2011 Legislative Session: Fourth 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)

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Morning Sitting

Volume 36, Number 3

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2012

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. Yap: In this House we will do second reading of Bill 36, intituled School Amendment Act, 2012. In the little House the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations will continue.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 36 — SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. G. Abbott: I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 36. Bill 36 makes amendments to the School Act that will advance the objectives of B.C.'s education plan by increasing flexibility and choice in our public school system.

[D. Black in the chair.]

The changes fall into three categories: school calendar, distributed learning and International Baccalaureate programs. I'm going to spend a few minutes to provide background on why we think these changes are needed and explain how Bill 36 supports B.C.'s education plan.

First, with respect to school calendars, the School Act currently requires cabinet to set the standard school calendar. The standard school calendar is a traditional school calendar in which school begins around the beginning of September and runs through the end of June. It includes dates for the winter vacation period and for a one-week break in March.

The School Act doesn't require boards to use the standard calendar. It permits boards to set local school calendars for some or all of their schools. Many districts use the local school calendar option to extend the spring break from one week to two weeks.

The fact that boards can already set school calendars raises the question of why we felt it necessary to eliminate the standard school calendar. Over the past couple of years ministry staff have spent a lot of time talking to districts about how we can support them to deliver more flexible and personalized learning that meets the needs of their students.

One of the issues that districts identified was the existence of a standard school calendar, which creates a norm or a presumption of what a calendar should look like and is therefore a barrier to the kind of creative and innovative scheduling that is in the best interests of their students.

[1005]

We think that government should support rather than be a barrier to this kind of innovation, so we are eliminating the standard school calendar to help open up the conversation about what a school calendar could and should look like.

Some boards may choose to set calendars that look very much like the standard school calendar looks today. Others may move to year-round calendars for some or all of their schools. There are many possibilities, but all boards will have a conversation with their school communities about what kind of calendar best meets the needs of their students.

People naturally have a lot of questions about changes to the school calendar because it has a big impact on how they organize their family lives. For example, I've heard questions about predictability, such as how parents will be able to plan for professional development days. The answer is that just as they do now, each board will make its calendar public by the end of May for the next school year.

I've also heard questions about accountability and whether there will be any minimum number of instructional hours that boards must provide. The answer is that under the current school calendar regime, boards will be required to offer a minimum number of hours to students each year. Under Bill 36 the ministry will review board school calendars to ensure that they do provide for at least that minimum number of hours.

Bill 36 school calendar amendments can best be characterized as getting cabinet out of the business of setting school calendars and giving locally elected boards of education the responsibility to set school calendars that meet the needs of students and families in their districts. The amendments encourage innovation and support district efforts to provide more flexible and effective educational programs.

The bill also addresses the issue of distributed learning. It includes an amendment that will provide more flexible learning opportunities for kindergarten-to-grade-9 students by enabling them to enrol in both a bricks-and-mortar and a distributed-learning program.

Distributed learning is the School Act's term for what we used to call correspondence or distance learning. In the past century distance learning looked very different, with teachers mailing out learning materials and exercises to students living in remote areas with no access to a bricks-and-mortar school. With the help of their parents, students would complete the work and then mail it back to the teacher to be marked.

Over the past 20 years technological advances have completely transformed distributed-learning programs. Instead of relying on snail mail for communication, students can now go on line and learn in real-time virtual
[ Page 11314 ]
classrooms. Distributed learning has always been available to students of all ages. However, before 2006 students generally had to choose either a bricks-and-mortar or a distributed-learning program. They weren't allowed to take a mix of both.

In 2006 the School Act was amended to allow students in grades 10 through 12 to enrol with more than one school district or distributed-learning school. From 2006 to 2011 the number of students participating in distributed learning programs grew from 17,000 to today's 77,000. The 2006 change significantly expanded the educational opportunities available to students from smaller communities by enabling them to access the full suite of courses previously only available in large urban schools.

The Bill 36 amendment will expand this opportunity to students in kindergarten to grade 9. As an example, this amendment will enable a grade 8 student in a one-room school in northern remote B.C. to enrol in an on-line Spanish class not available at his or her school. This amendment increases the educational choices available to younger students and has the potential to significantly enrich their educational experience.

Finally, with respect to the International Baccalaureate program, this bill also provides an amendment to explicitly authorize boards of education to charge fees for International Baccalaureate programs.

The IB program is an academically rigorous education program available in 130 countries and nearly 2,500 schools worldwide. Several B.C. boards of education offer this optional program. Some boards charge fees for the additional costs associated with the IB program — for example, the additional costs associated with IB exams.

It recently came to the ministry's attention that a board's authority to charge these fees under the School Act is unclear. This amendment will clarify that boards can charge these fees, provided they have established a hardship policy to facilitate participation by students who might otherwise be excluded by financial hardship. This amendment will continue to support student choice by ensuring that boards can continue to offer IB programs.

[1010]

In conclusion, under B.C.'s educational plan, government is committed to building an education system that's more flexible, dynamic and adaptable to better prepare students for a successful future.

Personalized learning is an approach to education that puts every student at the centre of their own learning and makes them more accountable for their success. Bringing more flexibility to the system will help to recognize that each student is unique and that our education system can support each student's interests, passions and individual ways of learning.

I look forward to hearing the views of other members in the Legislature as we move towards second reading of this bill.

R. Austin: I rise to join in the debate on Bill 36. I'm actually quite surprised at some of the media coverage and some of the storm that's been created by certainly one aspect of this bill, and that is the amazing coverage relating to the change of the school calendar.

I'm surprised, because to read the papers and to hear some of the comments on radio and TV, one would suggest that this bill is about to change radically everything that we do in our school system in terms of the calendar. In point of fact, there has always been a level of flexibility around the school calendar, as the minister has just alluded to. School districts have, to a certain extent, availed themselves of that, but not to any great degree. I think, as I make my comments, we'll understand why.

There are schools in this province, a very few, who have already availed themselves of the year-round calendar — the kind of calendar that sometimes is referred to as a balanced calendar, where kids go to school for three months and then have one month off; three months, then one month off.

Now, not many school districts have taken advantage of that, and there's probably a very good reason for it, but it does exist already.

In fact, in my own family I have some kids who go to school in Maple Ridge. For I think the last four or five years they have been on this balanced calendar. It has worked for them as a family, and it has worked for the teachers, who were consulted there.

I think the point that needs to be made, in terms of the changing of the school calendar, is that the decisions will be made entirely at the local level. It will be the responsibility of the school trustees to go out and consult in their communities with parents, obviously, first and foremost — I'm sure they'd have an awful lot to say about this — and also with the teaching profession as well as support staff, to ensure that the changes that they are contemplating actually makes sense for the people who live there and have to work around that school calendar.

I was talking with a government member the other day who told me that when he was a kid — he lives in the Okanagan — they used to take breaks at apple-picking time. In the Okanagan 30 years ago it was quite common that the schools would shut down in certain regions for two weeks, and the kids would all go and assist in the picking of the apples.

I'm sure that there are parts of the province where there are large First Nations populations, where for them it might be appropriate for kids to take a break during hunting season or during a season when a lot of families are involved with fisheries — with salmon and the canning and the smoking of it.

Those are decisions that ultimately will be made at the local school district level. It's not as though, by this change, the minister is suddenly blowing up the world as it is and trying to dictate from down here that he knows best as to when our kids should be in school.
[ Page 11315 ]

It's also important to note that the number of hours of instruction will continue to be maintained and that people would know well in advance, so they could plan as to when the next school year calendar is going to be a reality for them.

I also thought that I would expose one of the great myths that we have. In fact, something that I adhered to until very recently is the notion that the North American school calendar…. I say North American because I think Ontario and Quebec initially followed what was taking place in the United States in the school system.

There is this myth that the reason why we have this calendar is because we were an agricultural country, and therefore, we took the summers off because that's when the farmers wanted to have the kids at home to be able to help on the farm.

[1015]

I'd just like to put on the public record something that relates to this. I'm referring here to a research report that was written around the whole notion of year-round schooling at the elementary level. This was done by a researcher, Robert Brown, for the Toronto school district. What it is, is a report that looks at all of the academic research around this issue that was current at the time. This is from 2008.

He goes on to write:

"Thus, Shields and Oberg's, 2000, glossary for the 'traditional calendar' notes that it is known as 'the agrarian calendar.' Many articles state or infer the assumption that such a rural artifact from the distant past has little relevance to modern urban education. In fact, more recent research in the U.S. by Gold, 2002, and in Ontario by Weiss and Brown, 2003, clearly show that the summer holiday originated as an urban educational initiative.

"Ontario's elementary school system was organized in the mid-19th century as a true year-round-schooling calendar, with a two-week summer holiday in August. Because of pressure from the cities and towns, the summer holiday was gradually extended to its current length between 1860 and 1913.

"There were multiple reasons for the extension, among them financial restraints in keeping schools open, high summer absenteeism, the heat of schools in the height of summer and a then current educational theory that keeping children in school over the summer would result in lower academic achievement."

Those are the facts in terms of the history of the academic calendar, not just in Ontario but in fact in British Columbia. It does mention something that I want to speak to, and there's a theme here that goes through all of these three topics that the minister brings up in this bill. That is the notion of making decisions, whether they be local or whether they be by the minister down here, that don't put in place the outcomes and the interests of the students first but are taken in relation to saving dollars.

I am certainly not in favour of any decision that's made by local school boards, even with consultation, that isn't in the interests of trying to help our students succeed in the school system. I can speak personally in relation to a decision around the school calendar. It happened in my school district, in school district 82.

There was a very vociferous debate that went on for months and months a number of years ago when our school district found itself in quite dire financial straits as a result mostly of economic conditions but also certainly compounded by changes here in terms of the funding of schools. It was mostly related to the economic output.

What happened in northwest B.C. was that there was a rapid downturn of the economy. A whole bunch of families — in fact, hundreds of families — had to leave the northwest in order to go and find employment elsewhere. That resulted in a huge shortfall for school district 82.

In fact, this shortfall compounded itself over a period of four years, when we lost an average of 300 students every summer due to people leaving the communities. Now, bear in mind that I think, at the time, the per-pupil student funding was probably around $6,500 or $7,000. It's now closer to $9,000. If you do the math, this meant that several millions of dollars was leaving our school district every summer.

As a result, the school board decided to have a conversation with people in the communities in school district 82 around changing the calendar, not to go to an all-year calendar but to go to a four-day school week, with the notion being that the school board could save money by not having these schools open on the fifth day. They would save it mostly in transportation costs and in heating costs.

This was, of course, hugely controversial. Parents got up and spoke vociferously against it. They simply felt that this would not be good for their kids. There were lots of to's and fro's and lots of arguments. The elementary school teachers and parents felt that when kids are very, very young to have a long weekend every single weekend would somehow regress their learning, because learning is done through repetition and through practice, and having long weekends would be very harmful, particularly for the very small children in the school system.

[1020]

Plus, of course, they would have to spend hours and hours extra on a bus in areas where you have to bus long distances already. The days were extended, and that meant that some kids, believe it or not — little kids — were getting up at 6:30 in the morning in order to get ready for their school day. Clearly, that's not something that was acceptable.

There was also a big discussion around teenagers. Every teenager loves a long weekend. That is one of the things they live for. On certain weekends of the year when we have extended holidays for statutory holidays, teenagers go: "Wow, it's great. I don't have to go to school for three days." Having this constantly meant that there were certain teenage celebrations around Terrace and Kitimat and other communities — celebrations that weren't always necessarily productive. So there was that kind of conversation.

At the end of the day — and here's my main point — the school board made this decision to go to a four-day school week not because the parents thought it was a
[ Page 11316 ]
good idea, not because anybody put forward any academic material to suggest that this would improve learning outcomes. Every school board trustee who voted for it said very clearly on the public record that they did it simply to save money.

I think that is wrong. I think that the decisions made at the school board level and at the level here in Victoria need to be done in the best interest of outcomes. I sincerely hope that as the school boards decide — if they choose to decide to take advantage of this…. It's only a little bit easier. They could always take advantage of making changes, as I mentioned.

If they do decide to have this conversation now, in light of the fact that there's a certain amount of publicity around this, that they go and look at all of the issues and listen to the folks in their riding — the people, particularly the parents, as well as the teachers — and make the best decision that's in the interests of the outcomes.

There are so many issues to think about. I don't know how many schools in the Okanagan have air conditioning. I would imagine that if this conversation came up there — to have year-round schooling in parts of the province where the temperature…. In Kamloops I think the temperature is very often at 100 degrees for a couple months. Now, I can't imagine kids in a classroom without air conditioning actually managing to make it. Those are the kinds of conversations that would be happening there.

As the minister mentioned, this allows school districts to decide to put just some schools onto a changed calendar without changing their entire school district. That has issues for parents who have multiple kids. Are we going to be having little Johnny who is in grade 4 going on a balanced year-round calendar while their older daughter in grade 9 is on the more traditional calendar? That would be very difficult for them getting their kids to and from school and having holidays, etc.

There are all kinds of issues that will come out in regards to this. Clearly, those are discussions that will happen at the local school board level, and they can make those decisions as they see fit.

Now I'd like to move on to the second topic that this bill speaks to, and that relates to the school boards being allowed to introduce fees for the International Baccalaureate program.

I note that currently there is a lawsuit taking place. I believe it's in North Vancouver. That's probably why aspects of this bill that relate to this item are going to be retroactive — in order to, I guess, essentially shut down that lawsuit where somebody is complaining that their child who's been in an IB program is now being forced to pay fees. They feel that that is not appropriate in a public school system.

Certainly, I would say that, generally speaking, we on this side of the House do not believe in charging extra fees for academic programs. I know that we've had this debate. In fact, this point has gone all the way up to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, in relation to charging fees. We want to make sure that our public education system is as accessible to every citizen in British Columbia and every child in British Columbia. Obviously, putting up fees can create a barrier.

I note — and the minister mentioned — that the change here also stipulates that all school boards must have a hardship policy which relates to any fees that they're going to charge in regards to the IB programs. I think it's fair to say, though….

[1025]

It's always very challenging when we set up a program that is supposed to deal with universal accessibility and then say: "You know what? We're going to charge here. If you have a problem, don't worry. You can go see the principal, and they can speak to somebody, and these fees will be taken care of." It's very hard for families to have to admit and have to go and ask for help. It isn't simply in something like this.

I'll give you an example. In my community we have a variety of sports programs that are held during the summer to engage kids in a variety of activities. One of the least costly programs is to get involved in the soccer program. In fact, as a result of it being relatively inexpensive, it is the biggest program that kids get involved with during the summer in my community.

People complained and said that even though it's relatively inexpensive, it is still expensive for some people to have to pay the annual fee to get involved in summer soccer. So the soccer association said: "Well, not a problem. People can come and speak privately, and we'll take care of that." Now, this was a relatively small amount of money, but people did avail themselves. But others still struggled. I think that the fact they had to go and speak to somebody and feel in some way a little bit shamed to have to go and ask for this help made it challenging.

I think that in a public school system we need to be very, very wary of suddenly charging fees. I'll be canvassing with the minister more in detail around these fees.

I think there are two aspects to it. The International Baccalaureate program has, of course, expensive examination fees, which have always been charged if you want to enter this program. But this bill also enables school districts to charge extra for the differential in cost for running this program relative to running other regular programs that school boards put forward.

We're going to have to have a discussion with the minister in terms of how school boards are going to justify this, how they're actually going to go and cost this out to see what the difference is in price for doing this and to see how it relates to the cost of exams.

It's one thing for people who decide to put their kid into an extra academic program to maybe cover the exam part as opposed to actually paying for something that involves school teachers and salaries and classrooms, which you would think in our public education
[ Page 11317 ]
system would be covered for with general taxation revenue. I think we're certainly going to have an interesting conversation around those fees, because I think that we want to make sure that our public school system is at all times accessible.

If people want to go and choose something different, then of course, they have the option of choosing to go to a private school — which, in turn, is already subsidized by the taxpayer to the tune of 50 percent of regular fees. I think if people are seeking extra beyond what the school system provides, that is an option for them to go to. Many, indeed, do decide to do that.

The third issue is one that we certainly have some considerable trouble with, and that is with regards to the increase in distributed learning. It's not that we in the opposition are against distributed learning in any way. We think that there are huge opportunities and huge needs for kids to be able to access programs through distributed learning.

In fact, as someone who comes from a rural part of British Columbia, I know there are many small communities where you don't have the same scope of programs offered — for example, in remote First Nations communities. Distributed learning has been one way in which we have been able to add accessibility for kids who live far from urban centres.

So in no way am I speaking here against distributed learning. In fact, the minister has alluded to the fact that in the last several years there has been a rise in the number of students who have been accessing distributed learning. But I would still like to point out some major factors with regards to distributed learning.

I look at distributed learning in two ways. I think there are kids who sign up for distributed learning and then have to do it on their own. Then there are kids who join distributed-learning programs and learn at their own pace through distributed learning but who have a teacher present to help them when they come across problems. I think there's a huge difference between the way that distributed learning functions in those two ways.

[1030]

When a parent signs a child up for a distributed-learning program, we can't just assume that that child, for example, reads at a high level and comprehends at a high level. Yet when you sign up for distributed learning, it's assumed that that child who is signing up at that level automatically has that ability.

We have to be very careful and make sure that when we are encouraging parents to look at distributed learning, that they sit down with a counsellor, a teacher or somebody in the school system and have that discussion as to whether their child would actually benefit from distributed learning or whether their child is somebody who maybe needs to go to a DL program that is full-time-based and actually has the teacher in the classroom.

I can speak again to some of those programs that happen in my own school district. In the alternate school all of the kids there are learning through DL, distributed learning. That enables kids who, for whatever reason, did not find success in the mainstream of school learning. They didn't like the fact that the program was run entirely…. You had to go with the flow with all the other kids, and that was determined by the teacher every day deciding on the speed at which he or she was getting through the curriculum.

For the kids in the alternate program in Terrace, they have a wonderful program that enables them all to learn the core subjects at their own pace in smaller classrooms with a teacher present. There has been enormous success with that. The teacher has to, obviously, have the flexibility to teach a variety of subjects and to be knowledgable.

The fact that the kids can take their own time to understand difficult concepts and have someone at hand close by to help them when they come across difficulties…. Because with distributed learning you are essentially providing accessibility to a program and then recognizing that the kid has (a) the motivation to do this on their own and (b) the ability to get through it. Those are two critical things in learning that a lot of children need help with.

So I think that it's important, when we discuss distributed learning, to look at the facts and to see whether this is a correct fit for people. Ultimately, we do not want to take away from the amount of face time that kids have — an opportunity to have a teacher in front of them.

Clearly, there are other issues around distributed learning. If a child is, for example, in elementary school…. I'm speaking here because this change enables kids to go onto a distributed-learning program from as early as the age of four. This goes from K-to-12. Let's make this difference. Prior to this change, kids could be on distributed learning from the upper grades on — from 10, 11 and 12 on their own and from a little bit lower if they were in a full-time program with a teacher in the classroom. This change enables kids from as early as kindergarten to go onto distributed learning.

Now, we'll have this conversation more in committee stage. I cannot for the life of me conceive of any circumstance where a kid in kindergarten or grade 1, 2 or 3 is actually going to be put onto a DL program. I mean, we'll have that discussion, but I find it quite astonishing that the minister is making this change to as young a level as that, because as I say, I can't imagine any parent suggesting that their child in grade 1 suddenly go and start to do math on the end of an iPad or the end of a computer line.

I certainly think we have some problems with that, and I would suggest that we will probably be voting separately in committee stage on that element. But we'll have this conversation more in committee stage.

I think, also, that we need to look, when we do make these kinds of decisions, at what are the completion rates. You know, we track the data very heavily on completion
[ Page 11318 ]
rates in the normative school system for kids who are in the classroom, but we don't really, I think, have the completion rates and the difference in completion rates between a student who is in a full-time distributed-learning program and one who is learning on their own or is learning at home through home-based schooling with the support from a family member.

I think we need to look at those statistics and have them available for parents and everyone to be able to see so that we can actually make an informed decision — so that parents can look at that and think twice before they decide that maybe this is an option for their child.

Very often kids will come home and complain that they're struggling with a particular subject, and this change will probably get the conversation going even greater around school districts and around families with the whole option of distributed learning.

[1035]

If a kid is, say, in grade 6 and is struggling with math — I'm just picking math because that's something I struggled with — they might go home and suggest to their parents: "I don't like math. I find it difficult. My friend Johnny doesn't like math either, and his teacher or someone in his school told him that he can go on the computer and study math on the computer."

While it's an easy option for a child to perceive that that is one way of not having a teacher there pushing him or her, it's not an easy way out. In fact, it would probably be quite disastrous.

If a child is struggling with math in terms of having the assistance of a teacher and having face-to-face time, then chances are they're going to find it incredibly difficult to go onto a math-based sixth-grade program with distributed learning because now, unless their parents or a family member has the skills to be able to give them assistance, they're really going to be on their own and will very soon find themselves struggling even further.

These are the kinds of conversations that need to happen before children are encouraged or parents are encouraged to move to distributed learning. Again, it's something that needs to happen at the local level. I can't see any circumstances…. Perhaps, when the minister makes his closing remarks, he'll point to some of the reasons why — or perhaps in committee stage — the government has decided to make distributed learning available all the way down to kindergarten.

I know that the minister likes to use the words "flexibility" and "choice" quite a lot. This certainly isn't an aspect of flexibility and choice that I think that we on this side would necessarily support.

I think that we're going to have some interesting discussions, mostly in committee stage, around this. I know that there are some other members, certainly on this side of the House, and I suspect that there are other members…. I'm seeing a nod from somebody who is a former teacher. I'm sure that there are members on the government side who would like to speak to this.

I want to just sort of recap by saying that most of the changes here are not hugely radical changes. A lot of these issues were already available to school districts and to parents prior to this. I think that what this probably does more than anything is perhaps get the conversation going more amongst communities who are looking for different options.

We live in a province that has great variety in geography, in background, in the needs of parents and in communities. As a result of these changes, clearly, some of these options will be looked at to a greater degree. Contrary to what we've read in some of the newspaper articles and on some of the radio shows in the last few days, I think that you will find that any changes that come out of this will be very incremental.

I doubt — certainly with regards to the calendar — that we'll be seeing a lot of school districts making any huge changes anytime soon because there are so many issues to deal with. All this does is enable them to go and have these conversations without coming and asking the minister for permission to go and have these conversations, essentially.

Still, at the end of the day, I think that the best decisions around these issues are made by parents in consultation with professional teachers. Those are the people who best know what's going to happen — that's in the best interest of their children. I think those conversations need to have the full facts available to them, which is why I'm encouraging the government to share some information, especially around distributed learning. Hopefully we'll take it from there.

With that, Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak.

M. Dalton: I'm happy to speak today in favour of Bill 36, the School Amendment Act. The education system is going through a transformation — not a sudden transformation, but it's a gradual transformation. We're continuing this move.

This bill really is about modernizing the school calendar and providing options. A lot of school districts, a lot of schools, will continue the way they've been doing things, but it does open the opportunity.

[1040]

I know that these opportunities are even now being taken throughout the province. I think it's just important to highlight that it does provide flexibility as far as the calendar goes, the length of school days, but the hours of instruction remain the same. So there are criteria. There are IRPs, which are the curricula that have to be followed, and that will continue to be in play.

I appreciate the clarification from the member for Skeena about the urban myth about the agrarian model of education. That was instructional. But it's true. The system that we have, as far as the school hours, has been
[ Page 11319 ]
with us for well over a hundred years, 150 years. This government really is about providing options and about providing choice in education.

Since last fall I've been the liaison to the Minister of Education for independent schools. Now, I'm visiting a lot of independent schools throughout the province, and one might ask: well, why would I, as a former public school teacher, be supportive or be so interested in independent schools?

I would say that, for me, it's because of choice for parents and for students. It's to address specific needs and desires of families of students, whether it be having a faith-based education — I've visited Sikh schools, Muslim schools, Jewish schools, Christian schools, and I see also just the importance not just of faith but the culture — whether it be a school like Artemis Place in Victoria, which is for at-risk women who have perhaps been on the street, have had tremendous challenges and are provided the supports to move forward, or whether it be a university prep school.

I'm for choice — for family choice and for educational choice. When the public school system offers this choice, it just makes it much more attractive for students and for families. One move that we made a number of years ago was to open boundaries in each school district, and actually that has been quite good. I know that in the school district which I taught at, school district 42, Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, what happened is that students started to go to schools which offered different programs.

One high school — I think of Samuel Robertson Technical — provided more training in trades, hairdressing or some of the other trades, and some students went there. Another school, Pitt Meadows Secondary, had a hockey academy. Other schools had French immersion. There's just a variety of programs, and parents and the students liked that. It attracted kids to that, and it provided increased opportunities for learning.

I mentioned French immersion. That's something that is offered as far as choice in the public school system, but we don't see that in the independent schools. In my school district there are over a thousand students, probably about 1,400 students, in French immersion in school district 42. And then in school district 75, Mission also has French immersion.

We have in school district 42 an environmental school which, I think, began last year. This has been very popular among students. There has been some flexibility of hours. They go all over. They go in the parks; they have classes there. They don't even have a set building. They just use, sometimes, a library. And it has been very popular among students.

One school that is in my constituency is Kanaka Creek Elementary. Kanaka Creek Elementary is a year-round school. That is a school which goes for three months, takes a month off for students, another three months, a month off, three months, a month off. The satisfaction in that school among teachers and among students is great. The teachers, once they get a position there, they stay there.

I've never heard any teacher or any student or any family that has anything negative to say about that model. It has worked out great. But it hasn't caught on, which is surprising, because it has been so popular among those there, and I think it's because it does reflect a change. I think what this bill does provide is an opportunity to really look at that, to make it easier for these types of models to be open and offered to school districts.

[1045]

This is Kanaka Creek, and the year-round model has just been fantastic. What the teachers and students have found is that they're just much more energized. It's a long time to go from September till the end of June, even with the breaks that they do have for students.

By the end of the time, even in the last month or so, for the students a lot of times their attention to academics is not as strong as it might have been a little earlier in the school year. They just find with this year-round model that the students' retention, as far as the subject material — the reading skills, the math skills — is better. There's less of a gap. They're just more refreshed, and it's constant.

Right now they have the one-month breaks in August, in December and in April. It's good timing. They do get summer vacations too. Actually, families are able to get cheaper rates when they want to go for vacation somewhere because they're not right in the same spring break as everybody else.

I think offering the flexibility to school districts is great. Recently — actually, this year — the school district went to a two-week spring break, and that has been good also. Sometimes with the one-week break, again, it's for teachers. They don't get quite the recharge that they might with the two-week break.

This is something where, as far as this change and bringing about a calendar change or an hours-of-instruction change, it needs to make sense. It has to be approved by the school board, by parents and also by the ministry. So there are safeguards to address some of the concerns that the member for Skeena did mention.

As for distance learning, this has been extremely popular in British Columbia. Six years ago there were 17,000 students that were enrolled in distance education, and now there are 77,000 students, probably about not quite 15 percent of students, enrolled in distance education, distance learning. This has, obviously, really taken off. I think it's positive, actually — opening it up to the lower grades.

Now, there are various models of distance learning. I visited one distance-learning school in Kelowna, Heritage Online, and the support from the school to their students…. They have about 1,600 students or 2,000 students. I was very impressed as far as the connection between the instructor and the students. They're committed.
[ Page 11320 ]
There's a vision, and the outcomes are there — very successful outcomes.

I remember when I did my first correspondence course. Actually, it was a French course, and this was the early 1980s. It took a lot of work, and it took a lot of motivation. I would say that it's not the same model, for sure, as it is now. There's a lot more support available for distance learning.

I think this is a good model. It isn't for everybody. It's not for every family, not for every student, and I think that definitely needs to be considered when a student goes forward in that. But it is quite appealing, and I know that there are probably hundreds of students that are using it. Well, I know for sure in my school district.

I like, also, the opportunity to have blended learning. What blended learning is, as had been mentioned by the minister, is taking perhaps some courses within the bricks-and-mortar, regular school, and others through distance learning — not necessarily just through one school district. They could take math through one school district and another course in another school district.

Now, I'm not necessarily recommending that, but if there are reasons for it, if it's perhaps a program that's really being offered that is very attractive, then that opportunity is great. It ties in with choice.

[1050]

What this does…. And this is what I believe in. It's a free enterprise model, in some ways. I believe that healthy competition breeds excellence, excellent programs. That's what this is doing.

Now, I think also that it is very good for rural communities. It may even stem the tide of families leaving areas because of educational opportunities. One of the most important things for families is looking at the schools. What type of elementary school or high school is there available?

What we have right here is the opportunity for students to receive excellent education no matter where they are in British Columbia. I think those in rural communities and urban centres everywhere should be very pleased with this opportunity.

I do believe that it's not just good for grades 10, 11, 12 but also for the younger grades. That's where families come in, where parents come in. I know many families that actually do home-schooling, and they're quite involved in their education. I think, of course, the results are important, to be able to track that, but from what I have seen the results have been quite good. So I think this provides an opportunity.

Bill 36 builds on the transformational changes, the gradual transformational changes that we've been seeing in education. I do encourage all members to support this bill.

G. Coons: I rise to add some comments to Bill 36, the School Amendment Act, which is before us today.

Again, I think the key components of this…. I hope to touch on some personal comments and some comments that were forwarded to me from constituents. I want to talk about distributed learning, the International Baccalaureate and some key sections about the school calendar that perhaps we haven't been talking about. That's about instructional hours and something in there dealing with non-instructional days. I hope to get to that in the bit of time that I have.

This bill before us, Bill 36…. The minister talks about flexibility and choice. Over the years we've come to be suspicious of those words, those buzzwords that the government is using, and suspicious of the motives that are behind it.

First, I want to get into section 2 — I think it's 3.1 — with distributed learning. Basically, what is distributed learning? Well, it occurs when a student is primarily at a distance from a teacher. It might be at home, or it might be connected to teachers from another learning centre or school. It's where a certified teacher, a member of the BCTF, instructs a child's educational program. Or it could be a principal — so just a B.C.-certified teacher would be in charge there.

Under the School Act it basically says: "…a method of instruction that relies…on indirect communication between students and teachers, including internet or other electronic-based delivery, teleconferencing or correspondence." The rationale is it basically gives rural and urban students in B.C. equitable and improved access — more choice and flexibility.

It's a model that we've had for many years. When we start looking at where we're going with this, there could be some problems. I'm going to look at the pros and cons of DL, distributed learning.

Some of the key questions that we have to ask, not only ourselves but parents have to ask…. I'm sure we'll get to this in committee stage with the minister. Is distributed learning the only option for a student to take a course for reasons such as living in a rural or isolated area or attending a small school without full programs? Or someone being too ill to attend school — that could be another purpose. Another question to ask: is DL a last resort for a student unable to fit into a regular school system? There are questions that we have to ask there.

I taught at alternate schools for many years and played with on-line courses, but found out that probably the best was face to face with students.

What are the practices used, the teaching instructional practices, and where does on-line learning fit in with the continuum between rote learning and experiential learning? So some questions that we've got to determine before we jump into this full bore.

[1055]

Are the learning styles matched to the learning style of each of the individual students? That's what happens in regular classrooms compared to distributed learning.
[ Page 11321 ]
Does the student require a great deal of direct attention to do the work, or is the student self-motivated with little need for outside direction?

It all depends on the students you're dealing with and the learning styles and teaching methods that are employed. I think that's significant because…. In a bit I do want to share some communications I had with a teacher that does distributed learning and some of their concerns.

Are students doing comparable work in quantity and quality as regular students faced with a real person as a teacher? You know, again, those are some of the situations and questions that need to be asked. And if the primary contact of the student is with a parent acting as a supervisor and instructor in the home versus directly working with teachers, is that going to enhance the educational opportunities?

Then there's a whole issue of special needs students and DL and the impacts of isolation and a lack of socialization. How are these being dealt with as far as the DL push we're getting?

Again, I did mention I wanted to talk about the pros of distributed learning and some of the cons. It is considered to be a path for students who are currently being home-schooled and want to return to the regular school situation. There is that component.

Rural students can take courses not offered at their own school. They can combine both distributed learning with regular school courses. We heard that from the member previous. And it could offer more choice for grades 11 and 12 students who want to take courses from any school district, which could be a concern. I may bring that in a bit later. And it can fit with student's schedules.

So there are some pros to this. Again, before we go into this we carefully have to analyze the direction we want to go.

Some of the cons, some of the downfalls. We have districts competing with one another to get more DL students. Therefore, they're getting more funding. Students can get other people — if they're working with tutors or whoever else — to overhelp them with their studies, let's just call it. Teaching demands can be very difficult and overwhelming for the teachers that are involved in the programs. Students missing out on school activities. Many students don't have Internet access or computer access at home — believe it or not. We still have that happening in this province.

In some of the data out there, the course completion rates are lower with DL than they are in regular classes. So we have to look at that. Due to the block funding, the students on distributed learning means the school loses part of its funding. You get students using it to shop around for higher grades. There's an issue with student motivation to do the work. Again, I mentioned before, there's the isolation aspect of students on DL.

I believe that getting heavily into distributed learning blurs the line between public and private systems. Students in the private schools can register for publicly funded DL programs — I'm under the assumption. Perhaps during the committee stage we can clarify that.

We start looking at distributed learning perhaps starting to be used in place of sufficient staffing or funding. So it might be used as a cost-savings matter. And it may not be equivalent to school-based courses as far as curriculum, assessment and reporting is concerned — and we look at the courses there.

Again, there are issues, and a key one, I believe, is with the limits of the classes or class sizes. I believe — and the minister may correct us during committee stage — that distributed-learning teachers have been excluded from any class-size limit.

As we move further with the bills that have been put through this Legislature, especially Bill 22, Bill 27 and Bill 28, this bill ties right into it also, where, again, we're looking at distributed-learning classes in the elementary, some of them at 60 students, and at secondary, 500 to 600 students with one teacher or even a principal in charge.

[1100]

Those some are of the issues, some key concerns that have been brought to my attention when I've talked to some of my colleagues.

I talked about getting a response from a teacher that does distributed learning. This teacher, as a longtime DL teacher who's writing this letter during their lunchtime, says:

"I can tell you that the hype and snake oil associated with DL is staggering. They've been attaching their wagon to the gravy train, and they are willing to say anything to support it. What is it good for?"

This is a teacher in DL right now, in distributed learning.

"It's great for well-connected, computer-savvy and self-motivated students who can't fit into a regular school timetable. There is a small group that fits this picture, and for these students, DL is great. But let's be honest. This describes only a small minority of potential learners.

"DL is a very difficult way to learn. Personally, I don't think I would want to be a DL student."

This is somebody that teaches it.

"You're following your own plan. It's flexible, but it's a lonely way to learn. If you force students to learn in a timetabled manner, few teens and adults want those restrictions. It's not the solution to crowded classrooms. If you do the right thing…it should be as expensive as regular education. Doing the right thing means teachers working full-time in DL, with the same number of students as a regular teacher."

He continues on, saying:

"Unfortunately, most on-line classrooms are merely paper correspondence courses with an e-mail address and a links page. The teacher often has regular classroom responsibilities or might have 300 to 500 on-line students. At this point the teacher is merely an overworked marker. It might help the school district's bottom line, but the educational needs of the students are left behind."

He goes on to conclude:

"You know, the school districts are taking away a lot of money from their DL programs. It means that most of them" — the programs that he's been involved with and is aware of — "are sketchy."

He does give some advice about DL. I think, as far as
[ Page 11322 ]
Bill 36, this is very important. He says that if you are the parent of a student going into distributed learning, ask your DL school principal the following questions:

"Is there a full-time teacher we can contact by phone? How many students does the teacher deal with? Who made the curriculum? Is it just a digitized correspondence course? Will the teacher return all assignments with full comments? How is the curriculum revised and updated? Does the school district skim off more money from the DL school than it does its regular schools?"

He says in a conclusion:

"This is the can-of-worms question. How is this being formatted in each school district? You should be able to ask those questions and get reasonable answers. It should be to accelerate the educational opportunities for students."

But there was something previously — I think it was Bill 33 — where the province deregulated control over provisions of distributed learning a few years ago. As a result, there's one example out there that I think we should get on record as far as distributed learning.

That happened in Gold Trail school district, where they enrolled more than 600 students under one administrative officer, under one principal — 600 from around the province and from other districts. There was an audit. They basically showed they had not provided adequate service, and they had to return $2.5 million because of the failed experiment.

It's something that we have to really be careful of as we go down this path of DL. Specialists, teacher associations have raised concerns about the increased emphasis on on-line courses, because students need a teacher present to help them motivate and keep on task. There is nothing like face-to-face. When we get away from that, I think it's putting educational opportunities at risk.

Many students have trouble completing on-line courses. What's the completion rate of distributed learning? We can't seem to get that. You know, the ministry doesn't keep records of distributed learning completion rates or isn't willing to share them. That's a question we have to ask: why is this being kept from the public?

[1105]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Again, as my colleague from Skeena said, for anyone to suggest DL — distributed learning, or on-line learning — is appropriate for elementary school students is, I think, really missing a huge picture of public education. Are they just wanting kids to go out in their cyber sandbox? Is this a choice parents want for their children in kindergarten — to take on-line courses or distributed learning?

Education is about positive relationships and people working together in classrooms. Putting more and more younger kids in front of computer screens isn't going to enhance their educational opportunities at all. Many people I talk to believe that it's eroding the universal access and quality of education in the province. Technology is a tool, and it's not a solution.

On that, there are lots of questions we have to ask about distributed learning. But I do want to get into a couple of other issues here.

The fees for the IB program. This bill before us, Bill 36, allows school boards to charge fees for the International Baccalaureate programs despite any decision of a court to the contrary made before and after the coming into force of this section.

Again, there are key intentions here from this government to disregard earlier court rulings about the key principle of public education as being universally accessible and free to all. I do think that in Victoria there was something going on where a trustee challenged school fees in Supreme Court and won.

What we see with these additional fees just creates more privilege for already privileged kids and families and compounds the disadvantage facing children from poorer families in rural areas. That's a consideration, I think, that we have to take when we look at this section of Bill 36. We do have to realize that B.C. has the highest child poverty rate in the country, and going towards fees is a move in the wrong direction.

The school calendar. I do believe that most people agree that school calendars have already been flexible enough. School districts — along with consultation with parents, workers, teachers and support workers — have agreed that there are options, and there is some choice in doing that. What works best for a school district or a community should be taken into consideration.

But the concern is: is this legislation really about saving money? When we look at what's happened to school districts going on a four-day week…. My colleague from Skeena, the critic, talks about what happened there and their going back to the five-day week because it was not educationally sound.

We start looking at saving money through reduced instructional time for students, and this legislation does this. I do want to get into that, hopefully, before I get to the end of my time. Again, there are issues and concerns that this is more about the bottom line than quality education for students.

When we start getting into calendars, it has to be incumbent on the school districts consulting and communicating and working with parents, the community, the teachers and the support workers to ensure that the premise is there for ensuring that they are quality education outcomes that are occurring.

For example, on Haida Gwaii I remember that they looked at a balanced calendar, a different type of calendar. There were lots of First Nations concerns because the summer months are when they do a lot of their harvesting, their canning, their collecting. We do have to remember that Haida Gwaii has very interesting weather in other months — very stormy and very dark in the months of September to December.

They looked at going to a school calendar and as a community — as a community of learners and a com-
[ Page 11323 ]
munity of parents, and the school district and teachers and support workers — looked at not going to that. I think it's incumbent that that conversation takes place.

[1110]

I'm just getting to my conclusion here. I did have somebody write to me about a concern and wanting parents to take note how Bill 36 should be an issue for parents. It says — and this is from this note to me:

"Having successfully removed teachers as an obstacle to the B.C. education plan, the minister introduced enabling legislation to change the school year, day and total instructional time provided to students.

"Bill 36 removes the requirement for school boards to follow the standard school calendar and, most importantly, allows the minister to change, through regulation, the minimum number of instructional hours in the year. It enables more on-line and blended learning for all grade levels, and…fees for the IB programs.

"Although the media" — and we've talked about this — "has only focused on the school year, the scariest part of this legislation is the change to the minimum number of instructional hours through regulation."

Out of the bill, the actual bill which allows the minister to do this, it's under "Minister's regulations — school calendars," section 13, 168.02(1)(e). It says: "prescribing the minimum number of hours of instruction that a board must offer to students enrolled in the schools in its school district, including prescribing that there is no minimum number of hours of instruction for prescribed classes of students, schools or educational programs." When we look at that component of the bill before us, it has people wondering what it's going to look like.

This teacher, or this person that wrote to me — I'm assuming they're a teacher — looked at the delivery of planning 10.

"In some schools in B.C. every grade 10 student goes to the gymnasium once a week for a lecture. This can be in excess of 100 students. There is no or little further instructional time for these students. The remainder of the course is taught through a blended model, with on-line components or simply assignments that are done on the student's own time and handed in.

"The instructional time goes from 400 minutes per week in a class with 30 to 80 minutes per week in a class with 100 or more students…. This can reduce the teacher hours needed by half."

There is a concern out there that this is just a cost-saving measure. This happens in schools in greater Victoria. It says there's a leadership 9-to-12 class. They meet weekly in a group and small groups. The course is taught by the vice-principal, who requested this configuration. These are classes that are perhaps in the hundreds of students.

Under Bill 22 that we had recently, teachers will be told to accept class size and the configuration of classes. "No limits will exist. Under Bill 36" — before us — "students will simply be told to accept this configuration. No…instruction time will exist."

There are some major concerns where we're going with the Bill 36 before us. In the States some states are requiring students to take at least one course in an on-line or blended model. The failure rates are extremely poor.

Even in school district 44 they talk about the success rates of self-directed, on-line learning with inadequate instructional time and teacher support, showing that these are somewhat dismal failures in the system right now. There's a report out there on school district 44, a North Vancouver school, if people want to read that.

When we look at this, there is a concern that this bill before us is all about saving money and, again, attacking the public education system. We've seen that from this government when they talk about choice and flexibility. We've seen what they've done with Bill 27 and Bill 28, where it was declared unconstitutional and invalid. There's a lot of suspicion about the motives of the bills coming before us from this government.

Also, if you look in Bill 36, in section 13…. I believe it's section (f). It says — and this is the powers of the minister: "prescribing the minimum number of hours that the principal, vice principals, directors of instruction and teachers of a distributed-learning school, or of an educational program delivered through distributed learning, must be available for instruction."

[1115]

Again, you are looking at the minister, in his own regulations, having the opportunity to look at the hours necessary for principals to take over instructional time — again, up to 500 or 600 students. I think there are many issues that we have with this bill before us and that many people out in the educational world have.

I think the last thing I want to refer to is again in section 13, 168.02(1)(h), where it says: "designating one or more non-instructional days or non-instructional periods, if any, scheduled by a board to be used for a specific purpose." Again, the minister is taking control of teachers' non-instructional days, it sounds like.

When we go back to what happened with non-instructional days — or professional development days, as they were called…. I remember back in 1972 that pro-D days, or non-instructional days, were added to the school calendar at the request of the teaching profession, at the request of the teachers, after years of advocacy from teachers locals and from the teachers union. The inclusion increased the number of days of work for teachers with no loss of instructional days for students.

So these days were brought in by teachers to work on their own professional development. It recognized that teachers needed time during the school year to work on their skills, improve practice, stay current with teaching and learning. Then what happened throughout the years is that during the local bargaining most locals within the BCTF were successful in achieving the provisions reaching professional development days, or non-instructional days.

Now we have a section in this legislation before us where it appears — and, I guess, during committee stage we'll get more input into it — that the minister, through section 13, through the minister's regulation, may make regulations looking at designating non-instructional
[ Page 11324 ]
days. That again interferes with teachers' bargaining and collective agreements.

So I do think that there are many issues that we have with Bill 36. Those are some of the key ones that I thought should be highlighted and put on record.

On that note, in conclusion, this bill before us, I think, has…. You know, I'm very suspicious of the motives of it coming forward so closely after Bill 22. I'm sure we'll get lots of questions and, hopefully, some answers from the minister during committee stage.

J. McIntyre: I have to say I couldn't feel more differently than the speaker before me, who talked about doom and gloom and suspicion and motives for this legislation. I, on the other hand, am thrilled.

I want to start off by giving my thanks — it may sound gratuitous — to the Minister of Education, who has brought forward these amendments that I hope will be a first step, actually, in British Columbia in ways that we can remove barriers to personalized learning and show much greater flexibility and choice in where, how, when students learn.

Much has been said and written about this research. There's been much work done in government over the past few years. Now we are finally at a stage when we can come forward with some of these amendments to the School Act that will make a real difference in children's lives. I am just so thrilled to be part of this government and of this group that has actually got the courage to move forward with making changes that should probably have been done years and years ago.

Under B.C.'s education plan…. The government is really, I think, committed, and this legislation shows it. We're looking to build an education system that's more flexible, dynamic, adaptable and better prepared for students for a successful future.

We're talking about students that will be in jobs, in ten years, that don't even exist today, jobs we can't even imagine. We need to be preparing our youngsters. There's no better way to invest in this province than investing in our youngsters and in their ability to learn.

[1120]

The minister said that this is an opportunity where we're going to put students at the centre of their learning, where we can celebrate their uniqueness. We can find where their passions are at an early age.

I'm emotional about this. I can only imagine what a difference it would have made in my own son's life ten years ago to actually find out where his passion is, where his interests are and where his strengths are — instead of being, as Ken Robinson describes, in a factory situation where we're generating widgets for the Industrial Revolution, where every child has to be treated the same and comes out not finding their passion and their strengths. As I say, I think this is the first step of, hopefully, many more to come.

We've been inspired. We've been looking at what goes on. I think the public is ahead of us. Some of the school districts are ahead of us in the way they're already delivering education. This legislation enables them and actually gives them the authority to have more flexibility.

We've looked at B.C. communities. School districts like West Vancouver are far ahead, I think, probably, within the constraints they have to operate in. This will provide more flexibility.

We've been through the B.C. education plan. We've asked for feedback. There has been a website for many months where we've engaged educators, students, parents, PACs, trustees and most of all teachers — a whole cross-section of people right on the front line who have been able to participate and contribute to developing some of this flexibility in the system that will actually deal with the real world that these children are going to find themselves in shortly.

The world has changed dramatically. I look at my own children, who are in their mid-20s now, ten years out of school. It's changed unbelievably. My daughter is working in London, England. I wish she was in Canada, in B.C., but there she is working in a global economy, for global brands. I think of her as being in kindergarten a few years ago. I can't imagine this.

I am very proud that we are actually laying out a framework that is going to take our system from good to great, as the minister has said many times. We're looking at five key elements: personalized learning, quality teaching in learning, flexibility in choice, high standards, and learning, in part, by technology.

I just spent ten minutes, 15 minutes, listening to the member opposite, who was basically talking about how scary technology was and how it was going to destroy learning, when in fact it is a tool. He said that it's a tool. It actually is, but it's a tool to a marvelous end. I don't think he's even been in a classroom lately if he hasn't seen technology at work with youngsters — yes, youngsters, young ones.

Let me tell you about a tour I had the privilege of going on with the Minister of Education, who came to our school district. First of all, we started in a little K-to-3 elementary school, where we saw them delivering the Montessori method. It was truly inspiring to see these children who, at a very young age, actually could learn, and learn on their own.

They didn't need a teacher standing over them, hitting them on the hand with a ruler or whatever might be occurring but in fact were inspired to inquire and learn. They had the technology to do that, and the wherewithal. Their eyes and just the looks on their faces as they explored and looked after subjects they were actually interested in finding out about and then seeing them in action using the tools….

That also happened at the next stop, in Caulfeild School, where my children had the privilege of attending.
[ Page 11325 ]
We actually got to see a technology program in place. It was explained to us by the principal that there was quite a bit of back-and-forth with parents and the PAC about whether they were actually going to convert the whole school, kindergarten to grade 7 — whether they would be willing to change everything over to technology.

I tell you that when you see those students in grades 2 or 3 on their iPads, it just absolutely blows you away. You think: "Oh my gosh, if we had only had that kind of tool at our discretion when we were younger, or even when our kids were in the system." It was amazing.

Then we go on to West Bay, which has the International Baccalaureate program in the elementary school, and you get to see the benefits of those. West Bay was a school in the district that actually had some declining enrolment. The school district, in its wisdom, decided to make it an IB school at the elementary level, the first in our district. What happened is that you can't get anywhere near West Bay now because it's so popular.

There is a school district that I would suggest is leading the pack in terms of doing some of these more innovative things, more flexible things. I've seen it in action. I couldn't be happier and prouder of legislation that's going to enable this type of thing to happen around the province.

Now I just want to return a little bit back to some of the highlights of the bill, as has been said before. We're talking about distance learning, something that's very, very important.

[1125]

I'm amazed that several of the members ahead of me who live in the northern regions of the province had, again, all those concerns about distance learning. I see it right on the ground in places like Pemberton, which people may not think is so rural, but there they are. They have students, and they had demand for some courses — even like physics, I think it was, and chemistry in grades 11 or 12 — where there weren't enough students in the school to justify hiring a teacher.

This was a number of years ago. There we go. With distance learning, those students who wanted to take grade 11 physics could.

Why should that just be relegated to grades 10 to 12? What we're saying is that wherever the school district would like to employ that kind of technology, especially in rural areas, we should be able to do that.

Why wouldn't we? Why would we be standing for: "Oh no, let's have as prescriptive and restricted a system as we can"? No. We on this side of the House see the benefits of opening up and making this whole system more adaptable and flexible to real people, real kids, people who will benefit from this type of approach.

Then the school calendar. Here we are saying we've got examples. Maple Ridge, I think, was cited as an example where it's worked very well. We have a system that came from years back, an agrarian society, where we had the summers off for the youngsters to work in the fields. Well, I don't know how many fields there are in East Vancouver or Langara or North Shore or wherever.

Anyway, I think we've moved on from that system, and we need to be able to give school districts the flexibility to do things the way it works out and not throw obstacles, like the other side of the House wants to do, and say: "Oh no. Well, there's going to be something wrong here, and it might not work for family X." Let's trust the districts to work it out the way they need to work it out, please.

Then IB. I just cited one of our schools in West Van. We have the opportunity to allow more schools to introduce this. Yes, they may have to add some fees, but we've made sure that there's a hardship clause there so that no student, unlike what they said on the other side of the House, will be prevented from taking IB by virtue of money.

We're allowing and expanding choice in this province for students in a much more flexible way. I cannot understand why anybody would stand in the way of progress, really.

I'll end on that note. I'm so disappointed to sit here and listen to speakers from the other side who throw obstacles in the way of progress. They're narrow, and they are negative. We have an opportunity here to inspire students for lifelong learning. Let's take it.

M. Sather: I rise to join the second reading debate on Bill 36, School Amendment Act, 2012. That was an inspiring speech from the member opposite. It got the blood going a little bit in the House. That's nice to see.

I guess, given that Kanaka Creek Elementary has been referred to a lot in the House, including by my counterpart in Maple Ridge–Mission, I should talk a little bit about it as well.

Kanaka Creek Elementary School. I was talking to one of the trustees yesterday, I think it was. We were both trying to remember when the school was built. It wasn't recently. It was like about eight or ten years ago, I think.

Right from the beginning it had the year-round calendar, as we've known it as. I guess it's now is referred to as balanced calendar or balanced education. In the beginning there were some concerns, some "Well, I don't think it's going to work." The principal at the time, though, was a big advocate of year-round learning, so he really helped to pave the way to get the school in.

I've never heard any complaints about the school in years — not since, as I say, in the beginning, when it first came in. It seems to be well accepted, at least by the students, as far as I know, and the parents.

[1130]

If it wasn't by the parents, I imagine it would get around to me at some point. I haven't heard any complaints from parents about it — possibly years ago, before I was an MLA.

Interestingly enough, however, it has not expanded to any other schools in Maple Ridge, and that's a good
[ Page 11326 ]
question as to why. I don't know the answer to that really.

I did notice a discussion paper from the school district from last year, this time last year. There was appended to it a question-and-answer. One of the questions was: "Why are we not leaning towards the Kanaka schedule districtwide?" The answer was: "It was tried at other schools in our district, and people did not want it. It was tried districtwide in a surrounding district" — being Mission — "and the community and parents were very unhappy with the change. It does not work when done pervasively throughout the district, and if you try to change an existing school into year-round, it does not work. If we ever get a new school, we may consider it."

There's a message for the minister. We're trying hard to get a new school in Maple Ridge. The minister knows all about it. The Albion area — massive growth in that area, and we need planning for schools. We need a school. This has been going on and on for a few years now.

I think it is quite possible that, sooner or later, we're going to get a new school. I'm pretty sure. When that happens, maybe they will put in the same schedule as they have at Kanaka Creek.

I don't know the specific reasons why — the minister may — but apparently, when you try to go from the current system to the year-round system, there are some problems that people get upset with. That's what the belief seems to be, as far as I know, in Maple Ridge: if you start it in a new school, that's the way to go.

It certainly seems to have worked well, as far as I can tell, at Kanaka Creek. The school is full. No problem to get students. Of course, that is variable in our district, depending on where you live, in terms of whether schools are full or only half full. In Kanaka Creek the school is full.

It's funny, in a way. The opposition critic was talking in his remarks about some of the concerns that we've heard in the media about year-round schooling — along the lines of: "Well, kids are going to have to now be going to school all year. No breaks. How bad could that be? Nobody is going to like that, and it's going to be so tough."

Now, some may feel that we need to have more instructional time than we do. The member that spoke before me might be amongst those folks. I don't know. I know certainly in some other countries, like China, they have, I think, a more rigorous schedule and schooling than we do. That's perhaps a discussion for another time, as to whether or not our kids are getting enough instruction.

In any event, I wanted to refer to the 2011-2012 school year calendar for Kanaka Creek Elementary. If we start from the beginning of the year, if you look at March, March 30 is the last day of school for that month, and the school reopens on April 30. So there's one month, virtually, of no school — pretty much the whole month of April.

Then if you move on to August, there's no school in August whatsoever at Kanaka Creek Elementary. So that's two months basically without school.

[1135]

Then in December, December 2 is the last day of school. So there are two days in December. Basically, you have April, August and December without school. Who's not going to like that? That sounds pretty good to me. That's not school all the time; it's like three months without school.

It certainly works for a lot of parents because they can then choose holiday time. It's a little more flexibility. We live in…. I talked to my wife this morning. It's pouring in Maple Ridge again. They don't call it rainy Haney for nothing. So you can take the month of December off, perhaps, unless you have a thing about staying home for Christmas, which a few people do have. You can take the rainy month of December off, if you're able to, and head south.

You have August off. In the regular calendar now they have July and August off, so you have half of the summer off, as it is, and then April as well. That's pretty good, I think, in terms of breaks for students and flexibility for parents, and that's one of the reasons why they like it.

Of course, it doesn't work for everybody, and for some folks the two months in the summer is the ideal. I know I certainly enjoyed my two months off in the summer. It was just fabulous. I grew up in a rural area, and there were so many things we could do in that period of time. It was like a whole other existence.

Here we have the opportunity, I guess, or the encouragement through Bill 36 to facilitate more year-round schools. We'll see. As far as I know, there is no intention or actuality in Bill 36 of forcing any school district to go to a year-round calendar if they don't want to. But it encourages that, I suppose, in some way.

Obviously, they can do it now. They're doing it in Maple Ridge. In Maple Ridge, by the way, it's not surprising, because we do lead the curve, pretty much, on a lot of things in our fine community, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. It's not surprising that we're out in the lead again, in this case, on education. We will keep up the good work. But there are some challenges.

The member for Maple Ridge–Mission talked about increasing opportunities for choice in education. One of the things he mentioned was that the current government, having opened the school district boundaries, so-called catchment areas…. As it was before, you had to go to the school in the catchment area where you lived.

Now students can go to other schools. That has some benefits, if there's a particular school — like French immersion, for example — that they want to go to — although I'm not sure that French immersion didn't have a special dispensation, as you say, for that. Anyway, it does provide more flexibility.

There is some downside to it, though. We found, again, in the Albion area a couple of years ago — that high-growth area without the new school, which I mentioned
[ Page 11327 ]
— that we had Albion Elementary just overflowing. We have an elementary school not that far away in kind of a semi-rural area that could take more kids, but it was difficult to move them from one to the other, to bus them. I was told that that was involved with the no-boundaries issue. It's a little more complicated than I can fully explain, but it may be some detriment to that.

The member also mentioned the environmental school in Maple Ridge. It is an incredible experiment, I would say, in education. I don't know if there are others like it in the province. There very well may be. They actually have no classroom, and that's pretty radical in itself.

[1140]

When I first heard of it, I thought: "Okay. That's on the nice days, but they must have some place, some classroom, that they go to on the rainy days." I did make reference to the precipitation that we get in Maple Ridge. But no, they're outside all the time. I don't know how they do it. They go in some shelter in the park, or whatever they do, but it is different. It is a very different educational experience.

I agree with the member for Maple Ridge–Mission. I certainly talked to some of the parents, and I guess their children, that find it a very valuable educational experience. As an outdoor enthusiast and environmentalist myself, I think it's just fabulous. However, I have also heard from some folks who were invited to do some instructional part of that learning that it was just chaotic and impossible to actually impart some of the education that needed to be done.

It may be a work in progress, but nonetheless, it's experimental. It's innovative and unique, and it's indicative of the creativity that there is in school district 42. We're not the complete Luddites that the member opposite might have referred to. Well, some of us might be. Anyway, we're getting along just fine, and I think the school calendar is not going to be a problem for us — the changes in the school calendar.

There are some concerns that have been raised with regard to the school calendar. For example, is it an issue of cost savings? Is that part of it? I don't know for sure, but I do know that in our school district we have had to make changes with regard to cost savings, as I expect other schools have had to do.

In that same document that I was referring to earlier from school district 42, they talked about changes in instructional time with regard to moving to two weeks off in the spring, from one week off, and that that saved them approximately $200,000, largely from the teacher-on-call segment. So there is some loss of employment for some folks there. We are trying to create jobs in the province, apparently, so that's not something to be sniffed at.

I think that CUPE has some concerns, as well, about employment prospects being diminished, possibly, through the changes in the calendar, but let's hope not. We shouldn't, I don't think…. We have to look at the whole picture, and there are positives to this bill, in my opinion, some strong positives. But I don't think that, when it comes to people making a living…. That's certainly not something we ever want to sniff at, I hope.

Now, another part of the bill that I wanted to refer to is regarding distributed learning. I'd never even heard of distributed learning before, I have to admit. But live and learn. I think it was known as distance education in my day and is still referred largely to that, but it's on-line learning, essentially.

[1145]

That's where the member opposite from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky had some problems with some of the comments from our side, I guess, with regard to the on-line learning. There's no doubt that the youth of today are in a different world, technologically.

I kind of think, watching my elder grandchild, that there must be some genetic change they got slipped in there somehow, because right from the time he could move about — maybe it's specific to him; I don't know — he would go for the TV or anything that had buttons on it and just start pushing the buttons. Before long — guess what — he knows all about technology. Now he's coming up to his third birthday, and he's been playing with the iPad for months and months now. I don't even have an iPad, so there you go.

They definitely are in a different world with technology. They're, seemingly, hardly ever too young to use technology. There again, there are kind of two sides to it, in my view. Here I may be betraying some Luddite tendencies of my own. I carry the BlackBerry around and do all of that good stuff as best I can, although I must admit that my assistant helps me out with Facebook and Twitter. I've got to admit I'm weak on Twitter.

Nonetheless, it is a new environment, and I guess that's what is being spoken to, in some regards, with respect to distributed learning and kids learning on line. It's not home-schooling, because in the case of distributed learning, the student is connected with the teacher, as I understand it, at some level.

One of the concerns that some have spoken to…. This is one, actually, that I have a concern about. It's not specific to distributed learning, but it's part of it. That is the amount of time that kids are watching a monitor or a screen. I wonder even about the physical effects on their eyesight and who knows what else — hopefully, nothing else. But we probably won't know for a couple of decades if there are any ill effects.

Beyond that, my biggest concern, I guess, about kids being in front of a computer screen so much — I can attest to this; I think we all can — is that there is a certain addictive quality to the new technology, and you just kind of get stuck there. My concern, particularly for children, is that they're not going outside and spending enough time outside, that they're spending too much time in front of the computer screen. I think that has a lot
[ Page 11328 ]
of consequences, actually, with regard to how we interact with the physical world.

I'm trying to teach my grandkid about birds, and he's catching on pretty fast, so I'm happy to see that. The other day he said to his mother…. When there was a crow walking by, she said, "Oh, look at the bird," and he said: "Mommy, that's not a bird. That's a crow." So he's getting his outdoor education as well.

Nonetheless, kids are spending a lot of time in front of screens. Does this increase that, through more emphasis on distributed learning? Perhaps so. I suppose it does. Is that a concern? I think there is a bit of concern, for sure. We have to deal with that. We have to deal with the consequences of that.

[1150]

Also, I think not only is there less contact with the natural world — possibly some physical consequences — but there's less opportunity to learn the social and emotional skills required to work and live in diverse groups in communities.

It's hard for us to fathom it — how young people, never mind small children, think about things. I heard one adult saying the other day: "My daughter was out with a few friends, and they're texting each other and all that. Then she comes home, and she's on the computer again." He asked her: "Well, you were just out with your friends. Why are you still texting?" She said, "Dad, I was out talking to five people. Now I'm talking to 10,000," or whatever. So it's an entirely different aspect.

It's an interesting bill. I don't have any problem with it, by and large. I hope that it's going to be helpful.

My more learned colleague from North Coast made some references to details in the bill that give me a little food for thought — with regard, for example, to the minister's regulations on school calendars and designating one or more non-instructional days, those being the times that teachers take or have for professional development. We know that the government — in their battle, I guess, with the BCTF — around about the same time had made some comments about teachers basically out on a lark on those days.

There was reference, actually, to Maple Ridge, where they had been to Timberline Ranch, which is a faith-based rural area. They have horses. People go out there, and it's really nice. I go out there. They let me go birding on their property in the Christmas Bird Count. It's wonderful.

Anyway, they apparently were doing things that weren't up to snuff, according to the minister, and perhaps he was right. But overall, there still is…. We're still feeling the after-effects of Bill 22, and I guess we're going to for the next weeks, months — hopefully, not more than months. It does lead to some lack of trust in the government around what is taking place.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

M. Sather moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Hayer in the chair.

The committee met at 10:10 a.m.

On Vote 27: ministry operations, $380,079,000 (continued).

N. Macdonald: Picking up where we left off yesterday, I went back in a few areas, and I have a couple of requests for the minister.

There was quite a bit of information that the minister said he would provide for me, if we go back to some of the water questions and so on. I realize that some of those answers may take a period of time, but as much as possible, if the minister could put the answers on the record, that would be great. I understand we have today and tomorrow afternoon. If, during that period, answers come in, as much as possible it would be good to get them in Hansard.

I have two questions of clarification, going back to some of the questions that were asked yesterday. The first of those is to clarify, for the benefit of concerned citizens, local politicians or other stakeholders that may be interested…. I asked the minister for the survey date of the Lakes TSA inventory.

The minister will know that statistically the inventory for each management unit is designed to be resurveyed or reinventoried every ten years. And 90 percent of for-
[ Page 11329 ]
est classification that creates labels for forest cover maps is done by aerial photographs, not by VRI sampling — or by satellite imagery.

Inventory updates and enhancement aside, would the minister provide a realistic understanding of the age of the inventory for the Lakes TSA by telling the committee the date or dates of aerial photography used for the majority of forest classifications in the Lakes TSA?

[1015]

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you again. Yesterday I didn't do a very good job of introducing the staff, as we were going through the process, who were supporting it. So just to introduce the staff. With me, Doug Konkin, deputy minister; Susanna Laaksonen-Craig, acting assistant deputy minster of stewardship; Albert Nussbaum, who is the director of forest analysis and inventory; Lorne Bedford, our manager of silviculture; and Jim Sutherland, who is the acting chief forester. I'll try to keep more current as staff shift during the day when we're dealing with different issues.

We do have some of the information that was requested yesterday and can start to bring it in as requested.

Just to the first one, before I answer — the question about the Lakes. One of the questions was a breakdown of the revenue, coast versus Interior. I think that was one of the questions that was being asked. These may not correspond directly to the estimates, because there are some other revenues in there, like the SLA tax and things like that. But just to deal with the revenue forecast. I think what is probably most relevant is the stumpage revenue information.

For 2012-13 for coast, $93.023 million; Interior, $249.145 million; total, $342.168 million. That's for 2012-13.

In 2013-14, $119.2 million for the coast — I'm just going to go to the closest numbers — $282.023 million for the Interior, for a total of $401.2 million.

And for 2014-15, $133.6 million, $318 million, for a total of $451.6 million.

As we get to the specific questions, there will be opportunities to bring in some of the other information requested. We'll just make sure that we do that during the process.

To answer the specific question that the member opposite posed in terms of clarification around the survey data for the Lakes TSA. I think, as we acknowledged yesterday, the survey data is off an older base, which was surveyed to what was at that time an FCI inventory — forest cover inventory — which predated the VRI standard. That was in the late 1980s.

Then, over the time frame there has been ground data added into it, in 2005-2006, and plans currently under the inventory plan for a re-inventory now that things have stabilized in the area of the VRI standard for 2012-13. But just again to say that the data, or the inventory standard, is viewed as being reasonable for making strategic decisions and for AAC decisions.

[1020]

N. Macdonald: The base data, then, is…. I had suggested it was 1990, but the minister is saying it's the late 1980s. The suggestion is that the ministry would be looking at getting that area up to the VRI standard.

Just going back to the budget, the minister did cite an uplift there, but nevertheless, the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals had talked about an average of about $15 million as being a reasonable sum to have stable inventory. Obviously, we're in a catch-up phase.

How does the minister explain the differences between the sums that we see within the budget for inventory and what has been laid out as a reasonable sum by the association of professional foresters on behalf of professional foresters? You compare that to the historical sums that you had in the 1990s. How can the minister explain those differences?

Hon. S. Thomson: Firstly, just to say, in terms of comparing current inventory levels to averages in the past, we don't agree or accept that that's a direct comparison that should be made. Technology is changing. We have the ability to…. There are new efficiencies, new technologies, in terms of more strategic use of inventory dollars as we do it.

The other point that I think needs to be made here that's important for us…. The Lakes TSA — that's the one that's being talked about — was going through a process — a very significant change. Investing inventory dollars during that period of time would not have made efficient use or sense of those dollars until the situation stabilized.

Now that it has stabilized, we're going back in and doing the full inventory to the VRI standard. That's why we have added additional inventory dollars to be able to do that — an initial $2 million in inventory work. I have stated that we will be going back into the Lakes, doing that VRI standard for this year. Again, doing direct comparisons of past expenditures to current level expenditures is not a direct comparison that we accept.

I do agree that we do need to make sure that we target our inventory dollars into specific areas where we need it for the decision-making. That's what we're doing in this area, and that's what we will be doing in the Lakes TSA.

[1025]

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

N. Macdonald: Part of the discussion we had last year in estimates was around that same assertion from the minister. We don't have to revisit that. What I would say is that $22 million in the 1990s is likely pretty close to $30 million in today's dollars. We used to know. We used to have accurate inventory. Now we have the forest profes-
[ Page 11330 ]
sionals saying that up to 75 percent of the public lands has inventory that could be 20 to 30 years out of date. So those are things that are difficult for a government to get past. That's the reality.

We also know that the government is having to make decisions and doesn't have the information it needs to make those decisions. That's all problematic and not solved by this budget. Again, we see a figure that, even if we're not comparing it to the 1990s, is well below what forest professionals say is the base minimum for doing proper inventory work.

Just to jump to a different question, and then my colleague has a follow-up from some people who've contacted him and asked us to ask a question. To clarify from yesterday's estimates: would the minister kindly tell the House what specific assumptions about timber supply — and that's either increasing or even declining — were used to estimate future stumpage revenues for fiscal years 2013-14 and 2014-15? What specific assumptions about timber supply were used?

Hon. S. Thomson: The question was around the numbers used and assumptions used in the revenue forecasts. The overall backdrop to this is the overall recovery and improvement in the U.S. economy and a small, expected increase in volumes and stumpage rates over the forecast period.

We know that the volume of harvest has significantly increased as markets have improved from 2009 through 2011. So the forecast estimates a small continued increase in the volume from 2012 through to 2014: in 2011-12, 63½ million cubic metres; 2012-13, 65 million cubic metres estimated; and 2014-15, 66 million cubic metres.

We expect a small increase in stumpage rates due to U.S. housing starts projected to increase through the period 2012 to 2015. Lumber and log prices are projected for an increase over the same period, based on an increased demand in the U.S. and offshore.

[1030]

Those are the assumptions that are built into it. We talked a lot about what the process was that we go through. Again, just to reiterate, the ministry staff within our Forests revenues branch, working with Ministry of Finance, work through the process. They work on their economic consensus decision based on certain drivers, and it's in consultation with the fiscal estimates, Ministry of Finance, Treasury Board staff, dealing with lumber and commodity prices, with exchange rates, with harvest volumes, with housing starts. Price and demand all get factored into those revenue assumptions.

B. Routley: To the minister and his staff: thank you for this opportunity.

There is a lot of interest in the debate that's going on. Of course, we hear from others on their ideas and suggestions. One of those is…. If you read the ABCFP recommendations, in their study of inventories they recommend stable, long-term funding for inventory, stable staffing and increased ground sampling. How can stewardship be relied upon when budgets are forecast to be cut by 33 percent for next year?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to again confirm, this year, with the additional resources we have been provided, we're providing additional commitments and dollars towards inventory work, doing that focused in the strategic inventory work — as I said, an additional over $2 million in this current fiscal year. We recognize…. This is part of the overall challenges in meeting budget and fiscal challenges within government in order to achieve balanced budget processes. There is an impact to our budget in the following year.

In terms of that impact and the work that's done with that in terms of inventory work, decisions on those resources for the following year still need to be made in terms of the overall priorities within the land base investment program.

[1035]

We recognize the need to continue to ensure that we both this year, strategically, deal with inventory work, strategic investments this year, and will be making those decisions for the following year based on the need to ensure that we continue to keep a strong inventory program going.

B. Routley: Could you tell us how much additional ground sampling is being done this year?

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm advised that we have a regular ground-sampling program. It's in the range of $200,000 to $250,000. I'm advised that the plans this year are to double that amount and program for this current year.

B. Routley: As I understand it, the minister's answers about LVI in the western portion of the Quesnel district being a good half-substitute for regular VRI is not at all correct. Again, we're told that remote sensing specialists will tell you that LVI is not any form at all as a substitute for VRI — period. So could the minister tell us: is it really a half-measure, as he stated yesterday, or is it a quarter-measure, or is it really any measure at all?

[1040]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, in this case and in our view, it is the LVI standard. The LVI process is an approach that provides us with the information we need. It's an efficient use of dollars in the process in an area that is still changing. It provides us updated information.

It would not be, at this point, a prudent expenditure of dollars to go back in with a full VRI standard. I'm advised that the LVI adds statistical validity to the process. We're confident that it will provide us the information
[ Page 11331 ]
we need to make the strategic decisions at this time in an area that is still changing.

I'd also say and I'm advised that if the members opposite would like a technical review of this with our staff, who are very experienced in this, we'd be able to provide that directly in terms of going through the statistical validity, the standards for errors in the survey. We're confident that this is a technology that provides us with the information we need and that we are able to do it in a cost-effective manner.

B. Routley: How is the attrition dilemma being planned for to deal with staffing issues?

[1045]

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the question. As we all know, this is one of the overall challenges that we have across government, across ministries.

One of the advantages that we have is the additional resources that were provided across the resource ministries and to our ministry in terms of dealing with the backlog and dealing with addressing the authorizations in those backlogs. That's allowed us to bring on additional resources to do those, in a process over the two years that we were provided those resources.

The plan is that as those resources are there, they would be trained, mentored in those processes. Our hope is that through that process those would be the talent pool that could fill some of the vacancies that will come through retirement and other processes — through the attrition.

Just for example, in the inventory area we have four auxiliary staff working in the inventory program this year. With that training and mentorship, we hope those will continue to stay with us as we move through the process and deal with those attrition issues.

We are very fortunate that across the resource ministries we were provided those additional resources to be able to address that. That's providing us the opportunity to train the human resources within many areas of our ministry.

N. Macdonald: Just a few more items with the revenue side, and then we'll move on to expenditures. Just a question to the minister about the revenue net profit or net loss generated by B.C. Timber Sales.

At the last estimates debate in May of 2011, the minister will remember that he told the committee that B.C. Timber Sales had a revenue net loss of $15.7 million for the fiscal year 2010-2011 and that the projected revenue net loss for 2011-2012 was estimated at $5.1 million.

Would the minister please tell the committee what is the revised revenue net loss for fiscal year 2011-2012? What is the revenue net projection for this coming fiscal year, 2012-2013?

Hon. S. Thomson: For the fiscal '11-12, which is the question where we had indicated a projected loss of $5.1 million…. The actual was $1.2 million positive revenue for '11-12. The projection for '12-13 is $19.081 million positive.

[1050]

N. Macdonald: Okay. I'd just like to give some context for the next section of the debate, which is the planned expenditures for the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. I expect that the minister is familiar with the recent report, titled Trends in Renewable Resource Management in B.C., by four retired public servants who once held senior positions within the Forests and Environment ministries.

The report was the focus of a recent column by Stephen Hume titled "B.C. Resources Need Support." It was in the Vancouver Sun, in which Mr. Hume writes: "A bit of perspective. Renewable resources — forests, fresh and saltwater, arable land, range land, fish and wildlife — generate more than $25 billion in provincial economic activity each year."

That perspective tells us just how important it is that we steward and invest in our publicly owned renewable natural resources. And yet this government over the last decade has done the exact opposite. I would say it's clear that they have ransacked the budgets of the renewable resources ministries.

In the report the authors write:

"The total budget for the renewable resource ministries in 1975 dollars has been lower since 2003 than it was at any time in the 13 years prior to that. In 2011 it was less than half of what it had been in 2002 and only 8 percent greater than it had been in 1976."

The authors go on to say:

"From 1998 to 2011 the inflation-adjusted funding for the remaining non-resource sectors of government — and this is all functions other than health, education and social services — more than doubled, while funding for the renewable resource ministries fell by almost 56 percent."

So the decline in budgets noted by this team of respected former senior public servants was and continues to be the inevitable outcome of a smaller revenue base, driven, in large part, over the past decade by a tremendous number of personal and corporate tax cuts. I think that what their contention was is that if this is allowed to persist, the renewable publicly owned natural resources are at increased risk.

With increased risks come increased costs. For example, cutbacks in programs aimed at improving forest health mean that some forests are at increased risk of fire and insect attack, which can trigger huge expenditures in future years, as the minister knows. Secondly, neglect leads to declining resource revenues.

With that in mind, can the minister confirm that, first, the actual budget for the fiscal year just ended March 31, 2011, was $590 million; and second, the comparable budget estimate for the current fiscal year is $602 million; and three, if we adjust last year's budget for inflation at 3 percent — for example, $590 million in 2012 dollars is
[ Page 11332 ]
$608 million — this year's budget represents an effective decrease in expenditure of $6 million or 1 percent real decrease?

[1055]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just with reference to the specific numbers, $590 million and $602 million — the member is correct in those numbers. But I want to clearly point out that the focus of our ministry and the rationale for the establishment of the ministry across the natural resource landscape, with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, was about finding the efficiencies, finding the effective use of dollars with the commitment to ensure that we have the resources for health, for education, for social services.

We need to find within our ministry ways to do things efficiently and effectively with the resources. That's what we're doing. We've had demonstrated success in those areas, with dealing with reduction in authorizations, with being able to put new systems in place, and efficiencies within the ministry.

That work continues across our ministry, and we will continue to keep our focus on ensuring that we can continue to deliver the approvals and the process towards economic activity while not compromising the environmental values and standards that are in place.

N. Macdonald: I thank the minister for the answer.

Not to be too negative, but the failures, I think, have been what has been most highlighted in the past number of months. We have the Auditor General's report. We have the Forest Practices Board. We have the Association of Forest Professionals.

I think it's very clear. Even members of the government side have been clear that the shortcomings are far more evident to the public and to those that would pay attention to the ministry than the successes.

Let's move on and just talk about something that we stopped seeing in estimates about two years ago, which is what had been standard when we used to get FTEs, which is the full-time-equivalents. We used to get in estimates the report on staffing levels by ministry. When that, two years ago, stopped being reported, it obviously prevented B.C. citizens from easily determining where jobs had been cut or increased.

Will the minister please tell the House the number of full-time-equivalent or FTE positions in the ministry for the fiscal year of 2010-2011 as well as 2011-2012 and for this coming fiscal year, 2012-2013? And would the minister commit to restoring the accounting of FTEs by this ministry to provide the openness and transparency that I think the public would expect?

[1100]

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member opposite knows, FTEs are managed corporately through the Ministry of Citizens' Services, and that would be the appropriate place to canvass the FTE numbers.

What I can say for our ministry is that while these are not FTEs, in the current year our total staffing complement is around 3,600 staff within the ministry. That swells during the summer with the additional seasonal resources in fire management and other areas — about an additional 1,400 resources in that time period. This number is reasonably consistent with the previous year.

N. Macdonald: Okay. Well, I don't know that that was particularly…. It does puzzle me. We always used to get FTEs. It seems a very simple piece of information that you wouldn't imagine would be something that the government wouldn't want to lay out for each ministry. That was past practice. It did seem to disappear as the ministry was going through a downsizing. The assumption was that, like many of these things, there was a political convenience to removing it.

If the goal is to be transparent, you would think that that's the something that would very easily be included in an estimates process and very easy to provide for various ministries.

Clearly, the ministry knows how many people are working for them. Clearly, the ministry could lay it out in a way that would explain the various seasonal uplifts and reductions. I understand. I take what the minister is saying — that I should go and ask elsewhere. But it does seem that if we're trying to achieve transparency, that would be an easy starting point.

Would the minister confirm that in the current estimates, 2012-2013, operating expenses for resource stewardship are $95.62 million? I understand that it represents a $10 million uplift from 2011-2012. Is that information correct?

[1105]

Hon. S. Thomson: The budget for the resource stewardship is $102 million. That's the $95.63 million the member opposite mentioned, plus $6.5 million in fish and wildlife, for a total of $102 million.

N. Macdonald: Can the minister please tell the committee how the overall expenditure breaks down by resource stewardship functions or programs under the authority of the chief forester?
[ Page 11333 ]
For example, by inventory; timber supply analysis; pest; disease; forest health; silviculture; Forests for Tomorrow; tree improvement; water use planning and authorizations; watershed restoration; fish, wildlife and habitat management; climate change and research, etc.

I may not have a complete list here, and that's why I need more clarity and detail. In other words, I am after a complete breakdown of the resource stewardship expenditure by function or program under the authority of the chief forester.

If some of the figures that the minister used — I think the figure of $102 million…. I presume not all of that is under the chief forester. Could the minister please break out the balance by stewardship function or program and tell the committee what division or assistant deputy minister has authority for it?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, we'll be able to provide that information for last year and the previous year as quickly as we can here. We'll make that information available.

For the current year the final allocations haven't been determined. We're still in the process of finalizing it. They have been allocated out at the 90 percent level of the overall budget, but there are still some allocations to be made in that final 10 percent between the various divisions.

The member opposite has correctly provided a pretty comprehensive list and sort of correctly covered off all the major areas that are under the stewardship division. We will undertake to provide the numbers for last year and the current allocation as it stands to date for this current year.

N. Macdonald: What would be useful is just…. It would be important that all of the answers, as much as possible…. I understand that some of the information will come at a later date. That has been the practice.

[1110]

But as much as possible, as answers come to the ministry, even if it's not related, necessarily, to what we're speaking about…. Perhaps as we finish off a session, like close to noon, the minister could put on Hansard answers to any of the questions that he currently has.

The minister will have talked, just like other members do, to individuals who talk to staff, and they hear pretty clearly on topics. What I want to talk about is people who were involved with the research branch. Their opinions are pretty strong on that.

Basically, they talk about the evisceration of the B.C. Forest Service after almost 100 years of dedicated service as the public's forest agent and speak of one of its most ill-considered decisions, which is the decision to disband the world-renowned research branch — an act that, in speaking to me, they characterized as public vandalism, making the point that our resilience to climate change and to many of the threats of globalism depend on how we are able to apply knowledge derived from scientific forest research.

Could the minister tell the House…? I'll again give a series of questions. First, what branch of his ministry or which staff coordinates research at headquarters and across the regions? That would be one question.

The second is: if his ministry has a strategic plan for research that lays out clear goals and the activities designed to attain the desired outcomes, would the minister kindly provide members of the opposition with that plan? Third, how many FTEs are involved directly with forest research activities, and is the number of FTEs less, the same or greater than in the fiscal year 2010-2011?

That's a fairly big bunch of questions. When you're finished with that, I've got just one more. I'll leave you with that for now.

[1115]

Hon. S. Thomson: Firstly, before dealing with the last question, I just want — as the member opposite asked — to be read into the record, where possible, with the information.

Again, these are the working numbers for fiscal '11-12. We would still need, as I said, to provide the numbers for '12-13. But the working numbers, broken down by area: resource management objective, $794,598; inventory, $5,938,245; stewardship, $2,941,989; tree improvement, $3,703,580; resource practices, $53,251,073; forest practices, $3,869,209; water stewardship, $2,800,914; provincial operations, $452,000; fish and wildlife, $6.163 million.

On the question with respect to research, the coordination or the lead for that is provided by the assistant deputy minister in the stewardship division.

The asked questions with respect to the strategic plan — there is a natural resource sector strategic sciences framework that's been developed with input and in collaboration with the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Energy and Mines and Ministry of Agriculture. So that provides the framework for the research work, and that document can be provided.

The salary budget for research in 2012-13 is anticipated to be maintained at $6.2 million — roughly 73 staff involved in that component. The change from the previous year reflects there was a transfer of 18 staff into the Ministry of Environment. So in combination, the capacity within our ministry and Environment — 73 plus 18.

N. Macdonald: I apologize if I missed it, but what's the total amount of ministry operational funding provided for research in the estimates before us? Like I say, I apologize if I missed that. I don't think I heard that.

[1120]

Hon. S. Thomson: The base operating budget in 2012-13 is anticipated to be maintained at about $5.5 million.

N. Macdonald: During last year's estimates debate the minister told the House: "The budget for the forest inventory work for 2011-2012 is $6.1 million. That's not including salaries. If you include the salaries for the staff that undertake that function, the total number would be $7.5 million."

Can the minister tell the committee: first, what were the actual expenditures on inventory work in the last fiscal year, 2011-2012; second, how much is the comparable projected inventory budget for this coming fiscal year,
[ Page 11334 ]
2012-2013; and third, what are the priorities in terms of inventory work to be completed with any additional funds provided for in the upcoming fiscal year?

Hon. S. Thomson: The question was inventory in 2011-12 — $5.7 million.

[1125]

The salary numbers that the member opposite referenced were as he referenced. For 2012-13, $7.5 million plus the additional salary of $2.2 million, for an overall budget of $9.7 million for 2012-13.

In terms of the priorities for the inventory work, the ministry plans to complete eight major ongoing VRI projects, initiate four new major VRI projects with an emphasis on activities in mountain pine beetle–impacted and EBM management units. We're going to continue with the multi-year VR mapping projects in Haida Gwaii and the midcoast TSA in the EBM units.

We're going to continue to evaluate the new, innovative inventory methodologies, as we talked about earlier — the emerging new opportunities with the satellite imagery for the capture of inventory data.

The ministry is going to continue to collect site product information from mountain pine beetle impact management units. These will be focused in the Kootenay-Boundary region, Thompson-Okanagan region.

We're going to maintain and remeasure the critical permanent sample plots, and we will continue to enhance decision support tools, including detailed tree and stand simulators and financial analysis systems.

N. Macdonald: I'd just like to return to a debate we had last year and that we have touched on already, which is just to look at historical levels of funding. Thank you for those answers, by the way. The temptation is just to ask the minister to compare two decades — between 1990-91 and 2000-2001, to the decade 2001-2002 through 2010-2011.

Rather than asking the minister to read it, I'll just read my calculations, and then the minister can either, in general, agree with that or disagree. The figures that I have for the decade 1990-91 through to 2000-2001…. The average was roughly $23.6 million spent on inventory, which in the adjustment that I have done for inflation to 2012 dollars — which I think is a fair judgment — is $33.1 million. That's in 2012 dollars. That's the average for the decade, whereas in the last decade, 2001-2002 through 2010-2011, the average was roughly $8.5 million, which when adjusted for inflation, 2012 dollars, is $10.1 million, which is a dramatic difference.

I know that the minister contends that there have been some technological changes, but most who do inventory work would disagree with that. We also know that in the years 1996-97 and '97-98 inventory budgets exceeded $40 million when adjusted for inflation to 2012 dollars.

I raise this, then, because as the minister knows, the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals, in its recent update on the status of the province's forest inventories, recommended that the annual inventory budget be $15 million. Yet the ministry's budget is consistently below that figure.

In 2010 the ministry assumed additional responsibility for conducting and maintaining 34 tree farm licence inventories as well. Would the minister please tell the House, one, how much money in total did the licensees collectively spend on forest inventory in the year before the ministry assumed responsibility for TFL inventory, and two, what was the amount of the uplift in the ministry's 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 inventory budgets dedicated to TFL inventories?

[1130]

Hon. S. Thomson: We're into debate about comparing numbers from a previous time period to current. I think it is important to recognize that during the '90s there were additional resources. That was during a time period when we were moving to digital.

Now with the improved technology, satellite imagery, we have processes in place where…. It is just like with the advances in technology, the cost of computers has come down. We can do things more efficiently and more effectively with the new technology, and that's what we're doing through the programs.

Again, just to confirm, in terms of the funding on the tree farm licences, what we're doing now is treating it as one overall land base. There is no change there. Those costs in those tables were provided previously through the land based investment program, so it doesn't change the relations. We're not picking up new costs in the inventory program. It's just simply a different method. The ministry is managing it and doing it directly.

[1135]

N. Macdonald: To be clear, because the minister last year used this answer, it is not me asserting that that answer is not a particularly compelling one. I mean, this is forestry professionals — right? It's forestry professionals that are saying the amount that's being spent on inventory now is not adequate. It's the Auditor General. It's the Forest Practices Board. They're all saying it, so it's not just me.

I know the minister can say that technology picks this up. But I think we all know that there is a huge problem out there. You look at the decadal averages for the inventory budgets adjusted for inflation. It's $33 million compared to $10 million. You then look at what the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals tells us: 72 percent of the province's inventory has survey dates prior to 1990. In other words, 72 percent of the provincial inventory is over 22 years old.

So would the minister explain how he deems the cur-
[ Page 11335 ]
rent projected inventory budget to be up to the task ahead of him?

[1140]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, this is a debate we had last year, and it obviously continues. Strictly comparing the previous averages to current expenditures is not an agreed approach from our perspective.

Just for example, in the past we've had 60 people inputting data. That's now done by a process that has $6 million in savings. The advances in technology and efficiencies are reflected in ensuring that we spend the strategic resources we have in inventory in the most effective way. We update annually. We do, as I mentioned before, the annual overview. The annual input numbers go in.

We're confident that the strategic resources that we have are being deployed efficiently in the program, and again, we recognize the importance to have that strategic approach to it. The staff is completing an overall strategic plan for the inventory work. That will be completed this year to ensure — as we address the changing land base, particularly around the mountain pine beetle impacts — that we have those resources targeted in those specific areas where we need them for the most strategic decision-making.

N. Macdonald: But if you do go back to '96-97, '97-98, we were up to $40 million, in 2012 dollars. If you compare the situation then to now, I think that there's a strong argument for the urgency of the need now.

Can I just ask the minister…? In his opinion, are the inventory challenges in the high-water years of budgeting that we saw in the 1990s greater or lesser than they are today? Does he agree that the challenges are obviously far greater today than they were back in that period of time?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to comment. I recognize the importance of the strategic inventory work. There are always challenges with it. There were challenges in the '90s. That was during a process of digitizing it and all the additional resources required there.

[1145]

Today we face challenges with climate change, with mountain pine beetle impact, so it's important to have a strategic approach to the inventory. We're confident that we have the information, the data, in order to make the strategic decisions.

But also, I recognize that it's important to be able to communicate that strategic direction. I've asked staff to ensure that we have that framed in a strategic plan that can be communicated, that we can also engage in the discussion on — and to have that before the end of this year to ensure that we do know that we are targeting the important resources we have in this area strategically and efficiently.

Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.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 © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada