's going to be replaced. It's great to get a new high school, because of course, you only have so much time with each building, and they have to be replaced. I mean, it's a given — right? — at some point.

Certainly, if you're not maintaining any of the schools, well then, you're going to have to replace more of them, or you're going to just have to shut more of them down. Five were already shut down in the Alberni Valley by this government in 2002, I think. That legacy continues.

At the Alberni District Secondary School over 300 kids get breakfast only because of the PAC, the parents advisory council. They've had their funding slashed in half. These are not big numbers for the ministry. These are relatively small numbers. Each dime the PAC gets, they lever into huge amounts of benefit. They feed over 300 kids breakfast who wouldn't get breakfast otherwise.

That's the reality in not just the Alberni Valley but in a lot of rural communities in the province. Again, the numbers game here…. If kids don't get fed, they're not going to do very well at school.

I know we have economic challenges. We're going through a recession. That wasn't the fault of the children of this province. The Alberni Valley was going through a recession long before the recession hit, because of the downturn in the forest industry, so there's already been a lot of hardship there.

The communities have rallied here to actually deal with some of the basic needs so that kids can go to school. Those basic needs are now being threatened by the ministry, the minister and these cuts. They are shortsighted. They are, I submit, based on a bean-counter mentality that doesn't recognize the true value of education as an investment for our future. It's just based on year-end fiscal here.

[1600]

Now, I'm not saying you don't have to be fiscally prudent, but if the minister and the ministry — I know the minister is new at the job — had been consulting with the trustees and the teachers, then I think a lot of other solutions would have been found. I certainly do not believe that the ministry staff or the minister want to see kids go hungry and, therefore, have no attention span and maybe not attend school.

I would submit it's the same thing with cuts to sports. How many kids stay in school because of sports? How many kids will be disenfranchised because they lose those opportunities?

There are people there that won't get a bus ride out to another jurisdiction to see anything, whether it's to come to this place in the Legislature or to go visit, potentially, a post-secondary institution. They're losing those opportunities, too, because there are no funds now, because of these cuts, for busing to get kids to places, to sporting events, to worthwhile things that are integral to them continuing their education — and certainly fundamental for them to maybe graduate and stay in school.

Is the minister willing to go on record that these types of decisions will no longer be made in a vacuum, that the critical cuts to school programs, to PACs, to
[ Page 2837 ]
sports programs, to facility grants, won't be done without full and meaningful consultation with the trustees that are trying to do the good work of the ministry and the minister in district 70 and district 69 and, I would submit, with the teachers and the educators and the parents?

You've got organizations that you can meet with — the PACs. Will the minister commit to changing this pattern of no consultation and, before making decisions that can be so damaging to the students in the area, actually do meaningful consultation with the people that can explain this?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I think it's important, at this point, to point out and emphasize that since 2001 we have put into that district $875 million. The funding has gone up every year, despite a decrease of fully 52,679 students. Furthermore, with respect to feeding hungry children and our commitment to vulnerable children, $893,000 went to feeding children through the community link program.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister a couple of questions about school district 42 in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. We have two elementary schools — Riverside and Mount Crescent — that are on the verge, apparently, of closing. We have this ongoing issue. I don't actually hear about it so much in other districts, or at least from our side of the House, so I'm not how sure how prevalent it is.

[1605]

In Maple Ridge we've got a real issue with growth all happening in one end of the municipality, the east end. In that end the schools are overcrowded, and we need more. But on the other end we've got schools that have lots of capacity yet.

So the allocation formula makes it impossible for my district to build schools where we need them, in that we have to have 95 percent occupancy in order to qualify. We can never reach that because of the problem we have with the anomaly of density and growth on one end and declining enrolment on the other end.

I want to ask the minister…. It's again not to this minister, but to ministers generally: is the government considering the allocation formula? Is there any chance that it will be changed to help our district cope with that problem?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Your question emphasizes one of the things that we have been talking about this afternoon, and that is the trend towards decline in enrolment at fully 6 percent in your district. Certainly, we ask each district to utilize their capital assets to the full extent so that we can avoid, in these times, taking on more taxpayer debt to build schools in the areas that have schools that can be used.

M. Sather: I'm particularly concerned about the closure of Mount Crescent Elementary. It's on the edge of our central core in Maple Ridge. In the Metro Vancouver region we're trying to cope with a new regional growth strategy, which is going to require us to densify in order to get transit and control urban sprawl and fight climate change. Schools are a big part of this, because if we lose our schools in that area, it's going to be difficult to attract those young families to settle in that area.

[1610]

So I'm just wondering: does the minister have any discussions with districts about that part, that role that schools play in terms of fighting climate change and dealing with growth strategies that we face in our district?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Well, certainly, as you pointed out yourself, we build schools where there is a need and don't want to encourage boards, nor influence boards, in terms of what they choose in terms of which schools operate where.

Again, I would say that we recognize that it's a board decision, and we recognize that they have unique knowledge of the area they're in. I trust that the school districts are aware of the regional plans and other plans in their area that may impact on those decisions.

M. Sather: So are there any discussions happening, then, between the ministry and the Minister of Environment and the Minister of State for Climate Action on the role that schools can play in the siting of schools in terms of fighting climate change?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The province, I think, has played not just a leading role globally in terms of climate action policy, but in terms of school districts and education. As you know the province has adopted the LEED gold standard for all new schools. As well, as you probably know, all new schools will be built of wood. We have dollars available for energy efficiency upgrades, which was a part of the accelerated capital program as part of our economic stimulus plan.

[1615]

M. Sather: Our school board chair wrote to the minister in September expressing concern about the cancellation of the 2009-2010 annual facility grant. She said it's imperative that the local autonomy of school districts continue, as well as sustaining the required level of maintenance of our facilities.

I'm wondering if the minister has responded to that concern with our district. When can the district expect to find out whether or not they will get their facility grant for next year?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Certainly with respect to this year, I think it's important to recognize it was an unusual year
[ Page 2838 ]
in terms of having a budget in September versus March. As we go forward and plan the budget for March 15, we first of all recognize the importance of early information so that boards and districts can plan. We intend to and commit to giving the information to the districts March 15, and we will try to restore the annual facility grant to the extent that we can as we see the revenue forecasts and how the budget comes together.

S. Herbert: I know the minister has heard many times from Vancouver trustees about their concerns with the cancellation of the facilities grants and probably also has heard from Vancouver parents very concerned about the cancellation of the PAC grants, as well, or the cutting of the amount that they would normally receive. In my community I've certainly been working with our parent advisory committees as much as we can. We've a small number of schools in my area.

But I wanted to ask some questions about an issue that affects students all across the province, irrespective of school districts. Certainly, discrimination and bullying happen in schools. We know that. Some school districts have policies, very strong policies, to combat that and actually take action to do that, and we'll come to that later. I just wanted to ask the minister: how many school districts are in compliance with ministerial order 276/07?

[1620]

Hon. M. Stilwell: Certainly, student safety is a top priority for us in student education. It is a board responsibility to comply with that order for a code of conduct. We expect that they do so, and we believe that all districts have.

S. Herbert: What evidence does the ministry have that every school district is in compliance?

Hon. M. Stilwell: As I said, this is a board responsibility to comply. However, in 2007-08 the superintendent of achievement canvassed and met with each district superintendent to confirm that the districts were working to comply and have codes of conduct. We have no evidence that that is not the case. We follow up on any complaint from a parent or board district, and in fact, if you have information that this is not the case, we'll be happy to follow up.

S. Herbert: I'm interested to hear that in 2007-2008 districts were working to comply. That does not mean they have complied. There was a freedom-of-information request done in 2008, and from what it brought forward there were only actually eight districts that were in compliance.

Ministerial order 276/07 is to make sure that every school district in B.C. has a code of conduct that explicitly states that discrimination under the Human Rights Code…. The B.C. Human Rights Code is there so that each school district, each parent, each student has the same rights.

Now I know that we're talking about the budget that the government provides to school districts to provide education for students there, but I don't think….

Yes, the minister may argue a technical point, that it's the individual board's responsibility to comply and ensure that they have a code of conduct around discrimination. I believe it's our job as MLAs and ministers to ensure that every school district is following this code of conduct.

It's interesting. In the minister's response the minister said that there's no evidence that this is not the case. However, in the response the minister provided — that there was no evidence that it was the case, and that school districts have complied…. That concerns me, because students need support. Students need to be sure that they can be themselves so that they can get their full education and reach their full potential.

[1625]

I'll ask again, because maybe I missed something. Can the minister provide evidence that every school district in B.C. is in compliance and has a code of conduct that is explicit in its discussion of discrimination against students, whether they be gay or lesbian, whether they be from different cultural backgrounds or whether they have a disability. I would really appreciate actual evidence rather than just belief.

Hon. M. Stilwell: First of all, I want to reiterate that student safety is a priority for this government, and as a mother I can tell you that nothing makes a parent more anxious or upset or concerned than that their child may not feel safe at school. We are certainly aware, and I am certainly aware, of the strong connection between feelings of safety and belonging and student learning.

As you know, in 2004 the Ministry of Education established those provincial guidelines for codes of conduct for all B.C. schools, including guidelines for boards of education and schools to have learning environments that are safe, caring and orderly.

In 2007 more explicit expectations were set by the Ministry of Education through an amendment to the School Act and the introduction of a ministerial order establishing provincial standards for codes of conduct.

The ministry has also provided the education system with a companion guide to the provincial standard for codes of conduct order and the revised Safe, Caring and Orderly Schools: A Guide to assist boards of education to make sure that they are able to meet their responsibilities under the law.

The boards are held accountable for their success through questions on the annual satisfaction surveys that measure student, parent and teacher perceptions of
[ Page 2839 ]
safety, and we have no complaints from parents on record about that issue.

Finally, indeed, the superintendents of achievement do have the responsibility to monitor progress in this critical area as well as academic achievement. I would just conclude by saying that I want to emphasize that this is a board responsibility under the act, and we expect them to meet their responsibilities.

S. Herbert: I guess, based on that answer, that there is no evidence that boards are following that — just a belief and a hope that they are. That's disappointing to me, obviously.

I believe that if we're going to be providing the funds, we need to be ensuring that they are actually following through with what the legislation requires, that we are actually having codes of conduct to support our kids to be safe — not only to be safe but to be celebrated and to be able to really be who they are in a positive way, rather than just getting through without being beat up. I'm sure that the minister would support that as a mother as well.

My next question is…. A number of school districts have taken the steps of actually providing some support for anti-discrimination programs in their schools — so anti-homophobia programs, antiracism programs, those kinds of things — Vancouver, Victoria and a number of the other school districts as well. Not that many, but a few. Some of the smaller school districts may not have the funds to do it, or it may be more challenging.

[1630]

I'm wondering if the minister could share with me and share with us here what steps the ministry is taking to provide leadership for all school districts — whether it's the north, the Interior, the Lower Mainland, the Island — to provide leadership for those school districts so that they too will take a leading role in ensuring that they're explicit in standing up for their students, whether they be gay, straight, trans, bi, lesbian or from a different cultural background. What is the ministry doing to explicitly stand up for those students?

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

Hon. M. Stilwell: First of all, I want to concur with what you said about the importance of building not just a meaningfully inclusive school environment. The fact is that we do value education, not just as an economic tool but as a social tool. To create citizens in British Columbia who do have views of inclusiveness and act upon them is certainly a meaningful goal of education, and I totally concur with that.

The districts, as you know, are responsible for delivering programs — again, not just academic but around social responsibility, not just providing a public education. However, we have taken specific steps, such as developing curriculum for social justice 12, for example, which is available in some districts.

Although that's an example, I feel it's more meaningful and more sustained to do what we do on a broader level, and that is to attempt to and work continuously at improving embedding these concepts, in fact, through every course, through every day, through everything we do, including modelling for the students.

S. Herbert: Thank you to the minister. My final question is: how many districts are providing social justice 12?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Obviously, that number changes all the time, but we can get some historical data and send it to you.

V. Huntington: Delta South has, like so many of the other districts, gone through the pain recently of school closures, but one school in particular raised a number of questions from the parents and, I must say, in my own mind. It was specifically Delta Manor, in case the minister's staff wish to know.

In this particular case, enrolment had declined, and the school district had moved its resource development centre into the top floor of the school, which effectively cut in half the capacity, as we understand it, of the school.

When the disclosure consultations were going on, the parents tried unsuccessfully to convince the school board that if the capacity of the school had been reduced by 50 percent, then their — how would you say it? — calculations of capacity remaining should also have been lowered. But that was not the case, and they chose to close the school without reducing the expected capacities.

[1635]

I'm not stating the issue as a professional would, in the jargon of the school board, but I wondered if the ministry had any position on that. It didn't seem fair at the time, doesn't seem fair now, and it has really been difficult for the parents.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Again, it is a district responsibility to allocate the space and decide what to put into the space and also decide when to close schools. I think that's appropriate. Obviously, the districts and boards have unique knowledge about the area.

Without editorializing or being specific about that particular district, which I don't know, some school districts do put in administrative function — lease the space out — and use that money to try and offset other expenses, to keep the school from closure in the face of declining enrolment. Ultimately, this is a board decision.

V. Huntington: I think the disappointment in this case was that they didn't use the offset to prevent clos-
[ Page 2840 ]
ure; they closed it regardless, at least for students. I'm not quite sure whether it's remaining open for administrative purposes. It was just the issue of the calculation of capacity that concerned many of the parents.

I understand that as enrolment declines, the fixed operating costs become proportionately higher and that the minister provides funding supplements for the enrolment decline. But if I'm correct, in 2009-10 this supplement amounted to about $221,000, which doesn't cover the $1.4 million drop in enrolment funding overall. What does the ministry anticipate as the long-term effect that this will have on districts that have continued enrolment declines?

[1640]

Hon. M. Stilwell: Your question highlights something we have talked about throughout the day, and that is declining enrolments in a fixed operating cost kind of environment. That's why we have buffered the operating grants in two ways.

First of all, the declining enrolment supplement. Where schools have had more than 1 percent decline in a year, they receive that supplement. But also, we've protected every district, in that no district gets less than the year before due to a decline in enrolment — for the past three years.

So just as an example, in district 37, Delta, the enrolment in the past five years has gone down by 7.1 percent and the funding has gone up 14.2 percent. Even more striking, I think, is ten years — enrolment down almost 13 percent and the budget up almost 22 percent.

V. Huntington: This is where I tend to get confused. Is the budget increase due primarily to the covering of the costs for settling the labour contracts? If you remove….

Let me put it this way: how much does the funding increase for education represent the costs for covering the additional labour costs due to those negotiations? If you remove that labour-negotiated funding increase from the total funding, is there a net increase or decrease in the amount actually available for education?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Since 2006 the collective agreement has fully funded, with additional funding, the provisions in the agreements for teachers and the CUPE support workers. That was $550 million.

V. Huntington: Does that leave a net increase or a net decrease to the overall funding for education, if you remove that component from the increase in funding?

[1645]

Hon. M. Stilwell: Since 2001 we've increased the funding by $875 million. Over that time the enrolment declined by 60,000, and the per-pupil funding went from $6,200 to $8,323 per student.

V. Huntington: I'm sorry to belabour this. Really, what I'm trying to get at is this. Of the total increase in funding for education, how much of that is for rising labour costs — i.e., the negotiated settlements — and what is the net increase or decrease overall for funding of education? If you remove the labour component from the increase, how much is left for educational programming, etc.?

Hon. M. Stilwell: So 88 percent of the total block funding is related to salary expenditures, and out of the $550 million of additional funding that I referred to before, 100 percent of that was for collective agreement costs.

[1650]

V. Huntington: I'm not quite sure I'm going to get the answer I'm looking for, so perhaps I'll carry on. I have two more questions, and one is very short. A number of the funding components have been frozen for several years. Does the ministry take inflation into account when it's looking at funding increases?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Of the $875 million increase that we've put in, as I mentioned, salaries constitute a large part, and of course, salaries are part of the picture of inflation which are fully funded.

V. Huntington: I take that to mean, then, that the salaries are fully funded and that inflation is taken into account but not necessarily programs themselves. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

My final question relates to full-day kindergarten. The government has committed $151 million between 2010 and 2012 to the institution of full-day kindergarten in some capacities. I'd like to know if that full-day kindergarten funding comes from the educational program funding, and if so, how can you meet the commitment for full-day kindergarten when the educational program funding isn't anticipated to increase as much as the cost of the full-day kindergarten?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Again, fully 88 percent of program costs goes out in salaries, so we've given the $551 million…. We've given beyond that, to a total of $875 million. With respect to the full-day kindergarten, that program is fully funded with $151 million of new money.

J. Brar: I would like to ask a few questions about the Johnston Heights School in Surrey-Fleetwood. The windows, roof and skylights of the school have been leaking for almost the last six years. Before the election, funding was approved which was $3.5 million to fix the leaks.

Then funding was cancelled, and my understanding is that now funding has once again been approved, so I would like to ask: can the minister confirm that the
[ Page 2841 ]
about $4 million funding has been approved to fix the leaks at Johnston Heights School?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Yes, that is correct.

[1655]

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister. Just out of curiosity I would like to ask as to why there's a variation of about $500,000 this time, particularly when the contractors were ready to work or complete that work for $3.5 million, and now the minister has approved $4 million. So can the minister explain that?

Hon. M. Stilwell: It's related to a broader deflationary trend in the construction sector, and tenders are coming in lower.

J. Brar: Can the minister provide some specifics on that? It's just a bit surprising for me, though. I've met with those contractors. That funding was approved, and the work just started when the funding was cancelled. It is not a huge gap of time we're talking about. The funding has been restored just probably after a few months. So it's a bit hard for me to believe that, you know, the funding jumped for the same project from $3.5 million to $4 million, which is half a million dollars.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Likely that estimate was older, but nevertheless, the district is telling us that the project can be delivered and will be delivered for $3.5 million.

J. Brar: I'm a bit confused. I just want to ask clarification. I understood the minister saying that the district has said the project can be delivered for $3.5 million or $4 million?

Hon. M. Stilwell: My understanding is that the board has said that they can deliver the project for the approved budget.

J. Brar: I will take that as a confusion to me at this stage. There were two figures. One was $3.5 million, and the other one was $4 million. So at this point in time, my understanding is that the project cost is $4 million.

Based on that, the other question I want to ask is this. I've spoken to the contractors, and they were willing to proceed under the old contract, which was not very old, but the minister decided to retender everything.

[1700]

So can I ask: what was the cause to retender everything from scratch again for this project?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Without seeing the contract, we don't know the provisions for tendering or not re-tendering. The district would have to comply with whatever language was in the tendering documents.

J. Brar: My last question will be on that — if the minister can confirm that the money has actually been delivered to the district. Once again, I would like to say that my understanding is that the project cost is $3.5 million. If that's not correct, I would like to ask the minister to clarify that.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I can confirm that a letter has been sent saying that the project has been approved and that they can proceed.

M. Elmore: I have a few questions about all-day kindergarten that I'd like to ask.

I met with the Vancouver school board last week. They inform me that they are in a bit of a quandary, because the parents are now starting to register for kindergarten and also starting to go on wait-lists for child care for September, and they are not able to answer. They have requests coming in from parents who want to know which schools are going to be allocated with spaces for all-day kindergarten. The school board hasn't been advised where all of those spaces will be, so they're not sure what to tell parents.

I was just wondering if there are some directions about where the spaces will be — which schools?

Hon. M. Stilwell: As a working mom, I can certainly relate to the anxiety of wanting to know where you are going to put your children so that you can go to work.

[1705]

Traditionally, registration begins in January. The school districts have just submitted their proposals of which schools they would like to participate in the program. Those are being reviewed, and that information will be available shortly so that, indeed, registration can proceed in January.

M. Elmore: Can the minister explain? The representative from the Vancouver school board told me that they're not clear in terms of what the process is for selecting which schools will have those spaces, where the priority will be assessed and what the regulations or the requirements will be in terms of determining where the spaces will be — in which schools, in which areas and districts.

Hon. M. Stilwell: The school districts were asked to come back with, first of all, their priority schools. They chose the schools. They were asked to consider some obvious factors like space available — and as a subheading under space, not displacing a StrongStart program — and where they had personnel available. They were asked to consider socioeconomic factors as an indicator of vulnerability.

Just to remind the member opposite, this is the first year of a two-year full-implementation plan. We do
[ Page 2842 ]
hope that all the schools put forward will be able to participate as we go forward.

What we're really trying to do is get a sense of how many parents have children who are interested, and will we be subscribed or oversubscribed? Obviously, in two years everyone will have it.

M. Elmore: In terms of the implementation of the rollout of the all-day K, is there a central planning body coordinating that in terms of a plan to roll that out?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The early learning agency within the ministry is responsible and has received the plans. It is ensuring that the proposals align with the criteria that I just described to you and also ensuring that we understand how each district's plan will work and be implemented.

M. Elmore: I have one further question on the topic of Vancouver. They're adequate schools, so the issue of spaces is not a concern. The question is where those spaces will be. We'll wait to hear back in terms of those decisions that are made for January, for registration, so parents are able to register.

The question that was also raised for outlying districts was the concern about shortages of spaces. In Vancouver schools were not sold off and were not consolidated, so there is capacity, but in terms of some of the outlying rural districts, where schools were consolidated or sold off, there is a problem of shortage of spaces.

[1710]

I'm wondering if the minister can explain if there are additional funds that are going to be available for those spaces in those rural areas.

Hon. M. Stilwell: At the conclusion, if we can agree, perhaps a short break would be in line. Thanks.

We're working with all the districts to ascertain what their net space is. I will say that in general, the declining enrolment that we're seeing across the province is disproportionate in rural-remote. We expect there will be sufficient space. Obviously, existing space is our top priority, but we are prepared and we have made clear that we will add space where necessary.

On that note, Madam Chair, can I ask for a short break?

The Chair: Yes, you may indeed.

With agreement, we'll recess the committee for five minutes or so.

The committee recessed from 5:12 p.m. to 5:21 p.m.

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

J. Kwan: I have some questions related to the overall education budget cuts impacting inner-city schools — particularly, of course, the schools in my riding — and also impacts of the annual facilities grant. I'd like to just get the minister's comments on some of the community's views on this, and then I have some specific questions around seismic upgrading matters.

For Britannia Elementary School the funding and the impacts of the funding shortfall in the education system are significant. The maintenance budget, for example, impacting Britannia would mean that the school grounds early morning cleaning would be affected. Of course, in our community we have challenges with needles and scattered needles. It's absolutely essential for the safety of the children in the system that there's a sweep every morning to make sure there are no loose needles lying around.

Graffiti removal is also a challenge which we face. Of course, Britannia is a 50-year-old building, so there are lots of maintenance issues related to an old building. The grounds department's ability to install playground equipment is also a significant issue as well.

With that, in the education funding shortfall…. Also, for the parents, the 50 percent drop in the gaming grant for the PACs has severe implications for our school system.

I'd like to, first of all, ask the minister's comments about that. What can the minister do to ensure that the education system is funded adequately so that such issues impacting our schools could be addressed effectively?

[1725]

Hon. M. Stilwell: The government, as you know, has spent $875 million. It has increased the educational funding by $875 million in the past decade. We all know that there have been substantially difficult times, unprecedented in my lifetime, and the government made the priority, committed to the priority and has acted on the priority of not just protecting education but, in fact, has increased the operational block by $84 million.

With respect to the deferred maintenance, I do appreciate the importance of maintaining assets and the ambience at a school, and I don't intend to diminish things like spending money to alleviate graffiti. However, the choice we made was to commit to not just maintaining but increasing block funding so that money could be spent on the classrooms and the primary function of teaching and education.

More specifically around the deferred maintenance, the AFG grants…. As you know, the system had a full $98 million in reserve in the system, and we did ask this year for the districts to draw down on those reserves. At the same time, in consideration of safety concerns and other concerns like that, some districts, including the Vancouver district, were given permission to spend money, and the Vancouver district did receive permission or release of $5.5 million towards that.
[ Page 2843 ]

J. Kwan: You know, if you want to get into the numbers game, I guess we could. The reality is this: in spite of what the government's spin is around education funding, it has not kept pace with actual costs. I could list for the minister some of the areas where the government did not provide the actual cost to school boards to ensure that they have the funding in place so that the educational programs in the classrooms are not impacted.

Funding to support the collective agreement has not been fully funded by the government. Increased costs like the MSP premium have not been funded by the government in this budget. HST is another area — which, of course, I know the minister knows — where there will be a $24 million impact for school boards.

I could go on with a long list, but I don't really wish to do that today, and I don't want to sort of engage in a spin discussion here. But I do want to highlight for the minister's information, though, the real impacts of the lack of funding and the funding shortfall that is now happening in our school system.

While yes, graffiti, I guess, is an ambience question, needles are not. It's a safety question. For a 50-year-old building there are a lot of maintenance issues that impact directly both the staff and the children and the students in the classroom.

I'll just give you another example. The school board of Vancouver lost $12 million from the maintenance budget. It impacts real things — such as, as I mentioned, the needle-condom patrol that happens at 7:30 in the morning — for the kids and the staff. There are issues related to their ability. They were hoping to actually put up a gate to block off the stairwell where people actually sleep in the stairwell, which could create a safety problem for both the students and the staff. That has now been eliminated because they could not afford the $3,000 to proceed with the program.

And by the by, I should also say that the staff in and around the school are noticing the rate of homelessness and the increase of homeless people in our streets that are living and sleeping in their cars in and around the streets in our community. This has a direct impact on our school system as well.

The playground, by the way, in Britannia has been condemned. Let me just repeat that. The playground at Britannia has been condemned. The local parents have obstacles to sustain the ability to fundraise for them to get a new playground.

[1730]

The playground funding, of course, has now dried up. There is no new playground money for the school. We have a school with a playground that is condemned right now, today, in our community. The principals cannot even figure out what to do or be certain how to put in an application for the playground grant going forward with this situation and with the PAC funding being cut.

These are inner-city parents who have many challenges and struggles in their day-to-day life. Some of them are very low income, in poverty, who are just struggling, trying to survive on a day-by-day basis. Those are the realities that they have. Then at the same time the school also has supply funding issues. While they have some private sector funding such as Telus that provides for 75 kids by way of supply, it's still far short of what the school needs and the demands that are there for the school.

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

These are the real implications of whatever spin the government wants to say about the education funding and the impacts in our education system.

In terms of the cutback in sports, Britannia has a reputation for its athletic program, and they rely on the goodwill and the volunteers in and around our community — the coaches and the sponsors. The senior boys' basketball team made the provincial playoff in Kamloops for the past two years.

That funding that the PAC received provided for travel, accommodation, food, entrance fees, which add up to be a lot of money, and when it is cut by 50 percent — which I recognize is not this minister's responsibility; it's the minister responsible for gaming — it impacts the school and the children and the students there. It's significant. It may well mean that these students who worked hard on their athletic teams in the school system may not be able to participate in the system.

Those in the inner-city school system are unlike those of other schools, who may well have athletic activities, sports activities elsewhere through different clubs, and so on. But for many of these kids, this is their only vehicle. It means something in terms of their physical development as well as their mental development, and so on.

I want to ask the minister this question again. I hope that she can tell me that she understands these issues and that she would be the advocate at the cabinet table and say to her colleagues that these are real implications for real people on the ground, that it is time for the government to do the right thing and the financially sound thing — to invest in our education system — because when we invest in young people today, it is better for all of us tomorrow, socially and economically.

[1735]

Hon. M. Stilwell: I want to start by saying categorically that this government has committed to not just preserving but increasing funding to the priorities of health and education, which we agree are priorities. Education, advanced education and health have received increased funding against the backdrop of the worst recession in 80 years and, unexpectedly, significantly declined revenues.
[ Page 2844 ]

However, we are aware of the pressures within the school system. As I said, we did give districts access to capital reserve money to ensure that services like the needle patrol that you're talking about are delivered. I also want to say that as a mother and a physician obviously I recognize the danger of needles and condoms on the school ground.

The school boards are responsible for prioritizing what they spend the funds that they get on, funds that were increased this year. My expectation as a mother is that they would fund anything that relates to the safety of students, which is paramount to all of us.

With respect to wages, I also want to emphasize that, in fact, the collective agreement was funded fully, to the tune of $551 million, and the total increase in funding over ten years was $875 million. Not only are the wages fully funded, which accounts for 88 percent of the budget, but over and above that, there are funds for the rest of the education program within that envelope.

J. Kwan: I think that the minister and I would have to agree to disagree on the fact that the government funding for education is insufficient. In fact, there is a huge funding shortfall in the education system. The government can spin all they want about the per-pupil funding and so on, but the reality is that the funding is not keeping pace with the actual cost in the education system.

Talk to any school trustee, and they'll tell you that. I talk to my school trustees in the city of Vancouver regularly, and they tell me that on a continual basis. This is not just from one political spectrum, in terms of the school trustees from Vancouver. Across the political party spectrum they say that. So I want to say that very clearly. I know that time is short, and I can engage in a full debate with the minister about the specifics of that, but I won't at this time.

I also want to just highlight for the minister as well, in terms of the issues that we face in the inner-city school, the Vancouver Inner City Education Society had written a submission to the trustees of Vancouver. I think that this is valuable information for the minister to understand so that she gets a full sense of the differences in the different demands in inner-city schools versus that of the non-inner-city school situation.

They write, and they give an example about a non-inner-city child. This would be an example that they would highlight: "Went to day care, preschool, summer camp; was involved in one or more community sport and cultural activity; has immediate and extended family support; attended the same school as their siblings; moved to a maximum of two elementary schools in their educational career; has food, shelter and safety assured on a daily basis."

Inner-city school child: "Was born in prison; did not attend any preschool, camp or early literacy programs; was sexually abused at age three; witnessed murder at age five; lived with crack-addicted parents through to age seven; has been enrolled in four schools and one special program for violent behaviour upon entering grade 3 in Vancouver; has no assurances of food, shelter or personal safety."

While these are extreme examples, they do illustrate the disparity between one more child enrolling in an inner-city school versus that of the non-inner-city school. This is not meant, I want to say very clearly, to pit one community versus another but rather to highlight the differences and the challenges which inner-city schools face.

[1740]

To that end, what are they asking for? They're asking for "an increase in dedicated school psychologist testing time available for inner-city school kids, as the more expediently a student's needs can be identified, the more efficiently a student's individual program can be developed and commenced, which significantly increases his or her chance of success."

They also request "the amount of area counsellor time be increased in all inner-city project schools to a minimum…allotment of 0.5 FTEs to increase the level of support for children and families facing ever more complex challenges." They are also requesting an increase in counselling time in secondary schools.

I wanted to highlight this for the minister's consideration as the budget time rolls around for next year for education. Hopefully, we will find a voice somewhere at the cabinet table to advocate for children in our education system and not just the spinning that the government puts out from the public affairs bureau.

I want to move on very quickly to ask some quick questions about a seismic situation. My understanding is that there are four schools that are receiving consulting services. This would be for Queen Mary and Strathcona elementary school — which by the way, is a school in my riding — General Gordon School and Kitsilano high school. The consulting group is called My Space.

Could the minister please advise what consulting work My Space is providing to these schools in the area of seismic upgrade? I understand that this is paid for by the ministry. How much are they being paid, and what are they asked to do?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I want to start by just addressing your preamble to the question, if I may. First of all, I want to make it clear that we are committed to making sure that every British Columbian student gets the best education possible. We are cognizant, like you, first of all, of the importance of socioeconomic factors. The fact is that the treatment for the problem is a healthy economy, jobs for parents and allowing the parents to have a life that allows them to participate fully in community as parents with their children.

Our commitment is evidenced by action and funding directed to it. The StrongStart centres are outstanding.
[ Page 2845 ]
These are fundamental to a healthy early child development. Providing these programs to children and their caregivers provides a group of parents, who I think you are talking about, who can use that kind of support to develop the parenting skills that will allow them to participate in their child's growth and development and education. We know that's a key, key factor. So that's number one.

The CommunityLINK program, again, recognizes that vulnerable students have special issues that need assistance to make sure that they can take advantage of the learning opportunities in schools, and we are committed to that. The Ready, Set, Learn program is another example.

Family literacy programs — fundamental to students being able to participate with their parents at home where we know, in fact, that those mentoring roles and encouraging roles are key, key, key to students succeeding in their school environment. Finally, full-day kindergarten — fully funded, all students within two years, $151 million of new money.

In all, I think that these things speak volumes to our commitment to every young British Columbian.

[1745]

J. Kwan: I know that the minister actually didn't answer my questions. Is the answer that the minister has not provided today something, then, she could have her staff provide to me in writing at a later time? These are the contracts specifically with My Space related to the seismic upgrading for the four schools that I had mentioned. How much are the contracts, when were they let and what are they doing with that contract?

I'd be very interested in knowing. I'd be happy to receive that information at a later date if the minister does not have that information at her fingertips at the moment.

Hon. M. Stilwell: My understanding is with respect to the four schools that you named, General Gordon, Lord Strathcona and Queen Mary…. Besides seismic upgrades, they also are neighbourhood learning centre pilots. Consultants have been engaged to help those three schools — first of all develop the program and manage the projects. With respect to Kitsilano, again, another consulting firm has been engaged to help develop that pilot.

J. Kwan: Can I get the information from the minister at a later date, the specific information about how much each contract was for and exactly what it is that they have been hired to do in a detailed format? And maybe perhaps the contract itself would be useful for my understanding. Can I get that commitment from the minister, please?

Hon. M. Stilwell: We can get you the information. The contracts themselves are held by the districts.

D. Black: It's a pleasure once again to stand across from the minister, who is doing double duty for her government. I'm pleased to be here and ask some questions about my district of New Westminster, which is a smaller district in the province and faces some unique challenges. Just as my colleague mentioned earlier about Vancouver, New Westminster also faces unique challenges because of its geographic land space and some other challenges that we face in New Westminster.

The cuts that have come to education have a very negative impact, but it's not just the cuts. We have seen cuts in New Westminster to three programs — the loss of the annual facilities grant for New Westminster alone, which, as I said earlier, is a small district with a smaller budget. It means a $1.1 million cut to our annual facilities grants.

The other cuts that have come in — actually with no notice and quite a shock to elected school trustees who try to manage with long-term planning…. Then when these cuts come, it is a real shock to them, and they have to adjust all of their funding.

The other cut, of course, is the cut to B.C. School Sports, which will have a negative impact on the students at New Westminster senior secondary, at Queensborough school and at Glenbrook school. Then, of course, there's the cut to the PAC funding, which will impact on all the student bodies in New Westminster.

But besides just the actual cuts to funding from the government, what we've also seen is a downloading onto school boards for outgoing costs that are mandated by the government. In fact, the wage increments for teachers…. They're legislated, but they have not been properly funded. We've seen the impact when the government chose to increase the MSP premiums — the Medical Services Plan's premiums. This will have, again on New Westminster, a small school district, an impact of $45,000 a year.

[1750]

The impact of the HST that the government brought in after the last election. After promising they wouldn't do that, as a matter of fact, they did it. The HST will have an impact of $240,000 to $250,000 a year in increased costs — again, to a small board like New Westminster.

There's also the climate action initiative. The impact on New Westminster for the climate action initiative will probably be in the range of $100,000 a year. So again, we're not just seeing cuts to funding for school programs. What we're seeing is downloading of costs and legislated costs that the government is not assisting the school district with.

I just wanted to give one example of what some of these cuts mean. In New Westminster in September — in fact, I think it was on September 22…. Because they had to lay off a custodian, there was a very unfortunate incident that happened at F.W. Howay school, where a young student — this is an elementary school in New Westminster — was ill and vomited.
[ Page 2846 ]

There was no custodian on staff. There had been in previous years a custodian at the school who came at 10 a.m. every day. There was no one there to help clean up, and they had to shut the bathroom down, lock it down. There was a lot of concern by parents around, of course, the talk then about H1N1 — and this child was sick — and the health implications of not having staff on hand who could help to clean this up.

Now the district, in an attempt to deal with the shortages of support staff and custodial staff, had put together what they called a fly crew, which the district could call upon in an emergency when there was no custodian on staff. Unfortunately, on that day the fly crew wasn't available to come, so it really meant that the school was in an unsafe and unclean condition for a full day.

I would like to ask the minister: do parents in British Columbia and parents in my community of New Westminster not have a right to expect that their schools will be clean and that their children will be in a safe and healthy and clean environment for the day when they're sent to school?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Certainly, as a mom and a concerned parent I can understand that parents would be upset at hearing the story that came home from school. I am relieved that on that day the people at the school did exactly the right thing in the face of handling body fluids and shut the washroom down. I do also understand that there were extenuating circumstances that particular day with janitorial staff being ill and so on.

The school boards do have the responsibility to provide a safe and healthy environment for all students. Our expectation is that they do, and in my experience they do work to the highest and best purposes of the students to, in fact, do that.

[1755]

D. Black: Well, I agree that the school boards have that responsibility, Minister, but I would also say that the B.C. government has a responsibility to ensure that school districts have the funding in place to allow them to do what they want to do and what they are elected to do. That is to provide safe schools for our children and to provide the kind of education that parents have a right to expect for their children.

The other issue that I wanted to ask the minister about today is the long-awaited new high school in New Westminster. This has gone on for a long, long time. The high school in New Westminster was built in 1948. As I mentioned earlier, there are a number of significant challenges in New Westminster because it is the oldest city not just in the province, but in western Canada. That results in some particular challenges in our community.

One of them is that the site where the high school is now is built on a graveyard, a cemetery. The nature of the city is that it's a compact space, and there's not a lot of land available. So the challenge for the board and for the community is in building a new high school on a site…. Where the high school sits now you cannot build on because of the graveyard.

There are two other community features on that site. One is Massey Theatre, which has been in place there for 60 years and was part of an initiative across Canada, I think, highlighted by a past Governor General to ensure that there was an opportunity for arts to work as part of a unification of Canada. So we have Massey Theatre on the site. We have the old high school on the site, which is in deplorable condition, and I would invite the minister to come and see just how deplorable it is. I really believe that there are some real safety issues there as well.

Then we also have on the site Mercer Stadium, which is the stadium that the school uses and that community organizations use. The other complication is that the city owns some of the land and the school board owns some of the land. So it has been very challenging not just for the school board but for the city and for community organizations to come up with a plan that meets the needs of all of the community in building the new high school.

City council passed a resolution recently asking that the Minister of Education meet with the two locally elected boards, the city council and the school board, to discuss the challenges that they're facing and also to perhaps ask the government, ask the minister, if they would consider that it's not just New Westminster Secondary School that needs to be replaced.

There are two other schools being built in New Westminster, one on the site of the old St. Mary's Hospital, which will be an elementary school, and one at the John Robson site where there is a school presently, which will be a middle school. But my understanding is that the three schools are presented to the school board as a package and that all the ducks have to be lined up in a row for one to go ahead.

So what the city council is asking is: would the minister meet with them and with the school board to discuss the challenges they're facing at the site of the New Westminster senior secondary?

Would they consider decoupling, if you like, allowing the middle school and the elementary school to go ahead while the city works together to work out the obvious challenges around building on a site that has a graveyard, that has two other facilities on it that the community would like to be able to maintain, but knowing that they need very badly a new high school in New Westminster? Would the minister consider that?

[1800]

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. M. Stilwell: Through to the member: it's nice to see you again.
[ Page 2847 ]

There are three points. I want to go back to your first question and highlight — I think that you have been here when we have been talking about it — that we have a trend of declining enrolment in the face of what I think has been a true commitment to education, and that is increasing budgets.

When I look at the school district of New Westminster, in five years the enrolment has decreased by 3.6 percent; the budget went up approximately 20 percent. More impressively, in ten years the enrolment overall went up 10 percent, but the budget went up by 50 percent. Again, I think those are pretty impressive numbers against a trend of broadly declining enrolment.

I want to speak to the issue of safety, because I think it's important. As a mother I certainly understand that we want our children to be the best educated. But the truth is that when you send your child to school every morning, your fundamental concern is that they will be safe. It is of paramount concern. Where schools or school districts have issues that they think are related to safety, we are committed to trying to work with them to find a solution that keeps the children safe. I want to make that clear.

With respect to the new high school, three new schools, ministry officials have met with city officials and school district officials and are aware of the constellation of factors that you've described. In terms of your question, I am happy to meet with anyone to hear about whatever situation is in your school district that they want to make the government aware of. I'm happy to learn more about what sounds like a slightly complicated situation but, I'm sure, solvable.

D. Routley: We are elected to represent the views of those who elect us. My experience is as a school trustee. All of my family are teachers. This has been a decade of cuts and diminished services. There's no way that any spin can be put on the situation other than that programs have been cut, services for children have been cut.

I don't care, in the end, if the minister wants to stand up and say that more money has been added. More costs have been added, and the net result has been a challenge to school districts that they have been unable to meet without making cuts to services for children — bottom line.

Now, some of these views…. The parents of South Wellington Elementary School want to formally state their absolute horror with the underfunding and drastic cuts to public funding and public education in B.C.

That's the kind of language, and it comes from the fact that the government, on the one hand, legislates class size and composition, and then in Cowichan school district we see, in our seven secondary and middle schools, 39 classes with more than 30 students, 216 classes with more than three students with special ed codes. There are 21 elementary classes with more than three.

The MSP premium increase is costing our district $42,000 in 2010-2011 and $21,000 this year, and $62,856 was the cost of not living up to the holdback, providing the holdback. The carbon tax will cost our district $31,500. These are the reasons that districts aren't able to meet the demands and meet the needs of students.

I wish that the minister and the government would accept the responsibility that, in fact, their funding formula is not providing the services necessary. We see it throughout the province. Can the minister acknowledge that, whether they say the per-student funding has increased or not, school districts cannot meet the demand?

[1805]

Hon. M. Stilwell: You want to compare family trees. My mother was a teacher her whole life — math and physics. She dragged me through math and physics, so I want to go on record as thanking her. I probably never did. My father was a lawyer but taught. My husband supported himself from the age of 14 by tutoring math. It didn't wear off on my children, regrettably. I have been an educator teaching adults — not a good one, but I have been — so I've learned from that.

I want to say some things that I think need to be said in response. First of all, we have one of the best education systems in the world. International testing repeatedly reveals that our students are learning and are being prepared for the future. Not to rest on our laurels, we want every student to have the best education possible, and we work continuously to improve the system.

I want to speak to the addition of full-day kindergarten. I think it's important. I think it's an achievement. I think it will directly contribute to the health, well-being and education of students in this province, and that is a substantial achievement — 151 million new dollars.

I also want to reiterate that education spending has gone up every year for eight years. With respect to your comments about class size, the truth is that the educator-student ratio has never been lower in British Columbia.

D. Routley: Again, we have another minister who's prepared to stand up and defend this record and use whatever spin necessary. But the facts are the facts. The districts throughout the province are facing shortfalls.

In Cowichan district it was $15 million this year. That's the shortfall between providing the programs that they provided before and the funding they received; $15 million was the shortfall the board reported.

I'm going to invite the minister, as I've invited other Ministers of Education, to manage my daughter's allowance — my daughter Madeline, $25 a week. The minister can….

Hon. M. Stilwell: How old is she?
[ Page 2848 ]

D. Routley: She's 13, just turning 14.

The minister can tell Madeline that she'll increase her allowance to $40 a week and tell her that it's the most allowance she's ever had per child. Then she can download her mom the teacher's salary increase, MSP premium increases — on and on and on, the challenges that have been added by this government to boards.

When she comes to me at the end of the week and says, "Dad, I don't have money to pay these things," I can simply send her to the minister, who can say: "No, Madeline. In fact, you have more funding per child than you've ever had before."

I think it would be an honour to the children of the province and the future of the province if we could dispense with the defensive sidestepping of reality. The facts are the facts. Boards are cutting programs. The experience of school is being diminished, from band to sports to transportation, field trips, the cleanliness of schools — on and on and on.

It's true what the minister says. We have a world-class system of education in B.C., but we are giving away our advantage. That is our competitive advantage in this world. Death by a thousand cuts — the minister's government is familiar with that term. That is the trading off of our advantage.

I wish the minister would just simply acknowledge…. I think British Columbians would respect her if she would acknowledge: "Look, districts can't meet the demands of providing the programs they've provided in the past. We have to face this, and we as a province need to work together to remedy that."

[1810]

The minister — I wish she'd acknowledge that the districts can't meet the demand. What will she do to work with them to make that better?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The fact is that students have never been better prepared by the education system in B.C. than they are today. They've never had more choices in education and programs. We continue to be one of the highest-performing systems in the world.

I do recognize that we are in challenging financial times — as I said, unprecedented in my lifetime. I think it is only fair to recognize that boards are asked to make important choices. They can be difficult choices, but I want to say that the results indicate that on the whole, they are doing a good job. I give them kudos for being credible partners with us in our commitment to making sure that every student in British Columbia receives the best education possible.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister, for filling in. If you were a teacher, you'd be a TOC, but I guess you're an MOC — minister on call. I'm a teacher. I taught for 28 years — math, special ed — and ran alternate programs.

I'm glad you talked about parents concerned about their child being safe at school, because I want to get into something that you may not know about. The staff was there, with school district 49 in Bella Coola, with Sir Alexander Mackenzie School. What's happened with that school being built on an underground creek is that it has caused the buckling of the floor of the gym and lots of health concerns for students, staff and the community.

I've been there quite a few times. I have pictures. The staff were there. The minister's staff were there about two or three weeks ago. There's a real concern. For the community, it's the only facility they have in the whole Bella Coola Valley. They're known for their sports and their sports teams. The pool recently has been affected with flooding, and now the outdoor pool is not in use for their spring and summer activities. It's devastating to the community.

[1815]

I'm just wondering what the update is. The staff has been there. It's a high priority not only for the school district and the trustees and teachers but for the whole community. It's vital.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Ministry staff have met with the superintendents and trustees as of last week, as you say, to assess the situation. Certainly, there is clear recognition of the issue and interest in seeing this resolved as soon as possible. I can't give you something more definite than that, but we certainly recognize the issue and want to work to that as soon as possible.

G. Coons: The second thing — and you brought it up again — is the all-day kindergarten. Research identifies variables that have guaranteed success in other jurisdictions: a high-quality program, pre-implementation, professional development for teachers, adequate resources and facilities, and mandated links to other community initiatives for young families.

I realize that by December the ministry is looking for those schools where the all-day kindergartens will perhaps start — looking at the most vulnerable districts in the province with facilities.

I know that the minister and her staff realize that Prince Rupert — as far as the EDI and vulnerability for students going into kindergarten and as far as physical health and well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive development, communication skills — has the highest proportion of vulnerable children compared to any other school district in the province.

I would hope that as the minister and the staff make their decisions about all-day K, they not only go to the districts that are the most vulnerable…. I guess another factor is having facilities. But again, just because there's a problem with facilities, that should not hinder the most vulnerable districts in the province. I'm just wondering
[ Page 2849 ]
if the minister will counteract and help those districts that may not have the resources and facilities, if there's any extra funding for that.

Hon. M. Stilwell: First of all, I mean, it's obvious that we see eye to eye about the importance of early childhood education and ensuring success for students in British Columbia. In fact, programs like the StrongStart centre and family literacy programs are, as you say, programs that can be linked directly to and launch off full-day kindergarten.

As I mentioned earlier, as well, the schools have submitted their chosen priority schools for the initial implementation. The criteria included, as you said, space. Although as I've also said earlier today, space is not a deal-breaker. We have indicated that where there is no space, we will provide space.

[1820]

Secondly, one of the other criteria is that we don't want to displace StrongStart centres in terms of utilization of space, recognizing that putting those two together gives you compounding of effective leverage of those kinds of programs.

Finally, to just remind you that the proposals for which schools will start the implementation and rollout of full-day kindergarten will be assessed, but over two years every school will have a full-day kindergarten program.

C. Trevena: I'd like to pick up on my colleague's questions about all-day kindergarten and the minister's answer, saying that all schools will have all-day kindergarten within two years. I know that school district 85 is very eager and, like my colleague on the North Coast said, has a high level of vulnerability and a lot of space. He's very eager to have all-day kindergarten. School district 72 is a much larger district, and their concern is that they still don't know what is happening. They say it's like a guessing game.

If the minister could give any indication of how this is going to roll out for these two districts, I would appreciate that.

Hon. M. Stilwell: As we did discuss earlier, traditionally registration is in January. First of all, I want to empathize with parents who are anxious to know whether there will be a spot, so traditionally it's January.

The proposals have come in from the districts. The districts were asked to prioritize the locations that they felt would be best suited to starting in September. There were criteria, including space, EDI personnel available, not displacing StrongStart centres, and so on. The early learning agency, which is within the ministry, has the responsibility of assessing the proposals in terms of how they meet those criteria, keeping in mind, as I said, that the school districts indicated their priorities.

We expect that that will be done in the very near future and that the schools districts will receive the information in time for registration in January.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that. I am mindful of the time and of other colleagues who want to ask questions. I have one other question.

It's from both parent advisory committees and from district parent advisory committees, who are essentially very concerned about the cuts that have come down to them. If I might just read from the district parent advisory committee from school district 72, which is Campbell River, Sayward, and Quadra, Cortes and Read islands. The president is talking about the Learning Roundtable as an opportunity for parents to speak directly to the ministry and partner groups about public education.

"The ministry also funded the SPLSS program to help districts in having parent representatives able to speak at a provincial level to their district issues, as well as able to support parents within their own district.

"We took this as a recognition of our value as a partner group in the education system and now wonder if the partnership is still valued. All research indicates student success is linked to parental involvement. Therefore, it seems a contradiction to reduce funds to parents who work tirelessly as volunteers to enhance public education.

"As parents we thought that we were part of the learning community; however, a lack of respectful communication regarding these funding cuts seems to disrespect our position as partners in education.

"We are volunteers in this system. Our only mandate is to make education better for all students across the province the best way we can. We strongly encourage you to reconsider your position on the funding cuts to parent organizations before the damage is irreversible."

While I understand that the minister is the acting minister…. Again, I know that this is the voice of many parents in school districts in my community and in other communities. I wonder if the minister has some response for them.

[1825]

Hon. M. Stilwell: I do want to respond and say that of course parental involvement is paramount to this government, and we cannot overestimate the importance of parental involvement. In fact, it's considered to be the single most important factor in a child's success in education.

With respect to the actual funding of PACs and DPACS, these are not funded by the Ministry of Education. They're funded by gaming revenues, and that issue was canvassed in estimates through the Ministry of Housing and Social Development.

J. Horgan: It's a delight to be participating in the budget estimates for the Ministry of Education. I have just a few questions to the acting minister, and I appreciate her time this afternoon.
[ Page 2850 ]

It's a capital question, and I've given notice to staff with respect to the Belmont replacement project in my constituency. It's school district 62. I've met with the minister and discussed this with her. I met with the previous minister. Our board has been in. The mayors of Langford, Colwood and Metchosin have all been in twice to make the pitch that in a fast-growing region west of Victoria with an increasing population….

Again, I've heard the minister talk throughout the day about the declining student population. Not the case in our community. We have a 50-year-old building that needs to be replaced. I'm wondering if the minister would tell me when we can expect the shovels to hit the ground — February or March?

Hon. M. Stilwell: As you mentioned, the minister and ministry staff have met with city officials and district school officials as well as politicians. It's unanimous that this is a good project, and it is a priority. Kudos are delivered for the quality of the business plan. As I said, all of those factors go to making this a high priority. As we develop the budget going forward, this will be a high priority for consideration.

J. Horgan: I know well that the staff have been over this. I've gone over it with them. Others have gone over it with them. But I do understand that there are facility audits done annually to prioritize projects. I'm wondering if the minister could advise us at what point we will know where Belmont rests in the facilities audit and how it would compare to other schools that have been approved in the capital region and that may not have been as high up that list.

[1830]

Hon. M. Stilwell: I'm sure the member can appreciate that in a province with 1,600 schools, there are certainly facilities that are strong competitors to be replaced. However, I want to emphasize that the Belmont proposal has a number of strengths. First of all, the business plan, which I've indicated was very strong; the value of the existing site; the growth in the student population that you've highlighted, which is a counter-trend; and the condition of the Belmont school. Those factors certainly make it a high priority.

A. Dix: The minister will know that Carleton Elementary School is a school in Vancouver and, as a Vancouver resident, will know that it's situated at Joyce and Kingsway in Vancouver. It's a remarkable school where they do remarkable things, as they do in many public schools in British Columbia.

The school consists essentially consists of four school buildings, one of which is the oldest school building in Vancouver. It was built in 1896, and it's where the kindergarten took place prior to March 2008. In March 2008 vandals damaged the roof of the building, burned the roof of the building.

What's happened since is there's been some removal of material from the building, but other than that, the building has been left with a tarp on it since March 2008.

Now, as the minister will know, when this kind of damage is done, the government is in effect self-insured. The government initially took the position that they were going to fix the roof. It was going to be done, and it would be done even in advance of the beginning of the next school year.

That changed at some point. The rationale used for the change by the government is that in the family of schools around it, the neighbourhood of schools around it, there was sufficient capacity that they didn't have to fix this historic building that had a real impact on the community. Needless to say, I disagree with that decision, but there have been discussions subsequently about the use of that school building and the need to fix it.

I just want to say to the minister, about the building…. The minister's office and the ministry would have received, in April of 2009 — this year — a wide array of letters. I received some similar letters from students at the school, grades 4, 5 and 6 students who got active and talked about what the school building meant to them. They'd all gone to kindergarten in the building, and it had an extraordinary meaning.

In addition, I'd say that in April 2009 the school also faced a tragedy that I think is fairly unusual in British Columbia. A man was discovered to be murdered on the school site, by parents and teachers arriving in the morning at the school. The school has had a difficult year, and the whole school community has got mobilized around this project.

What those students said, I think, is that it's important. It's important that when something gets damaged, it gets fixed. It's important that vandals don't win when they try and take something away that's really important to a school community. That's the kind of message that came from those letters.

I know the ministry and the minister's office and those that would have received those letters would have been as moved as I was. I don't think, in my time as an MLA, I have read such compelling messages from young people about what their school meant to them, what this building meant to them and what it had meant to their development.

It's a school that's had, as I say, a tough year. Since then there have been some discussions, as I understand it, between the ministry and the school board about alternate uses of some of the buildings in order to meet the ministry's test. It may be, I believe, that ministry officials will know about this school, because this has been a fairly high-profile matter.

[1835]

I wonder if the minister can tell us the state of those and whether she could, in her own way, respond to those
[ Page 2851 ]
students who really in a compelling way made the case that this heritage school has significance to everyone in Vancouver. It was built at a time when the neighbourhood that it's in now was just starting. In effect, it created the neighbourhood because the school brought people to the neighbourhood in Vancouver. It means so much to the students of the school there.

If the Minister of Education, who I know would have been similarly moved as I am by those letters, could respond and give us an update as to where that project is.

Hon. M. Stilwell: First, I want to honour and acknowledge the sensitivity and resilience of the students at the school. It sounds like they showed a maturity and understanding beyond their years. I also want to acknowledge that this is the oldest building in Vancouver and a heritage building. So we have asked the board to make proposals or begin a discussion about how the building can be used, and my understanding is that we have not yet received those proposals back.

A. Dix: I'm surprised at that. Does the minister not agree with me, though? I mean, it was used up to present as a kindergarten. I do find it strange that the ministry took the decision not to rebuild the school, which ordinarily would be its obligation and something it has done in other cases. Why, given the centrality and importance of the school…? Whether the ministry would also consider taking another look.

The most useful purpose for the building remains its initial purpose. It was a kindergarten. I happen to live in the neighbourhood, just down the hill near the SkyTrain station, although there's one other school that I'm closer to. But you know, this is what the school has been used for, for a long time.

This damage was done by vandals. You know, we talk about broken-windows theory all the time. But I guess my appeal to the minister and to the ministry is to reconsider it in light of what it symbolizes — a school that has real meaning in the community sitting there rotting day after day after day because it's harder and harder and harder to fix the school.

It was March 2008 when it was damaged, and we're in November 2009. There's a piece of tarp on the roof. That's the situation in the school. It's not a situation that is static. It's a situation where this important school building is deteriorating. So I want to ask the minister, as the students did, to take that in mind and for the ministry to reconsider its decision not to rebuild the school as they have in many other cases.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I want to reiterate or confirm that the value of the building to the community is not in dispute. Clearly, it is valuable to the community; it's valuable to Vancouver's heritage. I don't think there's any dispute about that. The ongoing purpose of the building has not yet been determined. The school district has not made that determination, but we will commit to follow up with the district.

[1840]

R. Austin: One final question. Of the $151 million that's being allocated in the next two years towards the implementation of all-day kindergarten, how much of that has been allocated to the independent schools to set up kindergarten programs?

Hon. M. Stilwell: A hundred percent of the $151 million is for public facilities.

Vote 23: ministry operations, $5,042,558,000 — approved.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Education and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:41 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175