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

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 36, Number 4

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

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Motions Without Notice

PERMISSION FOR MR. RICK HANSEN
TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE

Hon. C. Clark: By leave, I move that Mr. Rick Hansen be permitted to address this assembly from the Bar of the House.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

I now ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to open the doors of the chamber to invite Rick Hansen to approach the Bar of the House. [Applause.]

[1335]

Hon. Members, this is the second time in our history that Rick Hansen has been invited as a special guest. On May 30, 2007, I had the pleasure of announcing Rick's presence at the Bar of the House, and today, for the first time, it's an honour to invite Rick to address the Legislative Assembly from the Bar.

Before Rick addresses the Legislative Assembly, I would like to call on the Premier to say a few words.

Tributes

RICK HANSEN

Hon. C. Clark: It is indeed a rare honour that's been accorded to someone, to Mr. Hansen, to address us today in the Legislature — a rare honour that is not just well deserved, one that has been well earned through over 2½ decades of making Canada and making the world a better place.

It is hard to believe that it's been 2½ decades since Rick Hansen finished his 16-month, 40,000-kilometre Man in Motion Tour. It's a shining example for all of us of how the human spirit, how determination can change the lives of millions of people across Canada and all over the globe.

His Man in Motion Tour showed us that anything is possible. It's easy to forget what a difference one single person can make in the world. The problems seem daunting and sometimes frightening. But every once in a while — in Canada, in particular — we are blessed by someone who comes along who reminds us that the impossible is indeed possible and that one individual can make great change.

That individual, one of them, has joined us today in this Legislature — Rick Hansen. In his Man in Motion Tour he taught us all what was possible. Since then, as he says, the journey has only grown and continued to get better. He has shown us that we can all take part in this journey with him, that he is not just a difference-maker on his own. He has dedicated his life to creating difference-makers all over the country and all over the world, wherever he goes.

Since he returned home in 1987, he has worked as a community leader, as an advocate and as a supporter of spinal cord research. He has fundamentally changed the way we around the world view people who live with disabilities and has changed government's response to it.

As he has said today, British Columbia is a province that people look to from all over the world to set an example for inclusiveness and forward-thinking when it comes to research and treatment of people who suffer from spinal cord injuries.

Rick's foundation originally raised $26 million in the original Man in Motion Tour 25 years ago. He has leveraged that into $252 million since then, in the last 2½ decades.

It's an incredible opportunity for us today and a great honour to have him join us as we celebrate his progress and his achievement and as we remember, as he always reminds us, that every single one of us has a big chance to make a real difference in people's lives.

On behalf of all British Columbians, on behalf of all Canadians, I'd like to extend to the son of Williams Lake a very, very big thank-you.

A. Dix: I want to join with the Premier's comments. The Premier spoke eloquently about all of the contributions in total that Rick has made to British Columbia, to our province, to our world.

I was reflecting on a couple of moments that are special and personal. I was in another job, at Columneetza School, about ten years ago. I talked to a young woman who had just raised a ton of money on a school project. Naturally, as you would in that moment, I praised her for all she had done and all she had succeeded. She said, as if it was no big thing: "You know, Rick Hansen went to school here."

I think of Norm Gagatek, who had a serious injury, a brain stem stroke, in 2008. He had difficulty swallowing for a long time. He was told he'd never walk again. And he — Norm, a firefighter from Invermere — took part in your event, Rick, just a few months ago.

What that says to us, I think, is that we're all walking in your slipstream. It's an extraordinary thing. It's an extraordinary thing for all of us to have you here today and to recommit ourselves to your work, to our work to make the world a better place for people with spinal cord injury, of course, but for all people and to continue to work on those goals together across party lines, across community lines, across borders.
[ Page 11338 ]

[1340]

Thank you, Rick, on behalf of all British Columbians and on behalf of our caucus.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, Rick Hansen.

Address from the Bar of the House

R. Hansen: Mr. Speaker, Members of the Legislative Assembly, the government of British Columbia — difference-makers, all — friends, I'm here today in an expression of gratitude, with great pride to be coming here in this great hall, in this great House, to be able to tell a story of hope and inspiration, a story of a young person from Williams Lake whose hopes and dreams had been dashed, who had a spinal cord injury and who was told they would never walk again and not to have a lot of hope.

Fortunately, there were others who had another opinion. They surrounded me, encouraged me, challenged me to think about what was possible. There were role models who were in front, who had been there before, who said: "Don't give up. Keep hope and faith. Look for possibilities. Reach your full potential. You are still the same person — the athlete, the adventurer, the pioneer and someone who can make a difference."

That inspiration that embodies this province fuelled me to be able to take one baby step at a time, to be able to feel that I was now a man in motion and didn't need to be cured in order to be whole as a human being, to be a world-class athlete, to be filled with potential and possibility.

Getting to that place, feeling that sense of gratitude — it was family, friends and community, it was this great province, and it was this great country and its values and the members of this country who stepped up to make that possible.

Challenged and motivated to think about what I could do. What strengths, what insight, what journey, what things did I see that needed to be changed that didn't have to be there, just like others had before, to allow me to be in this place?

What role would I play? To wheel around the world; to apply my skills as an athlete; to bring a message of hope, of what is possible if we remove barriers that limit people with disabilities from achieving their potential, the human potential that is inside of every person with a disability, waiting to be unleashed.

Concepts, shifting of perspective, looking at new ways of seeing an individual and seeing the beauty of each individual inside, in spite of the fact they may be different. Knowing that we have much more in common than divides us. To be able to also maybe dream one day that we could find a cure for spinal cord injury so that the next generation of young people with spinal cord injury aren't told that they shouldn't have hope, and that they will walk again.

The Man in Motion World Tour was stimulated because of the amazing wellspring of support from British Columbians and the government of British Columbia — leaders who inspired me, leaders who didn't give up.

As I went around the world, I was looked up to because I was Canadian. I was looked up to because of what this country stands for — a healthy and inclusive world where hopes and dreams come true, where people care about each other. We not only have the right but the obligation to step up and make a difference.

Coming back into British Columbia, my home province, was truly one of the proudest moments of my life. Communities from the north, into the Interior, to the Kootenays and, of course, into the Lower Mainland — thousands and thousands of people lining the streets and joining me in this journey, this new beginning.

When I came to B.C. Place and we finished the end of the Man in Motion Tour, we realized that it was just the beginning. Scientists were still afraid to talk openly about a cure being possible — barriers everywhere for people with disabilities still waiting to be removed.

Thousands and thousands of champions — Members of the Legislative Assembly who stepped up and pioneered and showed the way, introducing policy, programs, funding — supporting me on my continuing journey, but all the stakeholders, the partners, the volunteers who all wanted to interpret that vision in their own way and contribute.

[1345]

This kind of support has gotten to the point where here we are, 25 years later, in a place of great pride, being able to celebrate immense progress. We need to just look across and see Stephanie Cadieux representing her constituency, having a disability but demonstrating ability. This is an incredible example of what's possible and what our province stands for.

I have a chance and a privilege to introduce to you Tyler Mosher, who is up in the stands, who is a member of our cross-Canada relay. He is walking today because of the advanced treatment and care that you have helped to stimulate and put together.

Tyler, I'd like you to stand up and be recognized by the members here. You are amazing. [Applause.]

Tyler is the hope, the example of no longer a dream but an emerging reality where in the future every newly injured person with spinal cord injury will walk away again and return to full physical function.

Stephanie and others are the reality that in the meantime, in spite of our challenges, we have the ability to live a full potential, to make a meaningful contribution, to live a life of purpose and dignity, to be respected and that every one of us, regardless of whether we have a disability or not, has the right to be in this community and to contribute.

Here we are, 25 years later, seeing the relay come back in through this province, with this medal being passed
[ Page 11339 ]
by thousands and thousands of British Columbians, nurturing and igniting the pride of this great province, each one of them with a story of what they've done to interpret the values of this province — a place where people can be healthy, a place where we can live in an inclusive society and on a healthy planet.

The fact that we can come together in spite of our differences, that we can build the province we want, that we have come a long way and we have a long way to go, and that we will not get there unless we work together.

Here I am, sitting in front of the most esteemed colleagues in the province, who have taken time, who are true difference-makers, who all really deserve to be wearing this medal. There are times when you line up on other sides of the hall and the House, but in reality, we know that this time, this moment, there is no divide. We are all unified because we all care about this province and the people who live here.

We care about making a difference, and we do it every single day. It's something to be honoured, because in conflict and in challenge it's easy to lose sight of the progress, the skills, the strengths and the things that come together and that we must work in partnership.

In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, I am here to say thank-you for helping to honour me, for inspiring me to believe that the end of the Man in Motion Tour was just the beginning, that after 25 years of great work and progress, a world-class centre of excellence is at the Blusson Centre, which will be the hub of a global network driving for the cure over the next 25 years.

More and more accessible communities so that we could actually be the leading-edge province and country for the world and help extend to the world for the next 25 years, to help the one billion people living with disabilities today on this planet live a full and productive life, that we can inspire the youth to make a difference, to be difference-makers in their own way. This is what you are doing. This is what I'm here to express to you — the greatest and deepest compliment that I can give from my heart.

Thank you. Thank you for believing in me. Thank you for joining me on this journey. Let's never, ever give up on our dreams. Thank you very much, everyone. I really appreciate it. [Applause.]

[1350]

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: It is indeed a pleasure to introduce 55 grade 5 students visiting from Pacific Academy, one of the best schools in Canada, in my riding in Surrey-Tynehead. They're here to learn about how our provincial government works. Joining them are their teachers, Mr. Grant Wirtz and Ms. Sue U-Ming, as well as over 19 parents and volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedules to be here. Would the House please make them very welcome.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Gregg Dow and Jackie Miller. Gregg is the president and Jackie is a director of B.C. Coastal Transportation Society. Please join me to welcome them to this House.

R. Cantelon: Joining us today in the gallery on their first visit to the Legislature are Linda and John Wicks from my constituency. They're the operators of a very fine establishment, the Black Bear Pub, which serves on Friday a beautiful fish and chips but also wonderful meals throughout the week.

Now, Linda used to work in the original Parliament Buildings in England, in Whitehall. They're both here today to observe the decorum and eloquence of the members. I'm sure we will not disappoint them in that, so please make them very, very welcome.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm delighted today to welcome two guests: Graham Plant, who works with me in my office here as executive assistant; and his fiancée, Sarah Curry, who is from the Comox Valley. Will the House please welcome them both.

B. Simpson: When I was first elected here and had some hair on my head, my kids were very young then too. I was looking at a picture of them, and they looked much younger, as I did. My son, Jonathan, was 15 at the time. My daughter, Jill, was 13.

As we all know in the House, the true sacrifice is borne by our families. My son and daughter are in the chamber today visiting before my daughter heads off back east for a little while. I ask the House to please make Jonathan Simpson and Jillian Simpson welcome.

Tributes

LENAMI GODINEZ

Hon. T. Lake: It's with great sadness that I rise in the House today to speak about Lenami Godinez, whose tragic death on Saturday shocked us all. At 27, Lenami was too young. I can only imagine the unspeakable grief that her parents and family must be feeling today.

Lenami was a member of our family too. She worked in the Ministry of Environment as a section head, regional program administrative support, in Surrey. Lenami previously worked for the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia, where she was the administrative team leader for the child and youth division. I know the Minister of Justice and Attorney General joins me in expressing these condolences.

Prior to that Lenami worked for the B.C. Winter Games Secretariat, where her primary focus was community engagement in social and economic development programs. By all accounts, Lenami was well known in government and clearly a bright light. She was someone
[ Page 11340 ]
who showed a lot of promise and built some strong relationships with colleagues in the brief five months that she was with us at Environment.

In one of her first meetings with Ministry of Environment staff she was asked to prepare a list of things that described herself. I'll let her words speak for themselves. "One thing few people know about me is that British Columbia introduced me to nature. Before that my recreational activities took place in cities. I enjoy exploring, and I'm looking forward to learning how to ski this winter."

A co-worker sent me this in an e-mail today. "Lenami was all we hope to be. She made one sit up straighter, be a little gentler, and so much more. She truly exemplified the values we all cherish in a human being — kind, enthusiastic, patient, committed and courageous. She was with us for only a short time, but she was already making much progress in our office. I feel lucky to have known her."

[1355]

Mr. Speaker, I know everyone in this House sends their sincere condolences to the family of Lenami Godinez today.

S. Chandra Herbert: I, too, would like to join with the Minister of Environment to remember Lenami Godinez. I first met her at a food scraps drop spot. She really took her belief in the environment and supporting nature to heart.

She volunteered in her off hours, working to deal with composting, an issue that's not all that attractive but very necessary in a community as dense as the West End in Vancouver. She would work with the farmers market, with Gordon Neighbourhood House and many other volunteers in our community to ensure that people could do the right thing for the environment.

I would like to join, of course, with all members of this House in offering support to her family, offering support to her loved ones and friends and just to thank her and her example for inspiring so many. That laugh, that smile was something that I will remember. I want to thank her example, to thank her spirit for being so strong and so rich in love for so many others.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Abbott: I am very pleased today to introduce two staff members from the Ministry of Education who are in the House. Lise Mino is a writer in our ministry correspondence office, and Britney Elder works in our information department in the area of analysis and reporting. I'd like all members of the House to please make them welcome.

B. Stewart: I can't help but notice the former MLA from the riding of Okanagan-Westside, Rick Thorpe, who's in the House today and joining us. I'd just like to welcome and congratulate Rick for coming back to this House with many of his former colleagues here.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 41 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2012

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012.

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

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. S. Bond: I am very pleased to introduce Bill 41, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012. This bill amends the following statutes: the Election Act, the Engineers and Geoscientists Act, the Forest Act, the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act, the Health Professions Act, the Land Title Act, Liquor Control and Licensing Act, the Local Government Act, the Police Act, the Public Sector Pension Plans Act and the Wildfire Act.

The bill also confirms corrections to statutes made under the authority of the Statute Revision Act and makes a number of consequential housekeeping and clarifying amendments to other statutes.

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

Bill 41, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

RICK HANSEN

J. Horgan: I was going to read about 32 countries, 40,000 kilometres, wheeling around the world to make a difference between 1985 and 1987, but I think my words, as I tried to commit them to paper, don't seem to do justice after listening to Rick Hansen speak, after seeing the presentation in the rotunda.

I've been very fortunate to have had an opportunity to work with Rick on a number of initiatives over the years,
[ Page 11341 ]
so I thought instead that I would tell a couple of stories that I think reflect more on his character and his commitment over the past 25 years.

Had he done nothing else other than wheel around the world, I think that would have been enough. You could have stopped right there. But he didn't stop right there. He continued, with an enormous amount of grace, to inspire people wherever he went. Millions and millions and millions of people inspired by the acts, daily acts — not the events, not the historic event, but the daily acts of an extraordinary British Columbian.

[1400]

I've seen the video many, many times. I imagine some of you have as well — the immortal shot of the Winnebago pulling out of the Oakridge mall and coming to the first overpass and having the entire storage unit ripped off and dropped onto the road as the Winnebago kept going. Who would have thought after that auspicious beginning that we would have been here today, 25 years later, listening to an extraordinary British Columbian tell us his story and the impact that he has had on millions and millions of British Columbians?

Another story that springs to mind was when my friend and former boss Mike Harcourt fell from his deck on Pender Island and suffered a spinal cord injury. Rick went to see him in the hospital. They became friends. I was contacted by the executive director of the Rick Hansen Foundation, and he said to me: "Good news. Mike Harcourt is coming on board." I said: "You can't put two positive people in a room like that. Don't you understand the laws of physics? That's too much optimism for one place." But nonetheless, it came out all right.

Now I'm finished with my two minutes. I've got many more stories. If anyone wants to join me after, I'll be happy to share some.

ASIAN CANADIANS

R. Lee: May is Asian Heritage Month in Canada. In honour of that, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the Asian-Canadian community for all its contributions to British Columbia. Our province's diversity is something we can be proud of. The many languages, ethnicity and cultural traditions strengthen our social fabric and add to our collective identity.

The contributions of Asian Canadians have changed our economic and political landscape in many ways. As part of Asian Heritage Month, festivities will be held across the country to celebrate the various Asian cultures. In the Lower Mainland the Vancouver Asian Heritage Month Society is putting on its 16th annual month-long festival called explorASIAN 2012. This festival includes art exhibitions, musical concerts and dance performances that are inspired by Asian heritage. The slogan of explorASIAN is "Many cultures, many languages, one celebration."

This weekend I will be attending two explorASIAN events. First, I will attend a matinee show of The Magical Encounter, a musical and dance performance by local and visiting artists who are creatively exploring what happens when East meets West. After the show I will attend the opening ceremony of the third Generation One art exhibition at the International Arts Gallery.

As a Chinese Canadian, it gives me great pride to show my support for Asian cultures in B.C. Asian Canadians contribute greatly to the growth and prosperity of B.C. I hope we all use this opportunity to learn more about Asian Canadians' vibrant history and celebrate their contributions during Asian Heritage Month.

FOREST FIRE FIGHTERS

H. Lali: Imagine that you live in or own a business in rural B.C. I mean in real rural B.C. — out in the bush in remote coastal, northern, interior B.C. or in any one of our First Nations and unincorporated communities — possessing little or no firefighting capacity. What could be scarier than a wildfire raging out of control and heading towards your home or place of work? Nothing.

We are fortunate to have firefighters who put their own lives at risk in order to save ours, and our land and possessions. The Ministry of Forests wildfire management branch employs close to a thousand auxiliary members. Crew members receive extensive training each year and must be fully capable of demonstrating fire behaviour knowledge, fire management tactics, fire-line equipment use, fire-line organization, communications, air operations and orienteering.

All crew members must also meet the national physical requirements. Nearly 200 would-be firefighters are currently at a week-long ministry boot camp in Chilliwack learning how to safely suppress a raging wildfire. Only 135 to 150 will be hired. Their training started two days ago at the RCMP Pacific region training centre on the former military base.

Every year nearly half of B.C.'s wildfires are caused by people and the rest by lightning. B.C. averages 134 entirely preventable fire starts a year due to campfires, costing more than $2.2 million annually. Over the past ten years 2,000 fires per year were reported, costing $145 million annually.

The ministry has regulations in place in order to curb and prevent wildfires — including tips to burn debris on one's property, to build a responsible campfire and to plan landscaping around homes to limit the impact of wildfires — as well as penalties and fines for breaking the law.

[1405]

We are indeed thankful for our brave firefighters who risk their own safety to protect us and the environment we live in. We are thankful for the new recruits at Chilliwack's boot camp.
[ Page 11342 ]

JOAN LEMOINE

R. Cantelon: When the Parksville Chamber of Commerce was considering individuals for their outstanding contributions to the community for their annual awards, one name stood out that didn't fit into any of the categories — Joan LeMoine. She seemed to be everywhere and doing everything.

As Rudi Widdershoven, the president of the chamber, put it, they needed a special award for someone who goes above and beyond, year after year. Rudi went on to say that if the chamber or some other community group identified a particular need, something that needed to be done in the community, they would ask Joan. The answer was always: "Sure, I can do that."

Joan retired in Parksville in 1995, and like so many seniors in Parksville, she got involved in the community to help others. Joan started by volunteering at the Society of Organized Services in the thrift shop. Then she began working in the office, was elected to the board and became president of the board. She became a key part of the expansion of the thrift store.

Joan served two years on the chamber of commerce. She volunteered at the Legion. She's worked year after year on Canada Day celebrations. Together with her late husband, Jim, they were part of a core group that restarted the Beach Festival in Parksville after a three-year hiatus.

Then lately, last year, Joan signed up for fundraising efforts at the Cops for Cancer. Now for some of us, getting your head shaved is no great notable sacrifice. For many in the chamber it would hardly be noticed, as pointed out earlier by one of the members opposite.

An Hon. Member: I resemble that remark.

R. Cantelon: Yes.

Well, not so much for Joan. But she went out and raised $4,500 and got shaved clean and smooth.

There are three kinds of people in this world: those who watch it happen, those who wonder what happened and those who make it happen. Let's celebrate Joan LeMoine for all that she does in making it happen in Parksville.

EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, it happens every time. An earthquake hits, and the airwaves fill with instructions on what to do. A small number of us go out and get our earthquake kits, talk to families, develop plans at work and home. But many, including, dare I say, some in this House, will nod wisely that that is a good thing to do but put it off and forget.

We can't forget. As Jerry Thompson writes in the Cascadia's Fault, a book I'd recommend: "Imagine five major cities — Vancouver, Victoria, Seattle, Portland and Sacramento — with dozens of smaller towns and villages in between, slammed all at once by the same earthquake, with tsunami wave damage across the entire Pacific Rim. Disaster on a scale so overwhelming that nothing in our history can serve as a reference point."

It's pretty staggering stuff. This building we are in today would probably collapse. St. Paul's Hospital in my community, as well, is threatened. Many others all across B.C. also are in that boat.

I worry that we are sleepwalking towards a disaster. We have a 30 percent chance that a big one will hit us in B.C. in the next 50 years. As legislators we have a duty to think long term, yet sometimes the election cycle is only as far as we do think.

Tougher building codes, trained citizens, stronger emergency infrastructure, improving our urban search and rescue team — not cutting it, as the federal government has recently decided to do — and improving our buildings both old and new are all crucial. As I learned in Scouts, always be prepared. An earthquake will hit us here in B.C. Are you prepared?

MINIMUM WAGE

D. Hayer: I rise today to speak about B.C.'s latest minimum wage increase. Effective today, the general minimum wage in B.C. is $10.25 per hour. That means British Columbia now has the second-highest minimum wage in the country, something our government is very proud of.

Today's increase provides more support for workers and families in every region of the province. It means that full-time workers who were making the $8-an-hour minimum wage last year will put an extra $4,000 in their pockets, and that's good news for families across British Columbia.

Today's increase is the third to the minimum wage over the past year and follows on our Premier's commitment in March 2011 to increase the minimum wage in stages. We heard from both the labour community and the business community that government needs to take action on minimum wage, and we listened.

[1410]

Our government understood we needed a balanced approach to this policy. We listened to the employers across the province. We ensured they had lots of time and notice, staging the increases in small increments over the past year.

Raising the minimum wage in stages to $10.25 an hour benefits workers, while putting less stress on employers. That's good news for businesses and our economy. This balanced approach helps us ensure British Columbia remains a wonderful place to live in, to work in and to invest in. That's good news for all British Columbians.

Going forward, our government will consider further changes in the future, using a balanced approach, and
[ Page 11343 ]
we will continue to welcome ideas from workers and employers on how best to address minimum-wage adjustments.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF
ENBRIDGE OIL PIPELINE PROPOSAL

A. Dix: My question is to the Premier. Does the Premier and her government support the moratorium and exclusion zone on oil tanker traffic on the north coast?

Hon. C. Clark: As the member knows, there are many pipelines through British Columbia, and there are also many ships that transport oil along the coast of British Columbia. That is not new, and as far as I know, it hasn't changed.

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

A. Dix: The moratorium dates to 1972. That was a Liberal government. The exclusion zone dates to 1988. That was a Conservative government.

I know that the Premier doesn't want to take a position on this, but it might be time to get around to it. The province of Alberta, the Ministry of Transportation in Alberta, the federal Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, the Department of Justice, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Transport Canada have all registered as government participants in the joint review process, but not British Columbia.

Now, it seems to me the Premier might explain why it is that British Columbia has not decided to be a full government participant in the joint review process on the Enbridge pipeline.

Hon. C. Clark: The value in these debates is that the Leader of the Opposition may learn that it is not a moratorium, although he continually refers to it that way. It's a voluntary exclusion zone that exists off our coast. I think that's the value of having these debates.

I think, though, that the real question that British Columbians need to be asking is: why is it the Leader of the Opposition feels he already knows everything about the outcome of these hearings? He might as well assume that there should be no hearings whatsoever. He knows his answer. He has prejudged the outcome.

Well, the government of British Columbia has a greater responsibility than that. We need to understand completely the risks to our province and also, potentially, the benefits to our province. We don't know the outcome of the answer to either of those questions.

As much as the Leader of the Opposition would like to prejudge it, as much as he'd like to play politics with it, it's a more important issue for British Columbia and for Canada than that, and we aren't going to play it that way.

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

A. Dix: Well, the government of Alberta is participating in this process. They're providing evidence in the process. They're full government participants in the process. It's the government of British Columbia that has been absent without leave.

The reality in British Columbia is that people who live on the coast know there's a moratorium, even if the Premier doesn't. People who live on the coast know there's an exclusion zone, and they support it, as do I.

The question to the Premier is simple. Why isn't the government participating fully in a process that matters so much to the environment and economy of British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: Of course the process matters to British Columbia. It matters more to British Columbia than to any other province in this country. In British Columbia we will be getting a small amount of the benefit, as it stands, and taking the largest piece of the risk. Of course it matters to British Columbia. This process matters a lot.

[1415]

In fact it matters so much that it's irresponsible to prejudge its outcome. It matters so much that it's irresponsible to get out there and decide you know what all the answers are before any of the experts have had a chance to present their evidence.

We have an obligation, as MLAs and as leaders in this province, to ensure that we are listening to British Columbians. We have an obligation, as a government that has a responsibility to look after the best interests of our province, to make sure that we understand the evidence and that we weigh it appropriately. That's what people elect governments to do.

They may elect the opposition to get out there and play politics and prejudge the process, but that is not what they elect governments for. They elect governments to make sure that we are looking after their best interests, and the way to do that is to make sure that we give this process a fair hearing and that we make a decision in the best interests of British Columbians, based on the information we see come out of it.

R. Fleming: Well, based on what the Premier has just said, the question for her is: if it matters so much to this government, why is it that the Alberta government is registered as a government in the National Energy Board hearings and B.C. has relegated itself to intervener status?
[ Page 11344 ]

The fact is there has been a moratorium in place off B.C.'s north coast since 1972 — 40 years, nine Premiers, eight Prime Ministers. We have a tanker exclusion zone with the United States, which was created in 1988 to keep bulk oil tankers from Alaska away from our pristine shores and away from the Great Bear rain forest. Partly thanks to these measures, B.C. has never suffered the fate that Alaska did with the Exxon Valdez disaster 25 years ago. These prohibitions on tanker traffic have served us well.

My question is to the Premier: does she favour maintaining the north coast oil tanker moratorium and the tanker exclusion zone on behalf of British Columbians, and will she make that position known to the National Energy Board?

Hon. T. Lake: The opposition just simply makes it up as they go along. There is no moratorium on oil tanker traffic off the coast. There is a voluntary exclusion zone 50 nautical miles out. That is well recognized.

If the member opposite wants to know why we elected to have intervener status in this process, perhaps he should ask his colleague, the member for Stikine, who during estimates debates, May 18, 2011, said: "Would the minister commit today that he will have the province apply to become an intervener status so that we can have our good public servants with their good knowledge of the B.C. land base…inform this process…?"

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The Environment Minister and the Premier should know that the moratorium on the north coast includes the Dixon Entrance. It includes the Hecate Strait.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: This is an area identified by Transport Canada and other agencies as posing extreme navigational risks, especially for large vessels in these waters. The marine ecosystems here in this part of British Columbia would be extremely vulnerable to large spills because they could not easily be contained.

This project, which is before the National Energy Board hearings, would see 225 supertankers per year loaded up with raw bitumen, the size and scale of which we have never seen on the north coast. The Premier ought to know that that is exactly what's at stake here in British Columbia today. So I say to the Premier that for heaven's sake, B.C.'s north coast is not the St. Lawrence Seaway. It is not an engineered sea lane.

[1420]

Will the Premier, in this House, clarify her confusing comments that she said outside of this place and tell us if she stands for or against the oil tanker moratorium and the tanker exclusion zone that governs B.C.'s north coast today?

Hon. T. Lake: On this side of the House we believe in making decisions and taking positions based on information, not speculation. On that side of the House information is irrelevant. That side of the House opposes a project before the process is even partly done.

This is what they say: "We have listened to the concerns and diverse perspectives of constituents throughout the province, and we have met with stakeholders and experts about the project." That's what they use for decision-making. That's the NDP environmental assessment process. They could save a ton of money. They don't need an environmental assessment process. They simply make up their minds before any information comes forward.

On this side of the House we make decisions based on evidence and information and look after the interests of British Columbians, based on that information.

D. Donaldson: I hear from my northwest constituents about this Enbridge issue every day.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

D. Donaldson: Every day I hear from constituents on this issue. It's real for them. It's a huge concern for them. First Nations have said they are opposed to the Enbridge pipeline. In my constituency, the Wet'suwet'en have talked about how this project would destroy their culture and their livelihood. Their submission to the joint review panel states: "Considering the magnitude of cumulative environmental effects on Wet'suwet'en territory and the lack of recovery plans or strategies to address those effects…the Wet'suwet'en and the Office of the Wet'suwet'en protests and rejects the northern gateway concept."

To the Premier, in the face of broad-based opposition, including 130 First Nations, why will she not take a stand opposing the northern gateway project?

Hon. T. Lake: May 18, 2011: "Would the minister commit today that he will have the province apply to become an intervener status" — the words of the member for Stikine — "so that with their good knowledge of the B.C. land base we can actually inform this process on behalf of B.C. citizens?" What has changed in a year, other than the politics of this proposal?
[ Page 11345 ]

We have two potential pipeline projects out there. On this one the members opposite seem to have made up their mind; on another one the Leader of the Opposition is taking a wait-and-see attitude.

Well, apparently, the mayor of Vancouver is opposed to the other pipeline project. The Tsleil-Waututh are opposed to it. Why is the Leader of the Opposition taking a wait-and-see attitude? Why not allow politics to let him make up his mind today?

On this side of the House, we will use the process. We will gather information. We will make decisions based on evidence, because that's the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: The Premier of Alberta is standing up for her province. She's made her point. No one on this project…. The Premier of Ontario, likewise. The leaders of the coastal First Nations have stood up and, serving their people, make their views known. But our Premier, the Premier of B.C., refuses to stand up for the people of the province on this issue.

I also hear regularly from small businesses in my constituency who have major concerns about the potential impact of this project on our local economy. People like Smithers small business owner Ali Howard, who says: "The human cost, the cultural cost and the environmental costs are just too high." Or Bulkley Valley veterinarian Mike Desharnais saying, commenting on certain ecological disaster: "There will be a total collapse of this community and the entire northwest region. The damage would be irreversible, and life as we know it today in this beautiful part of the world would be changed forever."

[1425]

Again, to the Premier, when will she take a stand in support of small business owners and local economies and oppose the northern gateway project?

Hon. T. Lake: The appropriate time to take decisions, to take a stand, is when you have information — not making decisions based on politics.

This is the sum total of the NDP's environmental assessment process: "After consideration we have concluded that the environmental, economic and social risks associated with the northern gateway plan simply outweigh the benefits." That is their thorough, rigorous, robust environmental assessment process.

All I can hope is that the people of British Columbia never have to depend on that process from those members on that side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

PRIVATIZATION OF
LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION

S. Simpson: Yesterday the government posted a request for proposals to privatize the liquor distribution system in B.C. The proposal will establish a private monopoly, a monopoly that will be able to set its own prices with minimal government oversight. It's a proposal that keeps information and documents away from everybody but bidders so those who have concern have little access to information or transparency.

In February this minister told the House that consumers would be protected. The reality is this proposal will lead to higher prices for consumers, likely less money for government programs while a private monopoly does very well.

Can the minister tell us why consumers should not be worried about higher prices and getting gouged by this Liberal scheme?

Hon. R. Coleman: I actually had to answer these questions on NL Radio earlier when I had to tell the radio station that the member opposite completely misled the public in what he said on radio, because the fact….

Mr. Speaker: Minister….

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, Mr. Speaker, what he did is he told the public of British Columbia that prices were going to go up when they're not going to go up because….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, you have to withdraw part of your last comments.

Hon. R. Coleman: I agree, Mr. Speaker. I will not refer to the member by "you," as you have advised me in the past.

Mr. Speaker: No, Member….

Hon. R. Coleman: Or misled, Mr. Speaker — okay?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

I will say this, Mr. Speaker. It's irresponsible for a member of this House to go out and tell the consumers of British Columbia that prices are going up when that is not correct.

The fact of the matter is this is about warehouse and distribution. It is not about pricing. Prices are being retained by the province of British Columbia. The price of liquor and collecting the revenue for the province of
[ Page 11346 ]
British Columbia is in the hands of the province and not in the hands of the distributor.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The only person who believes that is the minister. Everybody else who reads this RFP sees it for what it is.

Not only will this increase prices, not only will it reduce revenues potentially, but it is a setup if I ever saw one. The proposal to privatize our liquor system eliminates the opportunity for joint ventures to bid. It eliminates the opportunity for beverage manufacturers or retailers to bid. The minister has created a situation where only a handful of suitors have the opportunity to do this. People like Patrick Kinsella and his client Exel Logistics — that's who.

[1430]

Cynical observers might say the fix is in on this one. Why did the minister structure this proposal to eliminate these potential bidders and shorten the list of eligible participants?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would be tempted to use the word "mendacity" or "mendacious" with regards to those comments, but both myself and the other House Leader know exactly what that means when he used the words last week in debate with me.

The fact of the matter is this. The member across the House is making accusations that are not correct. We have an RFP on the market. It is for the warehousing and distribution. We have worked with our union with regards to it. There's succession in place with it and agreements as to how we're going to accomplish that. There are lots of people that are looking at this. The member would like to have people think that there are only one or two people that are capable of looking at this opportunity.

We think it's the right thing to do. It will save government millions of dollars in not having to build a new warehouse, millions of dollars with regards to how we can manage liquor in the province of British Columbia. We will protect the pricing and the taxation and the revenue to government, because that will stay in the hands of government.

M. Karagianis: Well, it will be interesting to see if Mr. Kinsella's client Exel gets this contract in the end. Maybe the government will have to eat their words. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? It's only reasonable that the creation of this monopoly has left consumers wondering what it means for liquor prices across the British Columbia government.

The government has not been clear on how they plan to work with the private monopoly, and it will be a private monopoly. How is the government planning to establish and set pricing for their services? The government has offered a very vague review every couple of years, but it's still not clear what the content of that review will be or what it's based on.

Can the minister explain to British Columbians how the B.C. Liberals are going to ensure that consumers will not be hit with higher prices by a private monopoly?

Hon. R. Coleman: The first thing I'd say to the member opposite is go check the lobbyist registration and find out that the person you're saying is actually a lobbyist for companies is no longer listed as a lobbyist for a company with regards to this file. Go do your research before you accuse people with regards to it.

Now, with regards to the rest of this, the members opposite should go read the RFP. It's for distribution and warehousing of liquor in the province of British Columbia. It's being done in conjunction with negotiations with BCGEU. It has successorship attached to it.

It is actually an opportunity for us to save ourselves from having to build a multi-million-dollar warehouse and get the same service or better for British Columbians while at the same time maintaining in government the pricing and the taxation of liquor in the province of British Columbia to protect the taxpayers, to raise the revenues that come out of liquor for things like health care, education and social programs.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, the minister might want to catch up with the times. The BCGEU has come out in direct opposition to this privatization scheme by government. Certainly, they have moved to protect their workers, and well they should.

Let's be honest. There is absolutely nothing in this proposal to suggest that prices will come down for consumers, and certainly there is nothing to assure us that the government will continue to receive the revenue that they have through this private monopoly. To sell it to British Columbians as something that's going to provide revenue for any kind of services, I think, is disingenuous, hon. Speaker.

At the end of the day, the government and this private monopoly will certainly take their fair share along the way, and that leaves only one place for profit to be taken, and that will be through the consumer pricing.

Can the minister explain how this proposal will create higher prices for consumers and what level of involvement the government will have in establishing appropriate pricing to protect consumers?

Hon. R. Coleman: The lack of understanding and research done by the NDP on this file is stunning to me. The member stands up and complains and worries about a private sector monopoly, when obviously the members
[ Page 11347 ]
opposite don't know how liquor is distributed in the province of British Columbia today.

[1435]

Wineries in British Columbia can distribute directly to liquor stores and restaurants across B.C., and they don't have to go through the Liquor Distribution Branch. All domestic beer goes through the brewers distribution system and not through the LDB.

The stunning thing is…. Get your facts straight first of all, and then go read the RFP and find out it's warehousing and distribution. It's not pricing, and it's not taxation. That will stay with the LDB as we go and continue to have a private sector and a public sector retail marketplace which has been agreed to, as we go forward.

I don't know why the members opposite think we need to be in the distribution business. I think we can find efficiencies here with a private sector partner that will save us thousands of dollars for customers in British Columbia. In actual fact, we'll try and price the liquor so that we have a benefit to British Columbians — not like the NDP, when the last time they ran for election they wanted to raise the price of beer in British Columbia.

ELIMINATION OF HARMONIZED
SALES TAX AND REINSTATEMENT
OF SALES TAX SYSTEM

B. Ralston: In order to implement the result of the referendum on the HST, announced last August, the Referendum Act directs government to consider "introducing legislation in the Legislative Assembly during its first session after the results of such a referendum are known." The current legislative session began on October 2, seven months ago.

My question is to the Premier. Will she respect the Referendum Act and the voters of B.C. and table legislation so that it can be both debated and voted upon before the House rises on May 31?

Hon. K. Falcon: As we discussed in the House the other day and the critic acknowledged, it is a Herculean task to get all of the legislation drafted and prepared to be presented in this House. I can tell the member in all candour that the drafting lawyers are working on this bill as their number one priority. It is consuming an enormous amount of time and effort, as the member can imagine.

It is the commitment of this Minister of Finance, this Premier and this House to ensure that it gets introduced in the House as soon as we can responsibly do so. As I said during an earlier debate that we were having in the House, it is a big challenge. I've acknowledged that from the outset, and we intend to get it in as quickly as we responsibly can.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Following the announcement of the referendum results, the Premier in an official statement said: "Let me be clear about one thing. We will return to the PST with the exemptions that existed prior to the HST. That is what people voted for, and that is what's going to happen. I've directed the Minister of Finance to act without delay to move back to the PST."

To the Minister of Finance: will you follow the Premier's commitment to return to the PST with the exemptions that existed prior to the HST, or is bitter dissent inside the Liberal caucus preventing this legislation from moving forward in a timely way?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, apparently we've reached the very bottom of the question period barrel, and now we're just making up issues to ask.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: As I've said in this House earlier even prior to question period, and as I've said to anyone who will ask me, we intend to introduce that legislation as quickly as we responsibly can — cautioning, however, that this is a massive legislative effort. We have everyone working on it full-time. It is the major priority of government to get that done, and we intend to introduce that.

The only caution, as I said earlier to the member opposite, who's the critic…. I was very candid in pointing out that the challenge is going to be how quickly we can get it in, but I can assure the member that the moment that legislation is finished and completed drafting and we can have the ability to introduce it in the House, I will stand here and introduce it in this House.

J. Horgan: I don't think I need to read the quote back from the Premier. She was quite specific. She said that the PST would be returned with the exemptions as they were before they were extinguished.

[1440]

The question for the Finance Minister is a valid one and, I think, appropriate for the minister to answer clearly and succinctly. Will the PST be returning with the exact same exemptions that existed prior to its extinguishment?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I've said in the past, that's exactly what we will be doing, and as I've indicated to the members, also in the past, we intend to update the 1948 legislation to make sure it's certainly consistent with the 21st century. I don't believe the member would have any objection to that.

I know how excited they are to see the legislation, and the moment it is introduced, I can assure the member they will have every opportunity to participate in the
[ Page 11348 ]
discussion as we follow the direction of the referendum, as we committed to do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

PRIVATIZATION OF
MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES

M. Farnworth: Here I thought that the Finance Minister was going to run out the clock.

The government's health authorities in the Lower Mainland are moving ahead with further privatization of transcription services. These staff transcribe doctors' dictation of surgical procedures, consultations, patient histories, test results and various other reports.

After limited privatization of the service, costs have gone up by more than 150 percent. Does the Minister of Health really believe that more than doubling the cost of transcription services is such a success that it needs to be duplicated on a larger scale?

Hon. M. de Jong: No, but I think the improvements in service, where transcriptions that were taking 14 days are now taking three days, is a heck of an improvement. I think that providing an enhanced quality of service so that family physicians are in a timely way getting reports of their patients once they are hospitalized is actually another tremendous improvement.

Rest assured that the health authorities, in this consolidation effort, are continuing to work with our partners and continuing to work with the union. We'll want to be guided, and will be guided, by one overall objective, and that is to ensure that we are getting the best value for money for taxpayers in British Columbia and that we are continuing to provide improved transcriptionist service to the benefit of the patients and the doctors and the clinicians that rely on that transcription service.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: We'll start out this afternoon with Bill 36, intituled the School Amendment Act, 2012, in second reading; then we would go to second reading of the Animal Health Act, Bill 37; then to second reading of Bill 38, intituled Pension Benefits Standards Act; then to second reading of Bill 39, intituled the Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act. I doubt that we'll get to the last two, but Bill 40 and Bill 14 would also be up for second reading, should that be necessary.

In the estimates this afternoon in the little House, we will start with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Should that complete, we would move to another ministry, probably the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General.

[1445]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 36 — SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

(continued)

[L. Reid in the chair.]

H. Bains: Once again it is a pleasure to stand up and speak on an issue that is very, very important. Actually, it touches the very basics of who we are as a society. We are talking about the education system in our province. I think that the School Amendment Act, Bill 36, is something that….

Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry, Member.

You're standing on a point of order, Vernon-Monashee.

E. Foster: It's my understanding that we were the next speaker to this bill, and our member stood up and was not recognized.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Please continue.

H. Bains: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think that along with the health care bill that we talked about yesterday, this bill here touches on an area that actually has a profound effect on who we are as a society, who we are as a country and who we are as a province. Also, education is one area, as you know, that plays a major role in our enhancement as individuals, as a society and as a province.

The contents of this bill perhaps has some issues that I would like to touch on. As many of the speakers have spoken before me from our side, the question arises: is this bill just to save money at the cost of the education of our children? I think saving money — being efficient, being prudent with taxpayer dollars — is always a good thing. We always need to find efficiencies.

But in this particular case the education of our children must come first. You cannot treat education as a business. It will be how we actually grow up and develop into whoever we are as a society — through a good education system.

Those are the questions that are brought by many of the experts. Is it only to save money and then somehow compromise the education of our children? If that's the case, then we shouldn't go there. We shouldn't go there, then. But if it is somehow to improve the education of our children, in-class improvement of their learning, and if it is going to build a structure that our children will benefit from, and grow up as adults who would be
[ Page 11349 ]
competing with the rest of the world, competing with the best in the world…. I think there are some question marks on that here.

There are so many experts who stood up and took notice and raised their voices accordingly, and I want to thank them for that. I was looking at my own constituency and my own city to see what my school board and our teachers had to say about this. Laurae McNally, the chair of school district 36, had this to say. She said: "It's not new," and that they always have been allowed to propose the concept as long as they consulted parents and staff. She said the only difference now is that districts don't have to get ministry approval to do so.

[1450]

I must bring to this House the concerns of my constituency in how this bill, Bill 36, will affect the children in that city, in my constituency, and how it will affect school district 36. Laurae McNally went on to say this: "In fact, Surrey floated the idea two years ago, inviting public input on shortening summer vacation and instead spreading school breaks throughout the year. But the conversation was short-lived. The idea received such an overwhelmingly negative response that the school district abandoned the idea almost immediately."

This is what she went on to say: "The parents opposed to the so-called balanced calendar were concerned about high school kids being unable to get summer jobs, the impact on family vacations and uncomfortable classroom temperatures in summer."

"The lineup was pretty long for people who weren't interested," said the chair in 2010. She touched on a number of the areas that this bill will affect in school district 36. She talked about high school students not being able to get summer jobs.

I represent a working-class community, and many of the parents…. Both parents are working, and they are feeling that they're working harder and longer. But thanks to the tax-shift policies of this government for the last ten years, they feel that their resources are stretched out. They are working harder and working longer, but they are falling behind.

The concern that was shown by these parents at that particular time, in 2010, was one of those reasons — that the students, in summertime…. Not only that they go and earn a few bucks, which comes in handy when they go for post-secondary education or to pay for themselves during the high school years — the extra money that they may need to buy a bike or go and enjoy other things in life — but also, if you think about how difficult it is for our children today to enter into post-secondary education….

Many of these students, through summer jobs, save up some dollars that help towards their skyrocketing college and university fees. That helps pay those fees. But if they're not able to work during summer days, then they will not be able to help their parents, help themselves.

With the situation as bad as it is, the students are coming out with undergraduate degrees with an average $27,000 debt load. This will make it even more difficult for them to enter post-secondary education. Or at least, it'll burden them more when it comes to the debt load that the students have to incur. That was one of the concerns that the parents showed.

The other concern that Laurae McNally, my friend from Surrey school board, mentioned is that the parents will not be able to take vacations together. As was mentioned before, different school districts may have different schedules. There are many couples who work in different…. They're teachers, but they are employed in different districts. One may have time off at a different time than the other, their partner. That creates a huge difficulty for them to manage their lives.

Then the chair of school district 36 also talked about the uncomfortable classroom temperatures in summer. In Surrey it's a different and quite unique situation right now that we face. It's quite unique and different than the rest of the districts out there.

We have something like 275 portables in Surrey school district. Over 7,000 students are forced to be educated in those portables. She talked about uncomfortable classroom temperatures, and you are not kidding. In summertime it's too hot.

[1455]

If they are forced to get their education through these year-round classrooms, then that's exactly what the situation's going to be. They will be forced into uncomfortable temperatures in those portables.

The chair of Surrey school district 36 went on to say this. She said that we have other issues. She said that we have bigger fish to fry. She didn't want to go through what is being proposed this year. "We have bigger fish to fry, and that is getting more capital money so we can build more schools." That's the issue in Surrey.

We have an ad hoc committee made up of parents, students, teachers, Surrey Board of Trade and other community activists. They have been pushing this government to give them capital to build more schools. Their capital plan talked about something like $273 million to build the schools that are needed so that we can have those children who are forced into uncomfortable conditions in portable classrooms — that we could give them real classrooms for good in-class learning.

That's what we need. Will this bill help us deal with that situation? It does not, Madam Speaker. That is a huge issue for my community, my city, and instead of dealing with that very serious issue, the minister came to Surrey and gave us a portion of what was needed to build those schools. Instead of the $273 million they needed, I think the minister's announcement was something like $120 million. It's something. Something is better than nothing. Finally they paid attention and gave us a little bit of help. Well, we need more.

That's where we need this minister's support — so that
[ Page 11350 ]
we can have real classrooms. Parents right now are wondering whether their children who are entering the classroom today or entering our school system today will ever see a real classroom. Because with the money that has been announced, even if we start building those schools today, it's going to take four or five years to complete those schools. And more money is needed to build new schools, and that money hasn't even been announced.

That's one issue, a serious issue. Also, we need to look at it when we are talking about how it impacts different communities. Surrey is probably the most diverse community than anywhere else if you look around in the Lower Mainland, if not in Canada — different parents, different communities, parents of different backgrounds. They take vacations at different times, and it may help them, in some ways. But again, who knows what is their time and when they actually need that time so that they can take their children to the country of their origin or their birthplaces.

For example, South Asians — many of them travel to India during wintertime. And right now the system that we have today does not work for them in most cases, because it's very difficult to take small children to India when the temperatures are hovering around 40, 45, 47 degrees. They would enjoy having some time during the wintertime. So there are some balances. You need to look at the needs of all communities to make sure that we're dealing with the diversity that exists in many of those communities, and I hope that the minister will be able to answer some of those questions during the next days of the debate.

Also, I want to talk about the distributed learning. I want to talk about that issue. It is quite a serious issue that we want to talk about, and there are many concerns in that particular area. Currently, grades 10 to 11 have that opportunity, and they could go on line and get the distributed-learning option if they choose to. But now this bill will be expanding it to K to 9 as well.

[1500]

But the issue is this. When this side of the House put in a freedom of information asking some questions, trying to get some data on the completion rates for distributed learning as it exists today…. It's not coming. That just shows you that there may be very serious questions about distributed learning as it exists today, never mind expanding it. Those are the questions that we will also be asking when we move into the next stage of the debate.

Well, here's school district 44. This is their report talking about distributed learning and the issues that they went through. They said: "A brief look at the success rates of self-directed on-line learning with inadequate instructional time and teacher support shows that these programs are dismal failures. Even with supports, distributed-learning completion rates are much lower than in a brick-and-mortar school." That's what the report says — dismal failure. I think that's something we cannot forget.

There are some districts that experimented with it. What are they going through as far as their success rate or completion rate is concerned? Here's one teacher that actually is involved with distributed learning. He says:

"As a longtime DL teacher, I can tell you that the hype and snake oil associated with DL is staggering. A lot of people have been attaching their wagon to this gravy train, and they are willing to say anything to support the magical virtues of DL. What is DL good for?

"It's great for well-connected, computer-savvy, 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.

"For the rest, DL is a very difficult way to learn. Personally, I don't think I would want to be a DL student. You are following your own plan. This is very flexible, but it's a lonely way to learn, however. If you force a student to learn in a synchronous manner, few teens and adults want those restrictions.

"So here's the thing. DL is not the solution to crowded classrooms. If you do it right, which is rare, it is basically as expensive as regular education."

Those are some of the comments coming from a teacher who is involved with distributed learning.

He went on to say:

"Unfortunately, most on-line classrooms are merely paper correspondence courses with an e-mail address and a link page. The teacher often has regular classroom responsibilities and 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 not the educational needs of students."

That's exactly what I started my conversation with. Is it to only look at the bottom line, or is it to improve the in-class learning? That's what has to be the bottom line — the learning of our students and how we are helping them.

Here's another quote that I want to use from the media about the year-round classroom. "Dr. Charles Ungerleider said he's not impressed with the year-round school idea, arguing there are many no-cost ways for teachers to deal with summer learning loss. The UBC professor of education and sociology accuses" — he named the minister — "the Minister of Education of taking every opportunity to provoke the BCTF and its members." Here's a quote from a professor at UBC.

[1505]

I think those are some of the questions. I know the Minister of Education is someone that would want to make sure that…. He wants to leave a legacy for an education system. He would like to see, for years to come, the parents and the students looking back and saying: "Perhaps he did the right thing." I think that's the position that the minister wants to be in. That's where he wants to get to. I would be happy to see if that's the case.

I hope the minister will get that kind of credit, if the outcome of this bill provides us with that approach. But there are some serious doubts, and I think the minister will, hopefully, answer some of those issues as we go along in the next level of debate on this.

The other part here that I want to touch on is the International Baccalaureate program. Again, here's an
[ Page 11351 ]
issue.

I come from a background where education is seen to be and it's felt as a privilege for a privileged few. I remember growing up. My dad, who is no longer with us, was a middle-class working person. He would always say to us four brothers: "Look. The small piece of land that I have came through ancestral transitions. I'm prepared to sell that land for you to get an education. Even if you want to go overseas to get your education, I will be prepared to sell my house, sell my farm, so that you get the education." He had a passion, and he knew those were the days where education was considered to be only available to those who had means to educate their children.

When I see what's going on in the rest of the world, when the inequity is growing between those who have it and those who do not, I feel very strongly that education is one criteria that brings about equality. I think that it's the one thing, the one area, the one denominator, the one process through which you can actually bring equality, if you do it right.

I think we have done it right for the last 150 years. That's why the inequality isn't as large as in some of those countries. Whether you're a CEO of the Royal Bank or a janitor working for the same bank, if their children get the same opportunity for education, whether it's K-to-12 or post-secondary education, chances are that at the end of their education years both of them will be earning almost the same amount of wages. At least, they will be in place to do that.

That's how you build a society that is based on equality. Economic equality is created through that. Education is the best equalizer, in my view, when it comes to bringing about equality and removing inequality that is growing in this province for the last ten or 15 years.

Through the IB program…. What we are saying here is that for those who can afford to pay that fee, their children can be in that program. Those who cannot afford it — which is most of the parents in my constituency, in my city — will not have the opportunity to move into this program.

I think that we are putting a structure in place where those with means can have their education, the kind of education they want, but those who do not will be forced to get the education that's perhaps less than what those people with means can send their children to.

I think that creates a problem there. That's why I say that is not the right thing to do. Again, we have some questions that we will be asking. Why is it that this minister is going that route? And what is the purpose behind this?

[1510]

The other thing I want to talk about is this. Bill 36, subsection 168.02(1)(h). This 168.02 talks about "Minister's regulations — school calendars." It goes on about the different powers that the minister will have or what the minister may or may not do.

Here is what one of the clauses, (1)(h) says: "(1) The minister may…(h) designating one or more non-instructional days or non-instructional periods, if any, scheduled by a board to be used for a specific purpose."

There are some serious issues coming out of this clause. To me, if I were just reading it, if I was a teacher reading this, I think what it means or can be read as — unless the minister, who's going to answer some questions during the next stage of our debate…. Are we talking here now under this clause that the minister has the powers to designate how pro-D days are used?

That is part of a collective agreement, that they have those pro-D days. If the minister is going to decide how those pro-D days are used, that means we are again moving towards gutting that collective agreement. It seems to me, if that's the case — I will be waiting for the minister's answers to that — it just shows that the government has not learned a thing from the court case that went to the Supreme Court, where they ended up paying tens of millions of dollars by the court finding that what this government did was illegal.

Again, the UBC professor, if that's what it means in this clause (h), said this. He said that the minister is taking every opportunity to provoke the BCTF and its members.

How does that work in working this 168.02(1)(h)? This is what it says. "The minister may make regulations respecting school calendars for the purposes of Division 2.1 of Part 6, including, without limitation, regulations as follows…(h) designating one or more non-instructional days or non-instructional periods, if any, scheduled by a board to be used for a specific purpose."

The minister will decide if there are non-instructional periods or days. If that is part of the collective agreement, is the minister going to mess around again with the collective agreement? If that's the case, the minister has learned nothing and the government has learned nothing, despite the fact that the Supreme Court told them very, very clearly that they were illegal in doing what they did with Bill 27, Bill 28 and Bill 29.

Those are some of the serious issues. I know that the hon. Speaker is pointing to the light, as my time is coming up. I think those are some of the issues that I want to talk about.

There are some serious issues coming out of Surrey school district 36. The chair of the school board said that we have bigger fish to fry. This is not a serious issue for us. We tried this. The parents were opposed to this, all stakeholders were against it, and they dropped the idea before it even began.

There are some issues about capital that the chair is talking about. We need capital to build more schools. Hopefully, the minister will take her request very seriously — that, yes, you came about halfway by allocating $120 million for Surrey schools. But what the Surrey school board is talking about is that the need right now is over $270 million. That's what we need in order to build
[ Page 11352 ]
all those schools.

[1515]

The Minister of Finance said they have already committed to $273 million. If that's the case, I think that would be good news for Surrey — $273 million for building schools, new money.

Deputy Speaker: I would caution all further speakers to align their remarks to the contents of Bill 36.

D. Hayer: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: It's a great pleasure to introduce 55 grade 5 students visiting from the Pacific Academy, one of the best schools in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead. They are here to learn about how the government works, because in the future some of them want to be a Premier of this province or maybe the Prime Minister or an MLA or mayor or councillor.

They're joined here by their teachers, Mrs. Sue U-Ming and Mr. Grant Wirtz, as well as 19 volunteer parents who have taken time out of their busy schedules to accompany the students. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Thornthwaite: I will be remarking on just Bill 36, because that's what we're supposed to be talking about. I'd like to rise in support of Bill 36. Basically, what this bill is all about is flexibility and choice for school districts versus restrictions to innovation. It does bring us up to the 21st century. We feel, as a government, that we should be supporting school districts and supporting them for innovation as opposed to putting barriers up in front of them, which means also negativity for the students.

I'd like to just quote Michael McEvoy, who's the head of the B.C. School Trustees Association. He was heard to say: "We've moved into the 21st century, an era where kids went to school from September to June and would take in the crops during the summer months. That's not something that really exists in British Columbia anymore, so the school system is adapting to change, and the government will now allow boards around the province to make decisions about what they want to do in their communities."

The member for Surrey-Newton had mentioned — a couple of times, actually — the chair of the Surrey board of education, and I'd like to make a couple of quotes from her as well. "These changes provide greater autonomy, flexibility and recognize school boards as partners in education." She goes on to say: "Every school district has unique needs and challenges. These amendments mean we'll be able to provide greater flexibility and choice, and that means more options for students." Laurae McNally, chair of the Surrey board of education. So there you go.

I actually kind of got a kick out of the member for Skeena, the critic for Education, when he talked about the media coverage. I thought it was actually quite good. As in a lot of things to do with politics, there's been a lot of media coverage on this school calendar.

The issue is that right now, many school districts are not following the standard school calendar. In fact, 40 out of 60 school districts right now are not following the standard school calendar. So there's a lot of innovation out there.

My colleague from Maple Ridge–Mission had mentioned Kanaka Creek School in Maple Ridge. I know that my colleague from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky had also mentioned West Van, so there are a lot of school districts that have taken it upon themselves to be progressive and to be supportive of what their parent community and their students really need.

I also enjoyed, basically, the crashing of the urban myth that people felt — way back in the other century, I guess — that kids actually did need this two-month break. As we all know, there has been more research that has come out more recently, saying that when the kids do have a long two-month break for the summertime, they tend to forget or they have decreased retention. I'm actually a supporter of a more balanced school year calendar as well, just because I think that for the two months there is a greater chance that kids forget.

Then my colleague from Maple Ridge–Mission had also mentioned — and himself being a teacher — that kids seem to be more energized and have greater retention and be more refreshed in the more balanced school calendar that the Kanaka Creek School in Maple Ridge offers to their students.

[1520]

I think one of the keys that are important…. I know people in my school district have commented on this. By the way, I've had one e-mail on Bill 36. One of them was concerned about consultation.

One of the things that this bill does put in writing is that consultation with the public, with the students, with the parents is required. I quote section 8 of Bill 36. "Before submitting a school calendar or school calendars, as applicable, under subsection (5) or (6), the board must, in accordance with the regulations of the minister, consult with parents of the students enrolled in the school and representatives of employees of the board assigned to the school."

As long as the school districts are representing their constituents — meaning their students, their parents and their teachers — then let them do it. That's why I think this particular section is progressive and very beneficial to school districts.
[ Page 11353 ]

The other issue that comes up with Bill 36 is the issue about fees and the IB program. I can talk a little bit from a personal perspective on this, because I come from a school district in North Vancouver. When I first started my tenure as a school trustee, we didn't have an IB program in North Van, but West Vancouver school district did. They still continue to have a very successful IB program.

What was generally happening was that those parents that maybe could not afford to take their kids to private school were instead taking their kids across the Capilano River to West Vancouver school district to the IB program at West Vancouver high.

In response to the public — the students', the teachers' and the parents' requests — the North Vancouver school district answered the call and now has a very comprehensive IB program that goes from primary to secondary school in the name of Capilano, Balmoral and Carson Graham.

I think the opportunity that this gives school districts to charge appropriately to what they think…. Let's face it; it's across the board in the province. The ministry does not set those rates. But if they are allowed to charge an amount for the IB program, then that will increase opportunities for the students within the public school system.

As opposed to having to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition at a private school, now these kids can get an IB program in the public school with a minor fee. To me, this opportunity allows public school districts to offer choice for their students, their parents and their teachers. Obviously, it will help to keep, in my mind, public schools more viable.

The more choice that we offer in the public school system and the more opportunities the students have and the parents have, then the more and the greater chance that we'll be able to maintain the students in the public school system and maybe stop the bleeding, so to speak, to the private sector.

Again, my colleague from Maple Ridge–Mission had mentioned the academies. We have, actually, a soccer academy in North Van that's just starting out next year, which my child is joining. The trades and the specialty schools simply just offer a greater choice in the public school system, so I support the idea of school districts supporting whatever is required to make these academies happen.

The other issue I'd just like to mention was the DL, the distributed learning. I was also supportive of the critic's comments when he talked about how successful the alternate program is in Terrace with regard to distributed learning.

In contrast to some folks that have talked about the increase in the age that these kids can take distributed learning, I'm not really worried that we're going to have an inundation of kindergarten kids leaving the television from SpongeBob SquarePants to go to distributed learning. I'm not really concerned about that.

[1525]

I do think that by limiting distributed learning to just the higher grades…. What about the kids in, say, grade 7 or 8 that are obviously computer specialists? What about those kids? They've had to miss out.

This, again, increases their choice, increases their flexibility. Particularly in rural districts, if the type of course that they wanted to take was not available in a brick-and-mortar school, it now will be available to them on line.

Then the last thing I just wanted to mention with regard to distributed learning is that it's already happening. I think the minister had mentioned that since 2006 to 2011…. There were 17,000 students in 2006 who were doing and utilizing distributed learning. Now in 2011 it's 77,000.

It's increased exponentially. The train has already left the station. The horses have already left the barn. So it's time to get on board and support these students, these parents and these school districts that really want to expand the choice for students.

In summary, I just wanted to reiterate my support for Bill 36. I agree with my colleague from West Van–Sea to Sky that it's definitely supporting progression in the school system and that flexibility, choice and support are what these school districts need from the ministry. That's why I'm supporting it.

C. James: I rise to speak to Bill 36. As others have pointed out in this discussion and this debate, there are really three key parts to this bill. I'll speak on each of them, the first one being the school calendar issue. The second one in Bill 36 is the distributed-learning issue, and the third piece is the fees for IB, for International Baccalaureate. I'll talk a little bit about that as well.

As our Education critic said at the start of the debate, this really is an amendment bill. These are not brand-new issues coming forward. These are issues that have been in the School Act and that have been part, in fact, of many districts for a great deal of time. This bill simply clarifies in some areas, adds in others and makes some changes in others. It's not a brand-new bill from that perspective.

I want to start by talking about the context that this bill is coming into the House in. I raise that because I believe it's important to realize that when coming forward with changes that will require huge energy and huge consultation — I'll talk about that a little more specifically as I go on — you're bringing in something that requires that kind of consultation at a very difficult time in education in our province.

It's a very difficult time in education because of the confrontation that was caused by the government when it brought in Bill 22 and, instead of trying to deal with independent mediation, forced mediation with a chosen mediator on the teachers. Right now anything that comes
[ Page 11354 ]
forward in education is going to be done in that context. It's going to be done in the context of confrontation, of chaos, of difficult times, of a broken relationship.

Looking at this bill and not seeing that it was anything brand-new, I have to say that I really hoped that this would have been the time where government would have put all their time and energy and asked everybody in the education system to put all their time and energy into repairing that relationship and improving things in the existing education system.

That's what's going to be good for children. That's what's going to improve student learning — to end the war in education that we've seen under this government and actually start improving things in our education system, actually start working together.

Think what could be accomplished if we actually had school boards, teachers, the government, parents and students working together on behalf of public education. Think of what an extraordinary time we could have in our province.

[1530]

We have a great education system. As the minister said earlier, we could make our education system so much stronger, so much more improved by rebuilding that relationship and spending time to do that. Yet we see Bill 36 coming in, not focused on that but focused on more time and more energy that's going to be needed in school districts to have to try and address the pieces of Bill 36.

There's lots of work still ahead. Bill 22 did not end the work that has to happen around class size, around school organization, around mediation, around what may come forward from mediation. There's still so much work to do coming out of Bill 22 that to now see another bill come forward, I worry.

I worry for the stress on our education system. I worry for the stress on all the individuals in our education system, including parents and, most importantly, students, because they're the ones who feel this kind of stress. I'm bringing this up because I can't imagine the challenge of most school boards in this kind of environment, taking on these kinds of changes and these kinds of difficulties.

Just to start off with the first piece that this bill speaks to, which is the issue of school calendar and changing a school calendar. Now, having been a school trustee for 11 years, I certainly know the challenges that come forward with discussing change around school calendar or school day or school structure. That happens in a school district. I lived through some of those debates.

The debate around configuration of schools — whether to go to a secondary model, whether to go to a middle school model — was a debate that began in our school district that took years. In-depth discussion to talk about what was really good for student achievement. What did the research show us? What was the best direction to go? That's a huge decision and a huge discussion to occur.

A debate we had around school hours…. People may have read, and I'm sure the minister has as well, some of the research around school hours and the debate about whether it makes sense to start school later at secondary school for high school students — whether there is actually a physical rationale around starting school later.

Well, just to begin that discussion and that debate in a school district is a massive undertaking, to be able to have that conversation. We can't underestimate the challenge of taking on this kind of discussion and kind of consultation in a school district, so I'm pleased to see that the bill does include local consultation. It does include and require the school district to involve the employees and the parents and, hopefully, the students in areas as well.

I think that's critical. I can't imagine anyone looking at changing a school calendar without that kind of discussion. But it brings up all kinds of questions. It brings up all kinds of questions for parents. Right now we have within every school district in our province a wide variety of choice for parents. Parents can have their children in schools in different parts of the district. They can go out of what used to be thought of as catchment.

A lot of people have talked about the school calendar and the history of the school calendar. Similarly, with catchment areas, it used to be — certainly, when I went to school and for many of us in this House — that you went to your neighbourhood school. That's where you went. There wasn't a discussion about going to a school across town or going to a specialized program or going somewhere else in another school district.

Those weren't discussions that parents had nor the students had. You went to your neighbourhood school. You were expected to go to the school in your community. Now students and parents have a much wider variety of choices in schools, and that's a positive thing. That's not a negative thing, from my perspective, in education.

I think it's important that if we're really looking at trying to meet the needs of every student — and students don't come in one size and one package — we need to make sure that we have a variety of choices available for those children. I think it's a plus that we now have that change that has occurred, but with that change come some real challenges for school districts.

The funding still comes per student. It still comes to the school district. They still have to organize their schools come September. School boards are still required to look at class size, to organize children into classrooms.

[1535]

That's still part of the requirement from funding and structure and staffing perspectives. That can't be ignored when you look at this, so that creates some additional challenges.

Well, now you add on a school calendar for parents. If you think about being a parent with children in two different schools, different parts of town, different areas that you have to do pickups, think of adding on to that
[ Page 11355 ]
two different schedules, completely different school year schedules. I think that just is an example of the challenge that this creates when you look at creating different kinds of schedules.

Think of the challenge for child care, not simply for the parents trying to find child care but for the child care providers themselves. I know, just from my own area, from the area of greater Victoria, the challenges that parents and child care providers have trying to manage different spring breaks in a school calendar, currently. We have different school districts just in our area. Some have one week. Some have two weeks. Some have different weeks. The challenge that creates for child care providers trying to determine how they're going to manage to provide child care…. Which district? Which pickup? Which program is going to happen? Which spring break program is going to happen? It's very difficult for those child care providers and even more difficult for parents to try and manage.

I think it just shows the work that's going to be needed to have a discussion around school calendar. I think others have said this but I don't think anyone should expect that you're going to see wholesale change with this legislation coming in. We're not going to all of a sudden see school districts getting rid of summer and moving on to altered calendars. This is going to be a process that's going to take a long time.

I think there are going to be many school boards, along with their parents and their staff, that are going to ask themselves: "What's the best place to put our energy to improve student learning? Is it school calendar? Is it the kind of instruction we provide? Is it the variety of programs that we provide? Is it supporting the staff in our district so they're better able to do their job? Is it more resources that we need?"

I mean, those are the kinds of discussions, and I certainly believe — because I believe we have people who work in our system who care deeply about public education — that those are conversations that are going to come. I don't believe that for most districts or parents or students, school calendar is going to be top of mind. Student achievement and making sure that our students have the best environment possible are going to be top of mind, and there are a lot of issues right now on the list before school calendar.

There's one piece of the bill — and I know we'll get into it when we get into committee stage — under section 87.01(3)(c) that talks about variations in school calendar "for one or more groups of students in a school." I have to say that worried me a little bit to think about not only a variety of a school calendar, but a variety of a school calendar within a school as well. Now, perhaps that's related to specialized programs within the school, but I think those are questions that we'll want to get to as we go along on the committee stage of this bill, because I think those are critically important for parents to be aware of as well.

The second issue that I want to speak to that's critical in this bill, in Bill 36, is the issue of distributed learning. The minister started his remarks, quite rightly, to remind people that distributed learning is there now. I think, as other people have remarked in this House, it used to be called distance education. The name has changed, but it's basically an ability for students to be able to enrol in a program done on line.

The previous speaker to me talked about students who are keen on technology moving into distance education, or distributed learning. In fact, I've certainly found, in my time involved in education, it's not students who are keen on technology, in most cases, who move into distributed learning. It's often students who are not able to get courses in a particular area, whether it's a rural community or a smaller community or not enough students interested in that course. They tend to be the students who look at distributed learning to be able to do that. It's a program that often applies for students who aren't able to manage in the school system, for a whole variety of reasons.

[1540]

Whether it's school phobia, whether it's peer issues, whether it's other issues, often there are students who have disconnected with the school system and need another way of connecting into education. Distributed learning often appeals to those students as well.

When I take a look at the distributed-learning section in Bill 36, in general terms it sounds like a direction that may make some sense — providing opportunities for students to find flexibility within their course, to be able to take part of their courses in school and part of their courses on distributed learning. But I think, like everything else in this bill, and like almost everything else that comes forward in legislation, it all depends on the practical implementation of this issue — very similar to personalized learning.

We hear a lot about personalized learning. We hear the minister talk a lot about personalized learning. Well, most of us, when we take a look at the large goals and the lofty words, wouldn't find much to disagree with — meeting the needs of students, individualized learning students. But again, if you look at the practical, how do we apply that? That's the critical piece we need to take a look at. That's the critical piece — the details and the implementation that is going to occur.

So for me, when I take a look at the distributed-learning section, it raises a number of questions that I would hope we'll hear from the minister on, as we go along, or I hope we'll have more consultation and discussion. I think that's a question for the minister as well.

The school calendar issue is not much of a change, because the school districts already had the ability to be able to set a school calendar, to change the school calendar. But the changes to distributed learning — to change the age categories and also give the ability for students to both enrol in school and distributed learning — are
[ Page 11356 ]
major changes.

I'd be interested in hearing from the minister around what kind of consultation was done on this issue. What kind of discussion occurred with school boards, with teachers, with students, with parents to look at making these changes? What was the rationale? Again, I think everything needs to go through the lens of how does this improve student learning? What kind of research was done to look at distributed learning to take a look at what the results are for students now? How could we ensure accountability around students who are taking distributed learning?

Those are all issues that I would hope to hear from the minister on, because I think they are critical questions around these changes on distributed learning. How will this improve student learning? How will this provide an opportunity for students to improve their achievement? What basis was used to bring forward these changes?

The practical questions, Madam Speaker, that I thought of when I took a look at Bill 36 and when I took a look at the distributed-learning section were questions like how are you going to ensure that a student, who may decide to take one course with distributed learning and the rest of their schedule in school, gets to their distributed learning opportunity, whether that's at home or whether that's in a computer lab in school? How is that, practically, going to work? Will you require supervision for students?

If you are now looking at kindergarten as an opportunity for students to be able to do part distributed learning and part learning in the school, how on earth is that practically going to work? Who's going to manage that? Who's going to supervise those children? How are you going to deal with a student who may be in a class for part of the day and not in a class for the other? What does that do to the whole issue of class size? What does that do to school organization? How are districts going to manage that?

I raise this not to say that it's an impossibility for us to look at this kind of flexibility. I think we should be looking at all kinds of opportunities to be creative in our school system, but these are very valid questions that have to be addressed in order to bring this forward.

I haven't seen any of that discussion going on in the education system, and that concerns me because I think major changes in the education system should be well discussed, well researched, well looked at and well supported if they are really going to succeed.

The best changes that have occurred in our education system have occurred when the relationships are good, when people are excited about the change, when you have people involved in the education system coming together to say: "Yes, let's do this to improve student learning. Let's embrace this together."

[1545]

Certainly, in the days when I was a school trustee we used to meet with the Education Minister on a regular basis, together with all the education partners. It was a chance to be able to talk about the strengths of our relationships. It was an opportunity to talk about what was a priority around student achievement.

It's not accurate to say that those days can't come back in British Columbia, that we can't find an opportunity, once again, to bring all of the partners together in education to talk about the best interests of the student — to talk about how we can improve education, to talk about how we can be flexible within the system to meet the needs of every child and how we can look at increasing choice — and ensure that we do that in a way that works for the system as well.

I would be interested, as I said, in hearing from the minister about what kind of discussion has occurred, because I worry, once again, that we build up expectations in our education system. We build up expectations for parents and others, to say that students will be able to all of a sudden now, once this bill is passed, take some courses on distributed learning and some courses within the school — there will be no problem to it; they'll be able to work out a schedule — when in fact we know that that's not, practically, the way it's going to occur.

There are going to be some issues and some challenges that need to be worked through, discussions that have to happen. Just as I talked about the kind of consultation that needs to occur with the School Act, that's also the kind of consultation that is going to have to happen around distributed learning.

I think the other point that's really important, particularly in the distributed-learning section of this bill, is the issue of resources. It's not surprising that people in the education system who see this bill coming forward are concerned that it's another opportunity to take resources out of the system. I don't blame them for feeling that way, because in fact that's what we've seen over the last 11 years.

We've seen resources squeezed in the education system. There isn't a school district that doesn't now have less teacher-librarians, less school counsellors, less non-enrolling teachers, and — in many cases — less teachers, larger class sizes, less support for students with special needs. Those are all realities that have occurred over the last 11 years.

Again, as I started my remarks, given that context, it's no surprise that you would see people looking at this bill, particularly with the relationship the way it is in the province, and saying: "Is this just a way for the Liberal government to be able to save resources in the school system by moving people to distributed learning rather than in classrooms and in schools?"

How will distributed learning impact those numbers in schools? Again, to come back to the funding model and the numbers that are there, how will that impact the school district's funding if you have students enrolled in distributed learning? What will that do to the amount of
[ Page 11357 ]
resources that come to a school district?

In fact, if you look at the issue of distributed learning, many teachers that I've talked to who have seen successes for students in distributed learning, for students who have not been able to manage in the school system and have moved to courses of distributed learning and who've been able to manage…. It's labour-intensive. It's not simply putting a child in front of a computer, giving them the curriculum and expecting that that's going to work.

Similarly with parents who home-school, there's a lot of work involved. There's a lot of time and energy and resources and support that's needed to make that work — well, similarly with distributed learning. I don't think we've had those questions and issues canvassed and discussed — and, certainly, as I said, not in a broad sense — in the education system.

I come back to the point I made earlier, which was that the biggest successes we've had in the education system have been successes because all of the partners have come together, because people have been excited about moving ahead with something in education. Are you ever going to get total agreement? No. But to have all the partners on board on something is certainly going to be a stronger piece.

The last piece I want to just mention that's in this bill, of course, is the whole issue of the IB programs. I think others have spoken, as I would, with great strength about that program. It's a very positive program, a program that many districts are offering currently.

[1550]

It was a program that began in the grade 11-12 year and now moved, in many school districts, to earlier — down to primary. Students have great success in that program. I understand the pressure that school boards are facing. I understand the cost of the exam. I understand the issue of school boards saying: "Those are additional dollars that we don't have in our school district."

I just want to raise the red flag about a worry of, once again, creating more inequities in our districts, more difficulties in our districts. If some boards are charging fees and some aren't, what does that do to students who are not able to pay and who are not able to go to a different school district? I think that just causes more inequities and difficulties, and so I worry about that area as well.

Just in closing, I think the bill, as I said, is not bringing forward huge, massive changes in education. It's bringing forward amendments when it comes to school calendars. It's bringing forward changes in distributed learning and expanding the opportunities for distributed learning and fees on the IB program.

I do have to ask whether this is the best time in education — in the kinds of relationships we have in education — to bring forward major change that is going to require major consultation. Perhaps we should be looking at rebuilding the relationships between government and our teachers, which is going to improve student learning, rebuilding the relationship with the entire education system so that when changes come forward, we can stand together united in this House, along with teachers and parents and employees in this district and celebrate our education system.

C. Trevena: Madam Speaker, I take my place in the debate on Bill 36, the School Amendment Act. I'm pleased to be following my colleague the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, who outlined some of the real problems — the backdrop under which this bill has been introduced.

The intent of the bill is clearly, I would say, to be looking at how we deliver education in the 21st century and how we have changed in our ways of working, both in our moving from the traditional — as we've described it, the agrarian style — into a much more urban, industrial style of life and how even that is evolving with new technologies. We have access to both distributed learning and learning through web-based technologies and so on.

This would have a stronger foundation, I believe, if this was a dialogue that was very active, if this was something people were really talking about, really engaged in, both here in B.C. and across the country. In a greater conversation, if that conversation was happening on where it is that we wanted to place the whole system and how we wanted to shape that system, whether we wanted to be innovative leaders in the system and take it in new directions….

I haven't heard that conversation happening. I've not heard it across the country, and I have definitely not heard it in the province. I think that what we do have here in the province is that there has been a fracturing. Instead of having this amendment bill introduced…. Where it is coming from, where the seeds are planted, where the ground is fertile and the seeds could grow, there could be shoots.

Instead, it's coming at a time when there has been an incredible fracturing of our education system. Over the last 12 years it has come under increasing pressure in terms of funding, in terms of stresses, in terms of the way that has been organized.

What we see — the immediate backdrop to this piece of legislation, as my colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill and others have mentioned — is that Bill 22, the legislation which has imposed a mediator on teachers, has changed their wording on class sizes and composition. It has really left a very bad taste in many people's mouths, in those who are in education, the educators, principals, those within the system.

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I can draw you back to the contents of Bill 36.

[1555]

C. Trevena: Absolutely, Madam Speaker.

What I am giving here is the background for this bill.
[ Page 11358 ]
I think that is part of the background. Very recently Bill 22 came in, and now we get Bill 36. Oh, count the numbers. It's 14 bills, even though that's not chronological. It's a very recent backdrop. We really need to be looking at something to be healing the wounds rather than taking a completely new direction.

Also in the backdrop, there is the continued debate about whether they should have testing, whether we have the funding. I mean, I represent a larger, rural constituency. One of the areas that this bill talks about is distributed learning. Students in schools in my constituency use distributed learning because they can't get courses. They can't do the classes. There aren't the teachers available to do the classes. There aren't enough students to do the classes.

Also, the impact in rural communities is the funding model. It really has had a huge impact on the quality of education in rural schools and the ability for all students to get that quality of education and, in fact, for many schools to remain open — because of that funding model.

We are talking about, really, what could be a very major change to the education system if it was taken its full way through Bill 36, on a backdrop, on a ground, that has been, I would say, torn up, brutalized. It isn't a healthy ground on which to be sowing the seeds that this bill really is suggesting.

As I mentioned, we have the distributed learning aspect in the bill, and under the amendment it would allow for a greater amount of distributed learning, going all the way down to kindergarten instead of just in the higher grades.

As I say, there are students in the three school districts which come within my constituency where students are using distributed learning. They are using it to access courses and classes they can't get because their situation is such that, either because of student numbers or because of funding, the schools can't provide those classes every year. It's something that happens already there for senior levels. It doesn't happen at the more elementary levels. It doesn't happen at kindergarten levels.

Sometimes distributed learning is very good for the achievers. It's very good for, perhaps, as one of the members opposite said, those students who want to do technological courses that you can't get elsewhere, who want to specialize a bit more and can't get it through the system they have in their classroom. The students who are achieving are likely going to do quite well anyway and be able to push forward.

If we start talking about distributed learning at younger ages, I think we could face a real problem. My colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill mentioned the problem of just trying to navigate the system of having different children in different areas doing different subjects. It could be very disruptive, both in the classroom and outside the classroom.

We see distributed learning in the alternate schools. We see it already being used. Oftentimes a number of students are in one classroom all doing different classes, all doing different subjects. But the difference there is they have a teacher. It's been proven time and again that having a teacher in place really encourages students' ability to learn, encourages the engagement.

Just providing distributed learning, just providing the class, doesn't necessarily allow the student to get the benefit of it. Those students, as I say, in my constituency who want access to a class would have guidance from their teacher, but they want that access because they are in a rural school setting where they don't get it otherwise.

Looking to taking it further down, we could potentially see — and I say potentially, because we need to have the full debate about this; we need to get more details — huge fragmentation by increasing distributed learning.

[1600]

As I say, there are real concerns when we're talking about taking it all the way down to kindergarten level or grade 1, grade 2.

[D. Black in the chair.]

At that age there is much more engagement with an instructor, much more engagement with the teacher, to ensure that those students — those children, really — are really learning. If you give them distributed learning, often screen-based, they're not going to get that engagement. They're going to be isolated, and they are going to be working separately.

One of the things that is proven time and time again in kindergarten, in the younger students, is that part of the value of being in the classroom is learning how to socialize, learning how to work with others, learning how to participate either within the team as a classroom or just the sharing of the classroom. If you start doing distributed learning at that age, it really can be very, very problematic.

It also can be, I think, quite disruptive to the system. If you have one student here taking one distributed-learning class and another student taking another, it really can be disruptive to the system that is there, disruptive for the teachers and disruptive for the rest of the class, because we aren't talking always about that one child. We are talking about the education for as many students as possible.

What we keep talking about and keep priding ourselves on is that we should have the best education model possible, and our students all get equal opportunity and equality of opportunity. This is not necessarily going to be providing that.

The other thing about distributed learning is that it is being talked about more widely and is being used more widely, but we haven't actually had the discussion, either, about the success rate, about the achievement levels, about how productive it is. Say, for certain students, rural schools, opportunity to do a class they might not other-
[ Page 11359 ]
wise have to do — great. But in the bigger picture, how does that success rate build in? What are the pass levels? What is the engagement there?

I think we really need to have a very clear idea of whether this is the best way forward, this fracturing is the best way forward. Otherwise, it would seem that the critics…. There are many critics, and it's surprising how education really sparks debate. There have been many critics very quickly, from the introduction of Bill 36 back on Thursday afternoon, to here we are on Tuesday afternoon, already in the second afternoon of debate on it. There are many critics about this.

One of the things that is already being said is that it's simply a way for the government to try and save more money. As I say, we've seen over the last ten years a huge reduction in expenditure on schools, particularly because of the way that classrooms are funded, the way that schools are funded and the model that the government has brought in. That has had a direct impact on the classroom, and there is real concern that this, too, will have an impact on the classroom and is being done because it is going to be cheaper.

That isn't the value that we should be putting on our students. That's not the value we should be putting on our education — to see what could be the cheapest. If there is a real benefit for students, if there is a real benefit that's proven, that really works, that's fine. But let's look at it in a measured way that really embraces both the students, the reality of the classroom and the importance of the education system for all students, from kindergarten right through to grade 12.

The other main strand of this bill is the potential to change the school calendar, allowing school districts to rework the school calendar. Now, this has also caused a great deal of consternation.

As I mentioned at my opening remarks, this is not coming from a broader conversation about changing the whole system of education. It's not coming out of an area where we are really believing that this is the area we need to be focusing on the most in B.C. or in Canada. That may come. That might be a very good discussion to have, but that is not where we are at the moment. Where we are at the moment is, as I mentioned before, very fractured.

[1605]

So with those sensitivities I listened to teachers the other day talking about minor changes in the school calendar. In school district 84 there is a proposition to just change the school calendar slightly to be a nine-day fortnight instead of two five-day weeks. The teachers who were discussing it were exceedingly thoughtful about this. It was a very deep debate about the quality of education — by changing the school hours by a small amount, just literally by a few minutes on each day.

This provoked an incredibly thoughtful, strong, passionate debate. Those teachers who are teaching kindergarten, elementary students, were saying that those few minutes on each day were going to be detrimental to the quality of education for their charges. Those teachers who are teaching grades 10, 11 and 12 thought it'd be great because they could have longer classes, more intense discussions.

Those who were looking at how it was going to work with the one day off a week…. We have the nine-day fortnight, so there'd be one day off every fortnight. How was that going to impact on attendance?

The debate, as I say, was extraordinarily thoughtful. These teachers are professionals who care intensely about their work. They care intensely about providing the best quality of education.

As I was saying earlier, this comes on the back of Bill 22. Teachers feel betrayed, feel that they've been sold out, yet they could sit down and have this very professional discussion about changing the school calendar.

Now, this is one small school district. School district 84 is one of the smallest school districts in the province. It has, even compared to many high schools, very few teachers in the school district. They care about this. They were talking about it in detail. It had an impact.

To look at the bigger picture, it's seeing that in every school district. In a broader area, looking at when we're not talking about just one day or a few minutes or half an hour on each day, I think it's going to cause huge consternation. If just that half an hour causes that much soul-searching and that much professional approach….

That's just from one sector. This is going to have a huge impact if we're talking about shifting from beyond just where you put your spring break or if you are going to have one less day, maybe a few extra minutes on each day to widen the school holidays. If we're looking at a wholesale change in the calendar, this is going to have an incredible impact not just on the teaching profession but on all professions.

We have to remember that it's not just teachers in the schools. We've got many, many people. We've got all the support staff. We've got the teachers' assistants. We've got the principals and vice-principals. Then there are the parents, who are also going to want to have a say, want to have a voice.

So I think it's important to look at this in the greater whole, saying that school boards have the ability, which they already have, to change the school calendar. It's just how that is going to be translated.

As I mentioned, we already have the question of when school districts take their spring break. For instance, many school districts just take a one-week spring break. Then they get a few days off for Easter.

School district 72, which is Campbell River, Sayward, and Quadra and Cortes islands — they don't do that. They tried this the second year, where they've had a two-week spring break around Easter. They've changed a bit of the time on the days, but that's where their spring break is. That's their decision, and that's their choice.
[ Page 11360 ]
That, again, came after a huge amount of debate within the school board.

[1610]

So when we're talking about flexibility in the school calendar — talking about the possibility of what could be a balanced school year, the possibility of more wholesale changes — yes, maybe this is a discussion that, as communities, there needs to be.

Maybe this is something that should come there, but at the moment that discussion isn't happening. At the moment we see professionals who are looking very specifically at certain areas, and they are being very deliberate. So I think, again, there is the question of whether this also is an opportunity simply, as the distributed learning is, for saving money or whether it is a chance for something better to happen.

I'll cede the floor to my colleague.

Hon. J. Yap: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Yap: Joining us in the House this afternoon from Ottawa is the Ambassador of Denmark, His Excellency Erik Vilstrup Lorenzen. He's seated in the members' gallery with John Petersen, honorary consul of Denmark, who is based in North Vancouver. Will the House please make them very welcome.

Debate Continued

C. Trevena: It's perhaps appropriate that at this time I switch to the issue of the International Baccalaureate and mention the potential changes in this bill to the International Baccalaureate, with the possibility of having to pay for the course and pay for the exams.

My colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill had mentioned earlier that it's something growing — growing in popularity, more access to it. More students want to get the International Baccalaureate education and exam, and the concern is that this would be only for those who could afford it.

Once you start charging for parts of the school system, parts of the education system, we are automatically opening the doors to elitism and allowing just those who can afford it to participate, which is, I think, very unfortunate, because we do live in a global world. We are expecting our young people, as they graduate, to participate not just in B.C. but to participate in the world.

As Canadians, we have traditionally participated in the world and taken a very active role. If this helps students do that, that's great, but we shouldn't be starting to say that only those who can afford it can participate. I think that would be very, very detrimental.

As I bring my remarks to a close, I think that this act as an amendment is mistimed. There is a lot of bad feeling in the education system. I think that the government could have done a lot to heal the wounds that are there and work on solutions for existing problems — we have many existing problems — rather than basically creating the potential of new problems.

While there is the need to have discussions about how students access their learning, whether it's best to go to district learning, personal learning…. Where there is the possibility of having a discussion about the school calendar, I think the timing is really unfortunate.

Madam Speaker, I think with that I will take my place. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in this debate. I look forward to hearing remarks from my colleagues and members from the government side.

J. Brar: I am very pleased to stand up in this House and respond to Bill 36, the School Amendment Act. This bill basically amends three areas. One is to provide a flexible school calendar. It also introduces fees for IB programs, and it extends the on-line programs to students from the age of kindergarten to grade 12.

[1615]

It's always a great pleasure to stand up in this House and stand for the people of Surrey. And when we talk about education, the school district of Surrey and the school situation in Surrey provide a very unique perspective. As you know, Madam Speaker, the Surrey school district is the largest school district in the province and, actually, one of the few growing school districts in the province.

At this point in time, we have 7,300 students receiving education in portables. That is almost 10 percent of the total population of Surrey school students. At the same time, we failed to build any schools since 2005 because the Surrey school district didn't get any capital funding from this government. I just want to put that on the record, because overcrowding remains the key issue when we talk about the education program, when we talk about this bill.

I see the Minister of Education paying full attention to the comments made by the members of the opposition. The members have made very, very valuable comments, very intelligent comments, and I hope the minister will listen to those comments very carefully. I have absolutely no clue what the minister is going to do with that knowledge though.

I wanted to put those things on record, because for Surrey parents, teachers, students, when they talk about Bill 36, the School Amendment Act, overcrowding remains the key issue. I just wanted to bring that perspective into this debate.

Coming back to the bill, this bill proposes basically three main amendments to the School Act. I would like
[ Page 11361 ]
to make my brief comments on each amendment being proposed under Bill 36.

First, the government states that Bill 36 provides students and families with increased choice in educational programs by extending the ability to take a mix of on-line and traditional school courses to students in kindergarten through grade 9. Currently, these programs are available to grades 10-to-12 students already. But this bill, to make it absolutely clear, will extend that option, that offer, to students from kindergarten to grade 9. In other words, it will be now available to students of all ages. That's what this bill is going to do — when we talk about the on-line programs.

I think that when we talk about this, we need to look at the historic perspective as to why a decision was made in the past to limit the on-line programs to grades 10-to-12 students only. There must have been reasons for that, when that determination was made by the members of this House who came before us. They debated that bill here, and that determination was made. We need to look at that perspective, as well, before we move forward, making the on-line programs available to students at the kindergarten level.

The key, when we talk about education, is that the student can benefit from a program without compromising the quality of education. That's the key when we talk about any change or when we talk about Bill 36.

I am sure that all members of this House, from both sides of the House, can all agree with one point when we talk about Bill 36 — that grades 10-to-12 students are fully capable of utilizing and benefiting from on-line programs without compromising the quality of education. We can all agree on that. But I don't think we can all agree that a student in kindergarten can benefit from an on-line program as offered under this amendment.

[1620]

My son is going to go to a kindergarten school this year. I know there are other members here…. We have the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with young children, and we have the Minister of Finance who also has a child who is going to go to school pretty soon.

I cannot understand how an on-line program will benefit my son, who is going to go to kindergarten school. I cannot understand that. I strongly believe, and I believe the Minister of Finance…. The Minister of Finance is not here. The member from Mount Pleasant will agree with me that my son and kids at that age need a real teacher in the classroom — a real teacher, Madam Speaker — because education is way bigger than on-line programs. I think the classroom learning is way bigger than a computer on-line program or learning something on the iPod.

I have been a lecturer in a college in previous times, and I have the experience. I have seen the impact of classroom learning on young students, and I understand that very well. In classrooms students learn to interact with others, other students from a culturally diverse background.

That's very important in our society, which is very, very diverse from a cultural point of view. Surrey, particularly, is known as the cultural capital of the country. In each classroom, maybe, kids who came from ten different countries are sitting in the same class. It's very important for young children to interact with each other and learn from each other. That will not be available for students if they are learning just on computers.

In classrooms, also, students develop people skills. We always call people skills the key to success for any human being, irrespective of what job they are going to do. That's very important, and sitting alone in isolation, you certainly will not develop people skills.

When I came to Manitoba, Madam Speaker…. I just want to share my story with you. I came from India. In Manitoba I got admission to the master of public administration, and I went to my first class. At that time, my spoken English was very, very limited. So I went to my first class, and the professor came to class with his full calendar for the year.

He explained to all the students about all the assignments, about all the classes, about all the reading materials available in the library. He explained all that. You may not believe that I didn't understand a word of that. But I was sitting in that class. I came out, and I asked a favour to a class fellow, a student. She was very nice, and she stood with me for almost an hour to explain to me what the professor said.

My point is that I would not have that opportunity if I had to learn something on-line. I was an adult who came from another country with a master's degree done before. But for young children at grade 1, at grade 2, learning with the help of computers — I cannot understand that.

In classrooms students also learn listening skills. That is also key to the development of human beings, because listening is very important. We know that. In classrooms students learn to be a good human being — a good human being and a good citizen that contributes to positive change. That's very important, and therefore I have serious concerns with extending on-line programs to kindergarten students and to my son. That's my question in this case.

[1625]

Therefore, we would like to know at committee stage how it will make our education system better by extending the on-line program to students at that early age — which is kindergarten, grade 1 or grade 2.

Secondly, the government claims that this bill will allow more flexibility by eliminating the standard school calendar as of the 2013-14 school year. But my understanding about this is that school districts are already able to switch to what is called a balanced school year with multiple-week breaks every three months or so. They already have some flexibility. This is not a kind of radical idea the minister just thought about which is going to
[ Page 11362 ]
somehow change the education system in B.C. big-time in a positive way.

Most school districts have chosen not to use that and instead followed the ministry's standard calendar, which will now be discontinued. So there was this flexibility available to the school districts, but most of the school districts chose not to use it.

Again, there must be some compelling reasons for the school districts not to use that flexibility, and we need to understand that. That's why it's very important that whenever the flexible schedule is developed by the school districts, it must be done with full consultation with parents, teachers, students and other stakeholders. That's very, very important.

I understand that B.C. school trustees, the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils and the Vancouver school district have been quoted in the media, speaking favourably about the increased flexibility with regard to school calendar that will result from Bill 36. I understand that. But there are others who have raised some serious questions about it, and we need to listen to them as well.

Those are workers who are part of the system, the CUPE workers. And there are parents and school trustees in other areas who have raised some serious questions about this. I hope that the Minister of Education will not only listen to those concerns but will take into consideration those concerns raised by the people of B.C.

Delegates at CUPE BC's 49th annual convention in Victoria passed an emergency resolution opposing the elimination of the standard school year calendar. Delegates expressed concerns that the proposed changes are more about the bottom line and budget than quality education. In other words, they are concerned that the flexibility will be used, as I said at the very beginning, to deal with the overcrowding. That's the concern they have. That's the concern that parents in the city of Surrey have raised and that many other people are raising.

Delegates were worried that allowing school districts to alter the school calendar will negatively impact vulnerable students, especially those with special needs, who rely on stability and access to consistent, individualized support. That is a very valid concern. There are students with special needs. Of course, they need consistent, individualized support from the school system, and I don't believe that we can compromise their learning in any way or fashion, if this system is going to do anything with that.

[1630]

We need to find answers to those questions at committee stage. Our Education critic is going to ask those questions, hopefully, and find out what is actually the reality behind this flexible school calendar.

My biggest fear with regard to the flexible school calendar is that the proposed changes may be used to deal with the bottom line and budget, as I said earlier, rather than quality education.

Surrey parents and students are concerned that this bill may open the door to introduce extended hours to large numbers of schools to deal with the overcrowded classrooms. That's the concern I hear from the parents, students and teachers in Surrey.

Last year the Surrey school district introduced extended hours to two Surrey schools, Earl Marriott Secondary School and Lord Tweedsmuir Secondary School. It caused a lot of problems for parents and students. Students came out. They were up in arms asking questions about that.

Let me give you an example. There were two sisters at Earl Marriott Secondary school, one in grade 10 and the other in grade 8. Under the extended hours, they will start and end the school day at different times. Two students, two sisters coming from the same house, will start school and end school at different times. So their parents had to reconsider transportation to and from school for both of them at different times.

I can say with confidence that it will be very, very hard for working families to assist their children in that kind of situation, where two children are starting school at different times and they come back at different times.

It becomes even more complex if both the sisters are in sports and they play at the same time after school. It becomes way more difficult to continue that support in that situation. Therefore, it is absolutely important that this be done with full consultation with parents, teachers, students and other stakeholders. That's very, very important. That's what the Surrey school district chair, Laurae McNally, has said — that this must be done with full consultation with parents, teachers, students and other stakeholders.

Interjection.

J. Brar: Once again, I'm very pleased that the Minister of Education is paying full attention. I hope he really digests all the wonderful ideas given by the members of the opposition and acts on those ideas. Those are not humorous ideas. I just want to underline that. Those are real ideas.

Thirdly, this bill allows school districts to charge fees to offset the extra costs associated with the International Baccalaureate, IB, program. That is also another amendment under this Bill 36. That is very, very concerning to me.

We, the members on this side of the House, strongly believe that in order to build a more just and fair society, it is important for us to give every child the same start. This amendment has the potential to compromise that fundamental principle we have in the education system in the province of B.C.

[1635]

There are a lot of people in the province of British Columbia who cannot afford a penny to access IB pro-
[ Page 11363 ]
grams, and I know that as a fact. As you know, I went on a welfare challenge in the month of January. That was the time I met hundreds of people and listened to their painful stories about affordability and the challenges their children are facing.

I know we have half a million people in B.C. who live below the poverty line, and they cannot afford the IB program as proposed in this legislation. It is hard for me to imagine, also, that we have 137,000 children living in poverty. How are they going to access this program being offered under this legislation?

It's hard for me to imagine, also, that 70,000 people in B.C. access food banks to survive, and one-third of those are children. I don't know how they are going to access the IB program, as proposed in this piece of legislation. Thousands of children go to school without having breakfast, because they can't afford that. And we are asking people to pay for accessing programs in the school system.

Those children are going through a very, very tough time in their lives, through no fault of their own. And what are we saying to them? "Bad luck. If your parents can't afford it, it's bad luck. If your parents can afford it, you can become a winner." That's what we are saying under this act.

We must not develop an education system that produces winners and losers based on affordability for their parents. This is the same government which said in 2001 that they would provide the best education system so that no child is left behind. I read that, Madam Speaker. In reality, 175 schools were closed.

Interjections.

J. Brar: Now the members sitting on the other side are saying…. We are raising these questions. I'm pleased, actually. I'm pleased that members are paying attention to the debate on this side.

If there is one thing I want to say to the members on the other side, it's that they must start listening to the people of B.C. — they must start listening to the parents of B.C., and they must start listening to the students of B.C. — before making any change. That's what I want to say to the members.

I would like to conclude by saying that this bill offers three amendments. These are certainly not very radical ideas. I am very pleased to be part of this debate. We will ask questions at committee stage. But I want to conclude by saying this. This is the House, where we debate the issues that are important to the people of B.C. Members on this side are standing up one after the other and doing that. Members on the other side are not doing that at this point in time. If they have read the bill, they should stand up. Rather than making comments sitting on their chairs, they should stand up and contribute to the debate, Madam Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, please confine your remarks to the bill.

J. Brar: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

[1640]

I would like to conclude. I am proud to contribute to the debate on Bill 36. As we go to committee stage, we will ask questions of the Minister of Education, and we will decide what part of the bill we want to support and what part of the bill we don't want to support. With that, I'll take my seat. Thanks for the opportunity.

S. Simpson: I wasn't sure that I was going to get to my feet. I was sure that the Attorney General or the Minister of Environment would want to jump up and engage in the debate. They've had an awful lot to say over there, but they don't seem to be interested in actually engaging in the debate and getting into it. It is unfortunate. Maybe they'd like to stand up and put on the record their comments about some of this.

I'm pleased to take my place on Bill 36, the School Amendment Act. Essentially, this piece of legislation does three significant things. It takes the issue of distributed learning — which is about on-line learning, about changing some of the ways that our children learn, something that's largely available now to grades 10 to 12 — and expands it right down to kindergarten — that availability.

The second thing that it does is it takes the school calendar as we know it — the traditional, conventional school calendar — and essentially sets that aside. It will allow school districts to make decisions about school calendars within their own jurisdictions.

The third thing that it does, particularly around the International Baccalaureate program, is it provides opportunities for districts to be able to charge additional fees for some of the costs related largely to testing and things around the IB program.

A couple of things, I guess, I'd like to say about this first. We'll maybe walk through the three pieces and then make some general comments.

On the issue of distributed learning, I think that there certainly is some value there. I think we've seen some value. Our young people are way more savvy when it comes to computers and being on line than many of us are. We've kind of learned it a little later on in our time, and they have grown up with it. They view, I think, the use of on-line systems and opportunities in a different way than we do and in a way that I think is pretty positive. I don't think there is any question that there is interest in gravitating towards on-line use, and I think the opportunity for some expansion of that makes some sense.

The question that I have about that…. I have a couple of questions that I'm just not sure about. One is that I'm not sure what we know about the results in terms of on-line learning, distributed learning and that. I know that we've tried to get some information through freedom
[ Page 11364 ]
of information — around data on completion rates and that — and we haven't got that information. We haven't seen anything that gives us any particular evidence. But I don't think that should dismiss it from the discussion.

The concerns I have are about a couple of things. I know there are those who raise concerns about whether there will be young people who may engage in on-line learning, who it may not necessarily be appropriate for and who might — as my colleague the previous speaker talked about — really get particular value out of being in the classroom, having the opportunity to be there with teachers to provide the kinds of attention and support that on-line studies, by their nature, will not necessarily provide in the same kind of hands-on way.

I think we also have to ask ourselves whether there are children who may be at risk in some manner and how we're going to ensure, if they get engaged in on-line learning, that they in fact are able to maximize their opportunities there. And what are the safeguards looking like to ensure that those children, should they be taking on-line courses, in fact are going to benefit from it in the way that I think we would all hope they would?

The other issue. While I certainly think going from grades 10 to 12 down and adding other grades makes some sense, I must say I do have some concern about the notion that you could take this down to kindergarten.

[1645]

We know that young children, at a very young age, are very computer-savvy and do that work related to computers, and that is a positive thing. But we also know that young children particularly benefit from the opportunity of having teachers there who help guide them. A lot of what happens, frankly, in the early years has a lot to do with social skills, it has a lot to do with engaging, and it has a lot to do with having the ability and knowing how to interact with other kids. I would be concerned if those opportunities were in any way diminished by on-line learning.

We've heard comments before, and we've certainly heard comments from people who are expert in this field, about the balance. Whether we start to see any challenges related to the balance between how much on-line learning you're doing and how much classroom learning you're doing — is there a balance there? Is it disruptive to be in a mix? Is it better to be doing one or the other?

I certainly haven't seen the evidence that gives me comfort around that. I think we need to explore that issue a little bit more, and I think we need to have some additional evidence that tells us.

Maybe we'll get that in committee stage. We'll have some opportunity in committee stage to ask the minister some questions around this, to really see what work has been done in the ministry about where those balances are and what the thinking of the minister is on how to maintain that and how to deal with some of these questions about the appropriateness of this, particularly for children in their younger primary years. So I do have some concern around that, though I certainly understand some of the thinking around doing this and some of the value related to that.

On the issue of the school calendar, what essentially is being proposed here is to go to what some people call a balanced calendar now. It's what we were calling, I know, when I was involved in these discussions many years ago, year-round schooling.

Essentially, it's a model that in most cases doesn't necessarily add days to the school year, but what it does is it takes the summer holiday, per se, breaks that up, maybe leaves you a month in the summer or some period like that, and then takes the remainder of that summertime and spreads it around the year in some other breaks — two- or three-week breaks, those kinds of breaks. So it balances. That's why, I guess, it's called a balanced calendar. It provides that opportunity.

I guess the first thing I would say is that I would agree, absolutely, that if this idea is going to move forward in a substantive way, I do believe empowering districts to be able to make these decisions makes some sense. I think having that decision-making authority at the district level does make some sense.

I also know — and I know the minister has talked about this — the need to ensure that any district that contemplates this has a consultation process with parents and all of the stakeholders around education, to have full discussions prior to any decisions being made by a district to radically change the calendar year. That's a good thing, because there really are issues.

We know, for example, that in districts there would be questions if the district was saying some schools will be moving to a year-round calendar and other schools will be continuing on a traditional calendar — not doing it as a district-wide model but breaking the district up in terms of schools that are on different calendars. That can certainly be problematic, and particularly problematic for families who have a number of children that may be attending different schools, in the complications and the logistical challenges it can create for those families.

We also know that there is still a lot of work to be done to determine whether in fact this provides better learning outcomes. It's an open debate. It's an open debate between academics in the education field and those who say that the traditional summer break is too long and that you need to re-engage children more quickly than that. You can't extend this break over a couple of months. You'd be better to make it a month or something like that, or a number of weeks, and let kids have a break and some time and then get back and get re-engaged. There is an upside to that for continuity purposes.

[1650]

There are others who say the break makes sense, that it's a good thing with young people and the way they develop to have that time off and to get their summer-
[ Page 11365 ]
time off, and that what they do in the summer has value in terms of their development as well. So it is an open debate.

Again, I haven't seen the learning outcomes that say in any definitive way that one system provides an advantage, in general, over others. So I think that there is still a discussion to be had there.

I also think that for districts to do this, in a way they're going to need to have very significant discussions with their local governments, the people who provide recreational services, other services. What we know is that when the summer comes and when kids are out of school, particularly those kids who are at risk, kids who are in families that have modest incomes don't have the opportunity to buy or to be able to purchase a lot of opportunities for young people, necessarily.

What we know is that often our community centres and our parks and recreation departments focus their attention in the summertime on delivering a suite of programs for young people because they are out of school. They know that, and they schedule in a different way than they do during the school year. They pick up that slack. That's particularly important in those areas where we have families who don't have a lot of additional disposable income to buy those services.

It will become more challenging for parks and recreation, for community centres and others to do that. If they all of a sudden, instead of saying, "We're going to block book a two- or three-month period in the summer. We're going to bring some additional staff in — people to work in our parks, people to work in our community centres — to provide those services…." Because they've restructured, all of a sudden it's one month. And: "Can you do that?" and "It's three weeks at this time of year, and it's three weeks at another time of year."

The challenges for community centres, for neighbourhood houses, for some of the groups that put on other youth programming — for them to be able to adapt and have the resources to be able to make those changes to ensure that they can deliver those supports and those programs for those families in the periods when those kids are out of school will be different than what happens under the conventional calendar.

So there needs to be thought put into that. We need to find a way to ensure that that support can be provided. Otherwise, you're going to create a situation, potentially, where you're going to have kids out of school, without those supports, and they're going to be out just hanging around. They're not going to be getting some of the stimulation that comes with organized events through community centres, through other parks and recreation services — those kinds of services. I have a concern about that and being able to put those pieces together. I do think we need to look hard at that.

Just briefly on the issue of the IB, the International Baccalaureate. I know — and I heard the minister over there and others make comments about this — that there is a program being put in place. It's to ensure that those children or the families that may have…. What I should say is that the legislation will call for districts that make decisions around fees to be putting programs in place that deal with families that may have challenges around being able to meet the obligations of that increased fee structure, before they go ahead.

That's all well and good. But what we also know is that it does create challenges, whenever you have structures that create those kinds of additional fee systems, where some pay and some don't and the district pays for some. Everybody knows who is paying and who's not paying. That's the nature of the school yard, so to speak.

I do think it creates some challenges there around those who are seen as having some privilege and those who are seen as having some challenges. If we create the potential for that environment…. I know nobody wants to do that, but if you create that situation at any time in the classroom, I don't think you're doing anybody any favours. We need to be cautious about that and how that moves forward.

[1655]

The other comment I would make is around the perceptions of this legislation. What we need to see — and, hopefully, we'll have this discussion — will come through clearly in the committee stage. But it is absolutely essential that we have the discussion and have the confidence, at the end of the debate around Bill 36 and when Bill 36 does and will become law, that this truly is something that's been moved forward because of its benefits for learning and for young people and that it is not necessarily or primarily an issue of cost savings.

It's not that we don't want to save money, that we don't want to be as efficient with our dollars as we can. But I would hope that we are using different measurements and weighing different measurements for decisions that are quite radical in some ways around the calendar and around the expansion of distributed learning. I think there are certainly worthwhile discussions there, but we need to be confident as to what the purpose of those discussions is.

The other comment that I would make here, which I think is a bit problematic with this legislation, is on the timing of the legislation. We all know and will all recall what was a very challenging period as we went through Bill 22. We know that the outcomes of that are still to be determined through the mediation process.

Many of us suspect, ultimately, our need to come back here in August, when the government will be talking about a legislated resolution to this and a legislated collective agreement. That is an entirely separate matter from Bill 36, the School Amendment Act.

But the timing of that and the hard feelings on many sides that have emanated and come from Bill 22 — and what's happened around Bill 22 and the labour relations
[ Page 11366 ]
issues there and the issues around school and class size and composition — have created an environment to bring in Bill 36, the School Amendment Act, that I think is pretty problematic.

To make these kinds of changes, to bring the kinds of things that Bill 36 talks about and wants to do, requires a level of cooperation and of partnership from many, many groups. It requires the parents to be at that table. The teachers, the trustees, the government — they all have a role to play in success in moving the calendar or success in expanding distributed learning in a way that makes sense and in being able to do that work where it makes sense for all children. I worry that we have an environment today that will not allow us to have the level of cooperation and collaboration that's necessary for Bill 36 to be successful.

I think the challenge we face with the School Amendment Act may be that it has some pieces in it that are a legitimate place for a discussion. I think it's correct, particularly around the calendar, to move that discussion to the level of the district and to have that discussion at the district level.

However, I'm not at all convinced that the timing of this makes a lot of sense. And I think the minister is going to have to convince us all and, more importantly than us, convince parents in this province that this has more to do with enhancement of educational opportunities for our children and learning opportunities for our children than it has to do with figuring out how to save some money.

I do look forward to the continued debate. I certainly look forward to listening to some aspects of committee stage, when some of these questions will be engaged by the minister and the critic, in particular.

We've already seen comments from a number of education stakeholders — some supportive, some less so, of these changes. I'll be interested to watch more closely as the minister expands on and elaborates during the committee stage on his thinking around Bill 36 — around what the intentions are, around how he envisions it working, what he envisions the challenges to be and how he sees moving to address those challenges.

[1700]

I'll be very interested at that point, then, to also follow the comments of other stakeholders — particularly of parents, of teachers, of trustees — as they look more closely at what the implications may be, based on a better understanding of the minister's intentions as he elaborates more on this as we move forward through the processes of the bill in this House.

I do hope that we're going to have that discussion. I do hope that we're going to do that work. I think that we need to, at this point, also think a lot about — and again, hopefully, the minister will discuss this, but other stakeholders will too — the practicality of implementation of Bill 36 and the key pieces of that. If you make the changes, are we going to be able to deal with those changes at this time? Is that going to work, considering the dynamic at this point in time?

With that, hon. Speaker, I'm going to take my place and enjoy the rest of the debate.

K. Corrigan: I'm very pleased to rise on Bill 36, the School Amendment Act. There are three major changes — some other changes, as well, but three major changes — that are represented in the School Amendment Act. The first one is that there will be a significant change to distributed learning, and some people may not know what distributed learning means. Distributed learning is on-line learning. This bill will widen on-line learning to include K to 9 as possible candidate students to be able to learn on line, whereas previously it was grades 10 to 12 only.

The bill also eliminates the school calendar as of 2013-2014. That's the second major change in the bill. The third change is that this bill will allow boards to charge the extra costs associated with offering the International Baccalaureate program. Those are the major changes, and I am looking forward, actually, to the committee stage because I think we'll have some interesting discussion. But for now I have some preliminary comments.

I come at this from the background and my experiences, having been a school trustee in the Burnaby school district for nine years. Interestingly, we dealt with and looked very closely at the issues of what is the best for students in terms of arrangement of the school calendar. What is the best for students in terms of how we offer distributed or on-line learning? What is the best we can do for students, and what is the fairest thing we can do for students in terms of offering an International Baccalaureate program?

In terms of the final one, the International Baccalaureate program. When I came on the board in 1999 at the Burnaby school board, we did have an International Baccalaureate program, and we eventually decided after several years that because of the costs associated and the pressures we had because we were continually having to cut services because of the underfunding of the public education system, we needed to get rid of that program.

I'm looking at the Speaker. I think there are now several students from Burnaby who are attending the International Baccalaureate program in New Westminster, where the Deputy Speaker, today's Chair, resides. That was a very, very difficult program, but it had to do with costs and many of the similar kinds of discussions that we are going to have in the next few days as we discuss this change that will allow boards to charge costs associated with the International Baccalaureate to the students who are taking the program.

It's been raised by some of my colleagues, and I think it's an important point, that these are not profound but they are significant changes that will impact boards, and they raised some concerns for me. First of all, I phoned
[ Page 11367 ]
up a trustee friend of mine today, somebody who's been a trustee for many years, and I said: "So how much warning did you get that this was going to happen?" I asked this person whether or not they had been at the recent BCSTA AGM in the last few days, and this trustee said that, well, yes, he had been there. And he said: "None. We had absolutely no idea this was coming."

[1705]

Now, this is one board. It's possible that these changes were discussed with various boards and stakeholders around the province, but according to this longtime trustee, there was absolutely no warning about these changes that are reflected in Bill 36.

I think that is unfortunate, because all of these changes are going to have significant impacts on school districts as they reorganize, as they adjust and as they try to figure out how to deal with these changes.

I always believe in government that you will do a better job if you do things carefully, thoughtfully and in consultation with as many people who have knowledge to inform your decisions and changes that you make. Unfortunately, although I don't disagree necessarily with the changes, I don't think that widespread discussion and consultation has happened in this case. I think that's too bad.

I think it's also too bad that Bill 36 is being brought in, apparently without a lot of discussion, as a bit of a surprise in the context of an educational milieu where we have real upheaval right now.

When I was doing a little background research, I was looking on the BCSTA website and seeing if there was any reaction and what people were saying about it. I happened to notice that, at the same time as we're discussing Bill 36, there was a bulletin from Nanaimo school board asking the Minister of Education to rescind Bill 22 — which the school board chairman, Jamie Brennan, from Nanaimo school district, said was prolonging conflict, that teachers are angry and that there was hostility and conflict in the system. I know that is not directly related to Bill 36, but I think that context is important.

When we have that kind of atmosphere in the education system, I think it is all the more incumbent upon government, when it is introducing new bills and new changes to the education system, as Bill 36 represents, to be very careful, very measured, to consult and make sure that when government is making changes, they are done in a way that makes it as easy as possible to implement those changes and with a great comfort that they have consulted with everybody that's going to be affected. Unfortunately, my understanding is that that has not happened in this case.

That is a bit of a caveat. Then I would like to also make some comments about the specifics of the bill.

The first part of the bill that I want to talk about is the change to distributed learning, or on-line learning, which widens the ability of school districts to offer on-line learning to students from kindergarten to grade 9. I'm not suggesting that this shouldn't happen, but I do think that we have to be very careful about how this is implemented.

I trust school districts to do the right thing for students, but one of the pressures that there is in the education world right now is that there is a real financial pressure. While I do respect the professionalism of school boards, of trustees, of teachers, of administrators — of everybody involved with the school system, the education system — I know that there is this tremendous financial pressure.

When there is a tremendous financial pressure, sometimes there may be a pressure as well for school districts to make decisions based on balancing the budget instead of, or in addition to, making the decision that is best for students.

While I think it is important that we always make decisions in school districts and in the education system that are effective and a wise use of taxpayers' dollars, we have to keep in mind that the primary lens that you have to look at those decisions through is making sure that the decisions you make are either going to improve student achievement or are at least not going to hurt student achievement.

[1710]

At the very minimum, the floor, I believe, is that we have to make sure that student achievement is not hurt through the decisions that we made. I think that with all three of these changes that that's the lens we have to look at when we're considering whether it's a good idea to change the rules with regard to on-line learning, whether it's wise to change the rules with regard to school calendars and whether it's wise to allow the boards to charge extra for the costs associated with the International Baccalaureate, or IB, programs. I think that's always the test that we have to look at.

I think with regard to the distributed learning, or the on-line learning, there are some real challenges that are going to be faced by school boards. In a K-to-7 class, if you have students stepping out or taking only some of the curriculum in the regular classroom, that's a far different impact and a more complex impact on that K-to-7 school and classroom than it is on a high school.

I could see the distributed learning, the on-line learning, being extended to apply to grades 8 to 12 and not have as significant an impact on the schools as it does if you're looking at K to 7. I can give you an example.

If you have teachers in K to 7, they generally teach the student. They have a home classroom. As every parent and every student who has gone through the school system in British Columbia knows, you're with that teacher most of the time.

You're there in the morning. You're there for, usually, social studies, science, math — most of your classes. Sometimes there's some trading. You might go to a music teacher, and you might go to a gym teacher. But
[ Page 11368 ]
the school is organized around that home classroom, the one teacher, and then there's some moving around within that.

If you have individual students and families opting to remove their child for a particular subject, that could create real challenges for the school in terms of organization of classrooms, in terms of funding, in terms of assigning classrooms. For example, if you were to have a student there for math and then the family saying, "I want my child in grade 2 to do their reading on line. Please release them at 10:30 every day," then that's a real challenge.

I have read the legislation. I know the Minister of Education was suggesting that perhaps we were not reading the legislation. I have read it fairly closely. If I am misinterpreting, or if it's not possible for those kind of challenges to happen, I'll be pleased to hear about it when we get to committee stage or perhaps when the minister closes this stage of the bill.

I do see that that could be very significant to schools, and I'll tell you that the person in schools who ends up taking a huge amount of the brunt of the work in trying to organize a school, trying to organize the classrooms, trying to organize how the school is put together is the administrator, the principal. Those people, I know, are stretched to the limit as they take on more and more reporting responsibility.

This year, of course, because of the upheaval in our classrooms, there's been a tremendous strain on our administrators. I really think that this time particularly, assuming that this bill will pass…. I don't know when the implementation would be. I haven't seen that. I think it talks about some sections are 2012; some are 2013. Again, this would be another strain upon the principals.

I know, of course, that the staff of the schools work very hard with the principals, and I have a great deal of respect for them. But in the end it is often the school principals who have to do a lot of that work trying to make the configuration of the classrooms and the schools work. So that could be a challenge, absolutely.

[1715]

Another concern that I have is that when students are older, but particularly, perhaps, when they're coming into the school system, so from K on, the classroom is important. Being in a classroom…. The classroom is important. The curriculum is important, but just as important as the educational instruction that is received by that student is the socialization that goes on.

There's absolutely no question that what is happening in our schools is that students aren't just learning to be educated; they're learning to be citizens. A huge part of their learning to be citizens is learning how to interact with other students, learning from the examples and the role-modelling that a teacher does.

I think it is appropriate for students in some cases to be doing on-line learning. I know that when we brought it in, in Burnaby, it was a great assistance. I believe that in the Burnaby school district we were real leaders in on-line learning. In fact, I believe the Ministry of Education actually learned a lot from some of the pioneering work that Burnaby has done and continues to do in this and other areas in the education system.

When we were looking at putting together our on-line learning, we realized that it could be a real assistance. I certainly do not disagree that there could be some real benefits here of widening on-line learning, but I think we have to do it, as I said earlier, looking through the lens of what is best for students and what will improve student achievement.

It can certainly help at times when students are ill that they can do on-line learning, or when students are struggling with a particular subject. Sometimes on-line learning is an appropriate tool. When students are living in areas that do not offer a full curriculum — maybe you're living in rural areas — on-line learning is again a great tool to have and bring some subjects, some areas of education, to students that would not otherwise have an opportunity.

Families travelling — there's a whole bunch of different reasons that on-line learning is very helpful. But you have to do it within the confines of saying that we are going to make sure that on-line learning works for children and is done in a way not to save money but to enhance learning.

For example, in Burnaby, when we were putting together the on-line learning programs, we made sure that we had very strict ratios of teachers available to the number of on-line students. We made sure that that connection was not lost, that there was appropriate oversight, that there was recognition that these are young people. These are not adults. These are young people, some of whom are very, very responsible, some of whom had parental support, but some of whom would maybe not have as much parental support, and you need to keep that connection between the on-line teacher and the student.

So when we're looking at changes to the on-line program, and if we're looking at widespread implementation, I'm hoping that the work has been done by the ministry and that there is enough of an infrastructure there now that those kinds of issues will not be played out with failures, in children falling through the cracks and not achieving because they are not spending as much time in a classroom where they are being watched by a responsible professional, the schoolteacher, and the other professionals that are in the school.

It is another concern that I have about implementation. I'm going to have more discussions with people in the education system to find out how much they have been prepared and consulted in this. I'll be interested in the minister's comments, as well, because maybe the work has all been done and we have nothing to worry about. But I think it is something that certainly needs to be flagged as we look at this bill.

Certainly, socialization and interaction are crucially
[ Page 11369 ]
important, I think, to young people, and I don't think we should lose that. There are going to be times, there are going to be cases, where students in elementary school will perhaps do all of their learning or a large proportion of their learning on line. But there are challenges that can be associated with that for at least some students.

[1720]

We need to make sure that there are not students, young people, in this province that are being alienated from the very positive effects of the public education system — or the private education system, for those that choose that — because of the fact that they are learning on line and they don't have the appropriate oversight in place. That is a concern that I have.

The second area of major change is the elimination of the school calendar, as of 2013-2014. I said previously that consideration of reorganizing the school calendar — for example, going to year-round schooling — was something that we considered in the Burnaby school district very seriously over a number of years.

I think that was the key. The key was that we considered it for years. We had an education committee in the Burnaby school district where we spent a lot of time getting expert advice, having people come in and speak to us, reading the research, doing the research.

There are pros, and there are cons. Sometimes it depends on the school district, and sometimes it depends on the individual school, and sometimes it depends on the individual, as to what works. I am not necessarily opposed to eliminating the school calendar, but again, this is an area where I would have hoped there would have been consultation with the various school boards around the province to let them know that this was happening before it happened. My understanding is that this was a surprise.

Now, the thing that is perhaps a little different with regard to the opening up of the school calendar compared to distributed learning and the International Baccalaureate program is that…. Maybe it applies to distributed learning as well. There is nothing that really forces a school board to change its school calendar, but I know, having been a former trustee, that discussions like this about changing the school calendar are passionate discussions.

They're passionate because they affect the lives of so many people. It affects the students and the way students learn. It affects families, because families organize their lives essentially around the calendars. We organize our lives around our kids. Let's just face it: that's what we do. So when you have students going to school and their lives are changing so profoundly, then it affects how families organize their lives.

There can be challenges. If districts make a decision to vary their school calendars, it will affect child care, it will affect summer programming, and it will certainly affect the programming that school districts do. In the Burnaby school district — again, where I had experience and also I know from talking to other school districts — there are very important programs — thousands and thousands of students that came to summer school. In fact, it was a pretty significant proportion of the students, overall, that have come to summer school in Burnaby and in other districts.

It's very important programming. Sometimes students would decide to take extra courses. Sometimes students decided they would do a course that they just didn't have time for in their regular calendar. They said: "Look, I have an interest in this, but I don't have time to do it within the years that are allotted. I want to take this course. I want to decide whether it's an area that I want to explore further."

There are all sorts of reasons that students came to the summer programs, including improving their language skills and improving their achievement in particular classes. So a change in the calendar is profound. I've talked about parents, families, students, the school boards trying to organize the calendar, but also, certainly, teachers will be affected and the support workers. That would be largely the CUPE staff and the teachers. That will impact their lives, as well, and how they organize their lives.

If you have a school district making a decision that they are going to do year-round schooling…. Say a support worker or a teaching assistant works in one district and their children go to school in another district and the school calendars are different. That creates real challenges.

[1725]

Those are the kinds of things that I think are going to be challenging for school boards. I trust that they will make the right decisions. Again, though, the caveat. The real caveat is: what is going to be the motivation? I am very concerned that in some cases school boards will be driven, maybe not through their own decision even, to make school calendar changes simply because they perceive that they may save money.

There's nothing the matter with saving money at all. We want to be effective with tax dollars. But as I said earlier, if you're going to be looking to save money, the bottom line has to be that it has to either improve or at least not negatively impact student achievement. I do have some concerns there.

I think that it could have a negative impact, particularly on support workers, because support workers work on an hourly basis generally. Their salaries are based on an hourly basis. In most of the reorganization of school calendars that has happened, many of them have ended up with support workers having their income decrease as a result of changes to the school calendar. That's a concern.

I think we have to be concerned about the workers in our schools and the impact it would have on their lives — the teachers, the principals and the support staff. That's a concern I have about the school calendar.
[ Page 11370 ]

There is certainly lots of research. It's not unanimous, but there does seem to be good research that indicates that a year-round school calendar with shorter breaks can in some cases, it seems, be beneficial, certainly to some students, because you don't have that long break of eight or nine weeks or so where there's no school.

Teachers have said to me before that what they have found is that in the first few weeks of school there's a lot of relearning of stuff that was already learned. So this could be, for some cases, perhaps a benefit, but I think you have to look carefully at what the benefits are and what the downsides are as well.

The final piece of this legislation that is significant is the fact that boards will be able to charge the extra costs associated with offering the International Baccalaureate program. It's interesting wording. I've been looking at the wording and just trying to figure out exactly what it means, because it can be interpreted, I guess, in various ways.

I think it's fairly clear. It says that "a board may charge a student enrolled in an International Baccalaureate program fees relating to the direct costs incurred by the board in providing the International Baccalaureate program that are in addition to the costs of providing a standard educational program."

Well, I'm not really clear. I know that when we had the International Baccalaureate program in Burnaby, we charged the fees to students that had to write their international exams. We were very, very concerned about being fair in Burnaby. If students couldn't provide the money, we would help them. We were very concerned about fairness. It was significant. We felt that we were providing the instruction. But if you want to take the exams, we felt comfortable….

We had internal discussions about it, but eventually we said: "Look, in order to preserve the program, we will charge fees for the exams themselves, not for the instruction." Unfortunately, the International Baccalaureate program is an expensive although wonderful program. It's an expensive program to run. One of my children did the IB program, and it was wonderfully beneficial.

However, I'm not sure what this means. Does this mean simply that what the province is saying is that you can charge fees for those extra costs, like exams that have to be written? I don't think so. It says: "…the direct costs incurred by the board in providing the International Baccalaureate program that are in addition to the costs of providing a standard educational program."

IB programs generally have smaller classrooms. There just simply isn't the number of students. There are very rigorous standards that must be followed, and generally the IB classes are smaller. They may be 14, 15 students — 12, 13. They can be very small classes. Would that be a cost incurred by a board in providing the IB program? It certainly would be to a district if they didn't have enough students to fill up every class.

[1730]

There are a great number of required courses in International Baccalaureate. It's very structured, so you have to offer a whole variety of courses, and you don't have, necessarily, the flexibility that you have with the regular classroom. Would that be an increased cost that could be charged to the students?

I'm very concerned if that is the case and — if it goes beyond the normal expectations of fees, for example, for writing exams — that we are heading into the realm of lack of fairness. I do have concerns about that.

I see that I'm getting very close to the end of my time. How time flies when you're having a great time talking about the wonderful importance of public education.

My final thing I want to say is this. I wonder whether or not, with this particular section, there could be a legal challenge. There was a legal challenge to fees in the education system, a successful challenge to fees, which was a real challenge to boards like the one I was on. There was a challenge, and I'm not sure how it is that this particular requirement that you can have fees could not also come up in this case.

Given that, I'm going to take my seat.

S. Hammell: I'm pleased to join the debate around Bill 36, the School Amendment Act, because I think education is important to all of us. When I go into the schools, as a member of the Legislature, to talk to the students about government, I always stress to them how absolutely important it is to get a good education. Not only is it good for them, but it's good for the society that they function in.

I've always held the notion that one of the principal reasons that we in North America, particularly in Canada and of course here in British Columbia, are absolutely committed to a free education between K and 12 at least, is that because in a democracy you need a very well-educated electorate. In essence, what that electorate does is choose their rulers — the people, as I always tell the kids, who make the laws and spend their money, or at least their parents' money, in terms of taxes.

Their responsibility as citizens is to be able to weigh the issues and, when they come to vote, to make good decisions. Clearly, the healthiest democracy is one that is supported by a very well-educated electorate. You can see that very clearly, particularly in Europe, where you get into some very difficult situations where the electorate has to play a significant role in supporting the institutions that they are part of. Having a good education is clearly an advantage, not only to the people involved but also to the country that they live in.

In looking at this particular bill, it sort of moves around three particular issues, as has been stated before me. One is the school calendar, one is distributed learning, and of course, there's the baccalaureate program. I'll talk just for a few minutes about each of those, and then
[ Page 11371 ]
I'll allow the debate to continue through somebody else.

I'd like to talk for a minute about the school calendar. In fact, it's actually quite an unusual situation we're in, where we require the cabinet to set a standard school calendar. It is one that traditionally starts in September and ends in June. Inside those two bookends of September and June we have a number of different holidays and vacation periods.

[1735]

But while the cabinet is required to set the calendar, nobody is required to follow it. So you have a situation where you have the government or the governors required to do something, yet people who are within that system have full right to ignore it. In the last ten years we've seen a fair amount of movement, not only within the bookends but also outside those bookends.

Unfortunately, some of that, if not a lot of that, moving around of the calendar has been driven by cost-efficiencies. You can shut down a school for a week and not only save the cost of heating of the school and the other ancillary costs of maintaining that building, but you can also reduce people's wages, particularly in terms of the support staff, because they do not need to support the school in the same way.

You've also seen the situation where a few minutes are added to a calendar, the day part of the calendar, so as to save money or save time that later on can be taken off. Or you've even seen where schools have extended their calendars so that they can shut down for a day during the week. All of these, I submit, have been driven largely by trying to save money within the school system.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I think that that is wrong-headed, in the sense that what should be at the centre of the decisions that we make in regard to our schools is what is in the best interests of the child and the family supporting that child.

In this bill we are talking about eliminating the requirement for the standardized calendar and eliminating the requirement for the cabinet to set that calendar. Well, it seems to me only to make absolute sense, at some level, that you remove something that is a requirement for one group of people to do but then to have no requirement for anybody else to pay any attention to — the calendar. I think that when you take a look at that…. You're required to do it, but nobody is paying attention. There are changes within the bookends and out of the bookends.

But the most ironic thing, I think, of all of this, and especially around this discussion, is that most of the schools, after consultation — with their parents, with teachers, with the other players, with stakeholders within the school system — have largely decided not to change the calendar.

I certainly support the notion of flexibility, but underpinning all this discussion is the fact that there has been flexibility and that, largely, districts have chosen not to change those two major bookends, the beginning of school in September and the ending of it sometime in June.

My position around this is that it's probably a lot of to-do about nothing. It does make sense to align the cabinet with the rest of the world, given that the world is going on regardless. Perhaps that will encourage other people to do other things. I'm not so sure, but perhaps that's, in the end, where we'll end up.

I do want to spend a little bit of a moment on distributed learning — or, as my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake has said, on-line learning. I just have no doubt that on-line learning is a vehicle that can enhance learning at all levels. All we have to do is watch how young children and old children, like little sponges, soak up learning — whether it's on line, in front of them on a TV or in front of a computer. I've watched young students or young children play with electronic games, who just absolutely floor me in their versatility and their ability to pick those little electronic things up and to do what they do with them. It's just, to me, stunning.

[1740]

I think that we proceed down this path with caution. I think that we do it with a very precise and determined understanding of the outcomes for the children that we are engaging in more on-line learning. I think that there is no doubt that there are all kinds of examples where on-line learning is good at remediation. I can think of one where someone was using on-line learning to assist a child getting over a stutter, which was very effective. So there have been many, many examples of how effective on-line learning can be.

But as we move forward down this line, we have to also bear in mind that at the centre of all these decisions has to be what's in the best interest of the child. I don't think there is any of us that would imagine a world where the child learns most of the time in front of some kind of computer screen or some kind of TV screen.

I think there's the other world of humans, where interaction with other people and other students is vital to effective and deep learning. That's reflected when most of us…. If we are recalling something great about our school system, it's largely around some kind of human interaction that we've had in terms of learning in the school system.

I can't recall any moment when I was completely thrilled by the TV or the projector or a film. It's largely been around some kind of emotional commitment to a group, a team, a sport or some kind of learning or to a teacher. The essence of the process is the human connection.

So when you go to further and further on-line learning, it must be put in the context of good strong pedagogy and be deeply supported by the school system — the teachers, principals, school boards and the ministry, all — making
[ Page 11372 ]
sure that it is going to enhance that child's future.

I know that there are a few other people who would like to join this debate, so I'd like to just close by talking for a few minutes about what I see as a major flaw in what is going on in terms of not only this bill but in the education system in general right now.

I think that the lack of leadership and commitment to the system by the current government is a major flaw. When you bring things into this House and you have not consulted with your major stakeholders, that is a very, very poor reflection on the kind of leadership that is needed to produce an exceptional and outstanding school system.

I think the fact that the school districts, the school boards, the educational players — like the support staff, the teachers and the principals in the classroom — and the parents have not been consulted, are not engaged and full players in building a system of excellence is just a tragedy.

With that, I'll step down from my spot here and let other people join the debate.

B. Simpson: Again, I want to start off by thanking the minister and the minister's staff for a briefing that I was given on this bill. I had some questions to even speak to the bill before we get into the committee stage. It's always great to have access to staff to have some of those questions dealt with in advance of us bringing it into the House.

As other people have indicated, this is a school amendment act, and as I say every time, amendments are often difficult to understand what's going on. In this case one of the areas is a repeal of an existing piece of legislation and a complete replacement.

[1745]

The three areas in here are the calendar, which has gotten, I think, an over-the-top reaction from both CUPE and the BCTF…. I'm not quite sure. I have my thoughts on why that's occurred, but I do think it's an over-the-top reaction. The next is the funding for the International Baccalaureate, the ability to charge back the fees. The third, of course, is the changes to the distance learning. That is the one I was referring to, which is a repeal of a section and replacement with a new section that changes the nature of distance learning in the province.

I guess in terms of my comments on this, as others have indicated, the devil is in the details. We'll see when we get into committee stage how some of this works, but I wanted to speak to my understanding of it, based on the briefing and looking at the comments and the bill itself.

First off, I'm not sure if the government is courageous or crazy with this bill, mostly associated with the timing of it. I'm sure the minister must feel something of that kind. Given all that is going on — with Bill 22, with the mediation process, with the claims and counterclaims and all the things that are going on — to bring this bill in and to position it in that context is, as I indicated, either a government that's acting courageously to get some things done that need to be done or a government that is a little bit crazy and just doesn't care about the context and is going to try and get it through.

Putting that aside, I think the reality for me is that I think there's some meaningful change here on all three points. I think there are supportable changes on all three points — again, with the caveat that we need to look at some of that in the committee stage. But there is an absolute lack of trust in the context for this and in the timing for this.

In my experience, as someone who did change management initiatives and helped organizations go through change process, trust is fundamental to change. You can't engage in a change process, because a change process in its very essence requires a level of trust, because you've got to commit to an unknown outcome. You have to commit to a process that's going to take you down a path that's not the path of status quo. It's not the path of comfort.

That's why I think the timing of this is really questionable. I get that in part, on the calendar side of things, there is a clock ticking in terms of winding down the current five-year school calendar and a new five-year school calendar to be put forward. But I guess my preference would be that this is done in a context outside of our current collective bargaining situation and in a different time.

I had a classic example of what trust can do when I was working in the sawmilling industry and we were building a new mill. On the front end of the mill we were putting in a system that was an experimental system that no one had experience with. The individuals that we were bringing over to that mill worked with probably the most dinosaur system that existed in the industry at the time, and it's the system that cuts the logs to length for the sawmill and feeds those logs into the sawmill.

The manager of the site wanted to have a process whereby everybody who worked on the site…. Because we were merging different collective bargaining units as well, he wanted everybody who worked on the site to be one unit, one team. In order to foster that, he wanted one lunchroom.

We were getting a lot of push-back on this experimental front end of the mill from the workers who were going to work there because they were resisting this other aspect of what the manager wanted. "Everybody's going to wear the same colour hat, whether you're staff or not, and everybody's going to be in the one lunchroom." There was a lot of resistance to that.

Finally, as someone who was involved in that project, we took the mill manager and we walked with him from where these people were going to operate to where that one lunchroom was, and it would take more time for them to walk to that lunchroom and back than their entire lunch break. It was physically impossible for them to
[ Page 11373 ]
actually get to that lunchroom, have lunch and get back to work during the lunch break. When the manager realized that, he immediately took the plans out and figured out how to get them a lunchroom.

[1750]

Immediately upon building that kind of a relationship where the workers were heard, there was a barrier of trust that was broken through. Those workers then walked down the actual mechanical line with the manager and the project manager, down every aspect of that line, and saved that project hundreds of thousands of dollars in engineering mistakes that they were going to make. That's what trust can do to relationships and to change. In this case, I don't think the trust is there, and I think that's why we're getting the reaction that we're getting on the calendar.

But I'll come to the calendar in a second. I want to talk about the fees. My understanding of this, from talking to ministry staff — this really isn't about the ability to charge fees. Districts are already doing that. Some districts charge portions of the baccalaureate fee. Some districts charge for the exams. There's a bit of a hodgepodge out there. What this does is allow school districts to have the legislative backstop to be able to make the decision to charge fees for either the part or the entire program in a way that they're protected from other legal rulings we've had about school fees.

I think that this is a necessary piece of legislation because that International Baccalaureate program is in addition to what the K-to-12 system is mandated to offer. It is an incremental educational experience for our students, and I do think that given the current fiscal realities and the funding for our school districts, it is appropriate to backstop school districts so they can make that decision to charge back those fees.

In this bill there is a reference to the hardship clause. Section 6(3) of the bill states and references the hardship clause, so families that can't afford this are protected and would be able to go through the process of getting their students in that program without necessarily having those fees charged back to them. I think that that's fair and it's appropriate, especially since it is an incremental offering.

The second part on the distance learning. Again, this is an area I want to canvass — and I've talked to the Education critic about that — in committee stage, because it's my understanding that right now it's an either-or. Either you're in the distance learning program or you're in a classroom situation and accounted for in the school. What this is supposedly doing, from talking to staff, is taking that either-or away for the K to 9 so that it can be blended.

There are going to be logistical issues and funding issues associated with that, but I can see areas in my school district where that may actually work. So I want to canvass that with the minister to get some examples of where the minister and the ministry think this may apply. There's some strangeness to it, in many respects, especially around funding and how you do this.

We have people who live in remote areas that do come into town. They have distance learning for their children, but if they've got that opportunity — because right now it's an either-or — to also register them in the local school and have a couple of days in the local school and then distance learning for when they home-school them, I don't think that that's a bad thing. I don't think this has been characterized correctly. I may be misunderstanding it, but it is an area worth canvassing.

The concern that I had was that the move towards distance learning for K to 9 may be a move that some school districts with rural, remote physical schools have been concerned about for some time, and that is that we may get ourselves into a situation where because you have access to distance learning, you have the ability to shut down those schools. It's a kind of last nail on the coffin. Ministry staff have indicated to me that, really, if that's what they wanted to do, that already exists. This is to give another alternative. It's an alternative that I think is worth exploring, and I look forward to exploring it when we get to committee stage.

The final part of this is the calendar part. As I've indicated already, I struggle with the emergency resolution from CUPE BC, and I struggle with the response from the B.C. Teachers Federation, especially around a sense of entitlement to teachers having two months off in order to reinvigorate.

[1755]

Really, my understanding of this, and some members have spoken to it, is that it's basically removing a barrier for school districts to engage their parents, to engage their community, to engage their teachers and workers in their school district about moving to an alternate calendar without that five-year provincial calendar fixed, and then you're actually butting up against the status quo. So it's to give freedom to those consultations.

Acting the way that folks have done — that this is an emergent situation, an emergency, etc. — I think is just an over-the-top reaction more related to the lack of trust and the timing of this than the actual essence of the bill and what the bill will do. I hope I'm proved right on that.

The thing that I would say in this, though, is that it is my understanding — and this may flare up as a result of this and may be part of what's going on — that this will require changes in the collective agreement process. It will require particularly…. Especially if we come back here in the summer, in July or August, and we're going to get an imposed collective agreement, I will be looking to see if this bill will be enabled by a change to the provincial collective agreement.

Right now what this would trigger is all kinds of issues at the district level within the collective agreement process. It's my understanding that the government wants a
[ Page 11374 ]
change to the provincial collective agreement that would take that away from the district-by-district collective agreements — what's left there — and would enable teachers to be regarded as parents and as other stakeholders in the system, because it would take it out of the collective bargaining process.

That's something that needs to be canvassed as we get into the committee stage of this, because then it is wrapped up in the collective agreement process. It has implications for that process as well.

On balance, I believe that there are issues. The BCTF raises what happens in the school district if you have an alternate calendar for senior than you do for junior or for elementary schools. What does that do to parents? I think those are all things that would be canvassed in the consultation process. This bill simply enables school districts to be free from that five-year calendar to engage in that consultation process.

I think, on balance, these are some positive steps, some enabling steps. I look forward to the committee stage to make sure that that does prove out.

Again, I put it to the Education Minister and to his colleagues that on the whole, I don't think we can get to substantive, meaningful, productive change in the education system until we get to a different collective bargaining process — one that does not take us to the hammer of legislation; one that does not take us to the politicizing of that process, as we see every time it comes up. And no matter who's in government, they end up using the hammer of legislation.

I don't think we can get to real educational reform until we have a different partnership between government, the employers and the unions involved in that system. It's my hope that if the mediation process doesn't work, the government would rethink legislating a contract and would consider showing some courage and legislating a different process to get us to a contract so we can restore trust in the system and get meaningful education change.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you for the opportunity to close debate. I thank the independent member for his thoughtful comments.

I want to say, first of all, thank you to all of the members who have made generally thoughtful comments in respect of Bill 36. There's some variation on that, which I'll perhaps devote some commentary to.

On the government side I particularly appreciated the, I think, very passionate analysis advanced by the members for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky and North Vancouver–Seymour. I thought they spoke particularly from the heart in terms of their views of how this bill will assist in advancing education.

I also want to say I appreciate very much the comments of the opposition Education critic. I think some members of the opposition also put forward some legitimate thoughts, concerns and so on with respect to this bill.

There were some comments, I must say, by some of the members on the opposition side…. I wondered for a while whether we actually had two parties over there rather than one, because there was a duality or ambivalence around the commentary.

[1800]

In some cases it appeared that there had been a neo-Luddite resurgence on the opposition side of the House and what appeared to be a pretty unhealthy level of cynicism and suspicion that was reflected in the commentary of some of the members. Again, that was, happily, occasionally balanced off by some very thoughtful comments by opposition members as well.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This has been an interesting topic for me, and I know for the members that spoke, it has been as well. I think one of the things that I come away with from the second reading debate is a stronger sense of the importance of language here. Typically, I would use the term "year-round" to describe one of the calendar options that might be considered by school districts. I think in fact the term "balanced" is a far more effective way to deal with that.

Funny. When you say year-round schooling to students, they assume that we want them to be in school all year-round. Not surprisingly, that is not a terribly popular thing among students. The balanced calendar involves three months of school, one month off, and that continues on a year-round basis. It is notable that today, in an article entitled "Looks Fun, But Wouldn't You Rather Be in School?" in the National Post, is a very good summary of some of these issues. I'll note for the record:

"In South Korea, Singapore and New Zealand, three countries that consistently rival Canada in academic rankings, summer vacations are no longer than six weeks. The idea of the B.C. legislation is to prevent 'summer slide,' the phenomenon where children forget their math, science and reading skills over the course of the summer.

"In a 2008 paper the Canadian Council on Learning estimated that students lose as much as one month's learning during summer vacation. The learning loss is particularly hard on children from low-income homes, who often return to class lagging behind children who spent their summer at camp or in tutoring."

Further to the issue of balanced schedule, I think there will be many options open to school districts. They can look at the balanced schedule. Some, I think, will look at shortening up what is now sometimes eight weeks, sometimes as much as ten weeks, of vacation between the end of spring session and the launch in fall. That really is, from an educational perspective, not the best situation.

I would also note, in concluding here, I had the opportunity to visit Kanaka Creek School, which was ref-
[ Page 11375 ]
erenced by the MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission. Kanaka Creek is out in Maple Ridge school district. When I visited that school, all of the teachers, all of the students, all the administration, all of the parents were absolutely thrilled that they were on a balanced schedule.

Surprisingly perhaps, just a few blocks down the road is a high school, also in the same school district, with far less enthusiasm for the balanced schedule there. Go figure. That may change, perhaps when some of the elementary school students make their way up to high school, or maybe we're just seeing something that is evolutionary in this regard.

What we're really doing here — and many members have pointed this out — is not something new. What we're doing away with is a standard school calendar that encouraged a view of what a school year looked like that really is not consistent with today's understanding of best educational practices. That very long break is inconsistent, but we're going to allow school districts to have the kind of consultation with parents, teachers, students and administrators that will allow them to make appropriate decisions.

On distance learning, again, I appreciated the comments of members. The world has changed very quickly for your kids and mine. They grew up in a very different world than we did. They grew up with computers as part of their world. One of the consequences of that is we have seen an enormous growth in distance learning or distributed learning over just a few years.

We've gone from just a few thousand students on distributed learning to now close to 80,000 students doing that. There's a reason for that. It's their comfort, with many students, in learning in that way. But DL is not for everyone — absolutely not. Again, we need to put that choice in place for students and their parents, but it's not for everyone.

[1805]

I would note that the most popular student is a public school teacher who does DL out of his home in Lumby, up in the area close to what we call home in the Okanagan. Apparently, a very good teacher but utilizing DL. Many students find that it's right for them, but not all will.

In some smaller rural-remote circumstances, it may be the best or even the only option if students want to take something outside of the normal offerings in these sometimes very, very small schools. We'll talk about when we get to the next stage of this bill. We can talk about those kind of circumstances and how it would work there.

The immediate demand, really, is for grades 7 to 9. It is, in most circumstances, where there is that demand for DL. What we're doing with this bill is allowing students not only in grades 10 to 12, as is currently the case, but in kindergarten to grade 9 to utilize a mix of distributed learning and bricks-and-mortar education. That's the change. It's not on its own; it's in concert with bricks and mortar. That's an important distinction to be made.

The world constantly changes. Technology and its application to education is constantly changing. We need to continue to provide education in a great range of circumstances. British Columbia is a huge province, a very diverse province, and of course we need to provide for students in the most rural and remote of circumstances as well as in urban circumstances.

With that, again, I thank the members for their comments. I know that we'll be canvassing these questions extensively in committee stage of this debate.

I move Bill 36 be now read a second time.

[1810]

Second reading of Bill 36 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 36, School Amendment Act, 2012, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call for second reading, Bill 37, intituled the Animal Health Act.

BILL 37 — ANIMAL HEALTH ACT

Hon. D. McRae: I move that Bill 37 be read now for a second time.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The new Animal Health Act will provide B.C. with the appropriate regulatory framework to effectively manage a wide variety of diseases.

This legislation has three main goals. The first is to protect human health through the early detection and management of zoonotic diseases, which are diseases that can spread between animals and humans. The second is to ensure the continued productivity and competitiveness of farm operations in B.C. through on-farm prevention strategies, early detection and eradication of animal diseases, and thirdly, to minimize the likelihood of interprovincial or international trade closures by effectively managing disease outbreaks.

[1815]

Policy and legislation has been undergoing revisions at a provincial, national and international level. There are several reasons for this. Emerging disease and food safety are a greater part of the public consciousness due to rapid travel and communication. Even the perception of a possible disease outbreak can have implications for trade and competitiveness.
[ Page 11376 ]

Climate change and global trade are both affecting disease spread and disease range. It is estimated that as much as 75 percent of the emerging diseases in humans originate in the animal kingdom. When exotic diseases mutate and there is a direct spread among humans, the impact on the disease on human health can change dramatically. Severe acute respiratory syndrome, otherwise known as SARS, and the H1N1 virus are examples of pandemics with at least partial origins in animal populations.

Regardless of whether a disease infects humans or is limited to animal populations, the economic impact can be significant. The SARS outbreak in 2003 is estimated to have cost the Toronto economy nearly $1 billion in reduced travel, tourism and entertainment spending. BSE, otherwise known as mad cow disease, the scare of 2003, is said to have cost the Canadian economy close to $6 billion. This devastated the cattle industry and the communities that depend on it, despite a relatively low risk to consumers.

The avian influenza outbreak in 2004 in B.C.'s Fraser Valley lasted just 91 days. It resulted, though, in more than 17 million birds being culled by the federal government and 410 commercial poultry farms being emptied. It had gross economic costs exceeding $380 million.

Livestock production is an important part of B.C.'s food production system. In 2010 total livestock receipts from the sale of cattle, hogs, poultry, eggs, dairy, honey and other animals and animal products amounted to more than $1.2 billion.

Aquaculture farm-gate sales from farmed salmon, trout, clams, mussels, oysters and scallops totalled more than $418 million. Any threat of disease must be taken very seriously if we are to maintain the economic well-being of families and communities that depend upon these industries, whether they are in Port Hardy on the north Island or in an urban environment like Richmond.

In an interconnected global economy animal diseases can easily be transmitted and spread quickly, carried by animals themselves or animal products and by-products and other things they come in contact with. In new environments the development and spread of diseases can be unpredictable. The ability to respond immediately and effectively is paramount. The legislation provides more disease control measures and enables the chief veterinarian to employ emergency measures, if necessary.

As much as we need to be able to respond to disease outbreaks, it is equally important to prevent disease from occurring in the first place. The legislation places more accountability on persons responsible for animals to ensure that on-farm practices prevent, to the greatest degree possible, the occurrence and spread of disease. It only takes one producer with a significant disease outbreak to infect an entire industry.

The legislation provides opportunities for industry to work with government to monitor animal health and to participate in health management and research programs. We look to the continued cooperation of our producers in maintaining a healthy agricultural animal industry.

In summary, the new legislation will apply more control measures to a larger number of diseases included on an emergency basis, if required. It will include comprehensive inspection powers. It will apply measures to control diseases not only to animals but also to animal products and to by-products. It will include a new administrative penalty system for contraventions of the act and higher penalties for individuals who have been convicted of committing an offence. It will protect information voluntarily submitted in confidence by farmers to government for purposes of disease monitoring and early disease detection.

Finally, it will enable the future consideration of compensation for the destruction of animals or property to control disease.

With that, I look forward to the comments of the other members of this House.

L. Popham: I will be the designated speaker for second reading.

I think we can all agree that provincial authorities must be able to respond quickly and effectively to animal health emergencies. I think that's clear, and that's something we can agree on, on both sides of the House. In the incidences we have seen where avian flu or BSE have taken hold, a quick response was very necessary. In most cases a quick response means that other farms and agricultural businesses will be able to save as much of their business as they can.

But I want to say this. I think that as I begin my response to second reading of Bill 37, I should review my interpretation of what has gone on in this chamber over the last 24 hours. Yesterday at 1:50 a bill was tabled — this bill, Bill 37. Tabling a bill is not that unusual, but this one was interesting.

[1820]

Bill 37 is a combination of four bills. This bill repeals and replaces the Animal Disease Control Act, the Fur Farm Act, the Game Farm Act and replaces the Bee Act. This is basically four bills being made into one, and the new bill has 119 sections.

I think we can all conclude that this is a large piece of legislation that's being brought forward. To think that calling second reading after only 24 hours is appropriate is ridiculous. If this is how the government side sees fit to use this Legislature, it makes me think they have no regard for democracy and no regard for proper process.

On this side of the House we do not consider proposed legislation a done deal. We do not approve legislation willy-nilly, and we consider how we are going to support a bill with a lot of thought.

It seems it's fine for the government to take its time when it wants to, such as repealing the HST legislation,
[ Page 11377 ]
when something as shoddy as that is done, but when there's something like this….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Your comments — confine them to Bill 37, please.

L. Popham: Thank you, I will.

I would like to explain to this government how I do my job in regards to Bill 37 and how jamming this legislation and second reading through after 24 hours is ridiculous.

The government side may not understand this, but with a bill that's this complex — and many bills that come our way are complex — one of the most important parts of second reading is making sure that consultation has been done with stakeholders that are involved in the recommendations for the legislation. There is a lot that can be changed in proposed legislation.

Often the devil is in the details, and the consequences of legislation the government may not be aware. It's our job as an official opposition to review that legislation to make sure it's strong, to make sure it's complete and to make sure it's fair.

We saw last week with Bill 24 that the amendments put forward by the opposition side that were accepted by the government side made that legislation stronger. We do not have the chance in 24 hours to contact everybody that may have been consulted, go back to them, ask if their comments that they've made on Bill 37 have made it into the legislation, if the intent of what they have told the government is there or if it's not there and what that means to their businesses in British Columbia, their farm businesses.

The idea that we are not given that time makes a mockery of the chamber. As the official opposition we take our job seriously, and if we were sitting on the other side of the House there would be that time.

I don't know if anybody on that side of the House understands or cares, for that matter, that 24 hours isn't enough. I would challenge the government side to do what we have to do in that 24 hours.

Interjection.

L. Popham: Well, it's not the way government should work. It's not the way that government should work, and I would like to say that I would like to continue my chance to debate tomorrow. I think we can protect animals, farmworkers and the public at large from disease while still respecting the right to due process. That's not what has happened here today.

I reserve my right to resume debate tomorrow.

L. Popham moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.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); J. McIntyre in the chair.

The committee met at 2:50 p.m.

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

The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to Committee of Supply, Section A. We're in the process of resuming consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

N. Macdonald: I'll just allow the member for Stikine to get organized. I'll just ask a one-off. The question that I was asked to ask was around the off-road vehicle registration and licensing. It was pointed out that the B.C. government announced in November 2009 that it would be implementing registration and licensing over the next period of time.

The question that the person has is: what's happening with that initiative? Is it something that the government intends to proceed with, or is it something that is no longer on the table?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, to confirm with the member opposite, there is continued work on development of the registration and licensing system under the ORV framework. There are some complexities with respect to licensing and taxation, as was referenced in the House, with the taxation initiatives that we need to fit this process into.

We continue to work on it. We're continuing to consult with our advisory group, and we continue to plan on
[ Page 11378 ]
bringing the registration and licensing system forward.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the focus of my questions. My responsibility is the mining aspects of the ministry, so thanks for giving me the opportunity to do that. As we know, with the reorganization, the mining sector responsibilities are split between Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

I'd just like to lead off by saying that in the opposition ranks we're well aware of the importance of mining in the province. Gross revenues in B.C., according to the government data, were $7.1 billion in 2010. In fact, $400 million in revenues accrued to B.C. in 2010, according to government numbers — very important for all of the province as far as revenue generation and important for employment in rural areas, like the area I represent, and in other areas of the province as well.

I'd like to begin by looking at one area in the service plan that directly relates to mining, and that's the performance measure around the reduction of backlogs in the permitting process. There was an announcement in September of last year by the government and by the Premier of an additional $24 million to be allocated towards the reduction of the backlog of various types of permits that relate to mining.

My understanding is that that $24 million was going to be allocated as $12 million in this fiscal year and $12 million in the fiscal year that we're discussing under these estimates. Is that correct?

[1455]

Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate the question. Just to comment, again, these are very important additional resources that our ministry has been provided, as the member opposite indicated, to focus on addressing the backlog of authorizations — a very, very important objective and target, in terms of moving economic development forward.

Just to confirm the additional resources in our ministry. The additional resources were $5.1 million in 2011-12 and $7.1 million for the current fiscal year.

D. Donaldson: That adds up to $12.2 million, and it was announced as $24 million in September 2011. So if the additional dollars were used for backlog reduction, where did the additional dollars go?

Hon. S. Thomson: The additional resources went to the other resource ministries — to the Ministry of Energy and Mines, to the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and to Agriculture.

D. Donaldson: Some of the additional resources, then, went to land and water acts permitting reduction, to backlog reduction. Is that covered under the ministry that you head up?

Hon. S. Thomson: The answer is yes. Those authorizations are within our ministry and are the focus of the work within those additional resources that we've been provided along with the regular work of the ministry.

D. Donaldson: I see. Well, this is curious, as $24 million was announced for a reduction of the backlog of permits. That's notice of work as well as permits under the water and land acts. The performance measure for reduction of backlogs is in this ministry. Could the minister explain why the entire $24 million did not come to his ministry, and what specific work would be done on permits in other industries to justify the whole $24 million not coming to this ministry?

[1500]

Hon. S. Thomson: It's important to recognize that as we have been working through the project to address the authorizations, the backlog, we work very collaboratively across the ministries. That includes, as part of all of these processes, fish and wildlife reviews and things in the process. Some of that work carries on in Environment. First Nations consultation framework work that assists in addressing those — that's within MARR.

So the resources were deployed across the ministries to achieve the overall objective. Our ministry takes the lead on ensuring that the target levels are met, but we work collaboratively across those resource ministries, and the additional resources — very much appreciated by the resource ministries in terms of being able to work collectively across in addressing those targets and those performance measures within our ministry. It takes a cooperative partnership effort in order to do that.

D. Donaldson: I find it curious that although this ministry is tasked with reducing the backlog, specifically in performance measures — and the backlog included 229 notice-of-work backlogs, 2,785 backlogged Land Act permits, 3,899 backlogged Water Act permits — that you were only able to secure slightly over half the $24 million that was announced in September, 2011, to the ministry that seems to be having the lead responsibility in reducing these backlogs.

Was the $5.1 million in 2011-12, which we just understood was allocated to your ministry, fully expended on the backlog issue?

Hon. S. Thomson: In the fiscal year 2011-12, of the $5.1 million that we had available to us…. It's important to understand that this was available. Access through contingencies was based on expenditures. The decisions were made, in order to be able to access that, partway through the year. So the total amount that we expended in 2011-12 was $3.7 million. With that, and I think as
[ Page 11379 ]
has been demonstrated in terms of the very targeted success in that….

[1505]

For example, we've been able to reduce the notice-of-work applications from the initial number of 229 down to current status of 54 in that backlog. So very, very good progress in terms of addressing those backlogs. Sorry. The staff just slipped me a note because my writing is not completely clear — $3.2 million, not $3.7 million.

D. Donaldson: So $3.2 million expended in 2011-12 — $5.1 million allocated, $1.9 million that was not expended. Was the ministry able to hold on to that $1.9 million and use it in budget estimates that we see in this fiscal year, specifically on backlog reduction?

Hon. S. Thomson: No, as I explained, and I'm sure the member opposite understands, those were access to contingencies — those unexpended notional approvals of access to contingencies remain in the contingencies. The access to contingency we have for this purpose this year is the number I've talked about previously, the $7.1 million.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for taking some time on this current year's budget. Now, focusing on the budget estimates and the $7.1 million for the upcoming fiscal year. Searching through the budget document, my question is: where does that $7.1 million show up in the 2012-13 budget for the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations? I note specifically that regional operations that is tasked with licensing, permitting and mining resources has less of a budget this fiscal period upcoming than they did last year.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to advise, these are additional resources that are available through access to contingencies for this purpose. It's not in the estimates, so you won't see it in the estimates numbers specifically within our estimates. These are resources that are available to us over and above the funding that is indicated for those divisions within our ministry.

The access to it is based on a multisectoral plan that is put forward and approved for the expenditures based on the targeted work in order to address those authorizations and backlogs. It doesn't show in the current estimates for the ministry.

D. Donaldson: If a concerned member of the public wanted to see where the $7.1 million shows up in the budget, where would they access that information in the budget document then?

[1510]

Hon. S. Thomson: In terms of canvassing the specifics of where it would reference in the contingencies, that would be canvassed in the estimates of the Minister of Finance, who controls the access to the contingencies.

As I said, the public commitment for this purpose was the $24 million that was committed. It was committed publicly for the purpose. The access to it is based on a multisectoral plan that is put forward in terms of the approval for access to contingencies. As I pointed out, it is not currently in our specific ministry estimates.

D. Donaldson: Would the minister please inform how the $7.1 million from contingency that's allocated to his ministry to address backlog reduction is being used to address that issue?

[1515]

Hon. S. Thomson: The available resources have been used for expediting and coordinating the work required in addressing these for our First Nations consultation staff; for permitting and regional operations — two regional geologists; resources for focused wildlife inventory; work to expedite permitting processes; and an amount for accelerating training and some central planning around developing the appropriate skills across the ministry in terms of doing the permitting work. So a small amount for training and central planning.

D. Donaldson: Well, that's interesting. The two regional geologists are standard positions in the operations of this ministry. Why would you need contingency funds in order to fund those positions?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, the resources were used to expand the number of regional geologists. We went from three to five regional geologists. That has allowed us to provide the additional service and to assist in moving those permitting processes forward.

D. Donaldson: Would the minister please advise how many additional staff positions, above and beyond filling vacancies and staffing up to the full complement, were hired using the $7.1 million in contingency funds in order to address the backlog issue.

Hon. S. Thomson: About 103 temporary auxiliary resources have been taken on through the additional contingency resources that we've had available to us.

D. Donaldson: So 103 temporary auxiliary workers are being hired through this contingency funding to address the backlog issue, leading to the conclusion that the backlog issue is a result of understaffing.

[1520]

It was something confirmed by the former Minister of Mines, who said that there weren't enough people in the resource-revenue-generating ministries to get the permits out the door in a timely fashion, and also confirmed
[ Page 11380 ]
by the former CEO of the Mining Association of B.C., Pierre Gratton, who said during Finance Committee hearings that the cuts had gone too far, as far as the mining sector was concerned, around permits.

We've concluded the reasons for the backlog. The budget shows that for this ministry, $602 million in estimates for 2012-13, the coming fiscal year, and then dropping to $555 million in 2013-14. Not only are you experiencing about a $50 million drop in the regular operations, but the funding of positions is on a contingency basis. Can the minister explain how the issue of backlog will not creep up again? How is he addressing that?

Hon. S. Thomson: I pointed out the work that we're doing with the additional resources, both addressing the backlog and the targeted measures for those specific backlogs. At the same time we are working collaboratively across the ministries and within our ministry on streamlining the processes, streamlining the consultation processes, putting in new systems that will assist in the approval and permitted streamlining processes.

We are taking those resources to put ourselves in a position that we will have those systems in place after we have addressed the backlog and to have a more efficient, streamlined process to handle the current application processes.

D. Donaldson: I would like to move on, specifically to the performance measure numbers around notice-of-work applications. In the service plan provided by the ministry there is a commitment to reduce the backlog notice-of-work applications by 80 percent by 2013. In the Premier's announcement in the fall it was to reduce by 80 percent by August 31, 2012. Which one is accurate?

[1525]

Hon. S. Thomson: The target, or the intention, was to reduce the backlog in the notice-of-work applications by 80 percent by August 2012. Once the backlog was reduced, the intention was to maintain an average 60-day turnaround time from 2013 onwards.

D. Donaldson: Is the wording in the service plan inaccurate, then, where it says: "…commitments in the B.C. jobs plan to reduce the backlog by 80 percent by 2013"?

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm looking at the ministry's 2012/13–2014/15 Service Plan, February 2012, where clearly: "The intention is to reduce the backlog in the mining-related notice-of-work applications by 80 percent by August 2012."

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that clarification.

The service plan refers to "commitments in the B.C. jobs plan to reduce the backlog by 80 percent." Then on the next page under "Discussion," the service plan says: "It's the intention to reduce the backlog in the mining related notice-of-work applications by 80 percent by August of 2012." So is it a commitment or an intention?

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: From my perspective, I interpret intention to be a commitment. That's the work that we're doing. We are doing all that we can within our ministry. That is the direction that I have provided to staff in terms of meeting those targets. The direction, I think, is quite clear, both from myself and from the Minister of Energy and Mines, that we expect those targets to be met.

D. Donaldson: Yes, words are tricky sometimes, aren't they? Commitment and intention have two different meanings, but I will take the minister that he's committed to the goal of reducing the notice-of-work application backlog by 80 percent by August 2012 and that it's not simply an intention.

I would like to ask some questions about the 229 notice-of-work applications that were backlogged. There are many types of notices-of-work, from my understanding, in discussing with ministry and talking with ministry personnel. There's notice-of-work and reclamation applications for sand and gravel and quarry for one, for aggregate exploration for another, for mineral exploration, for coal exploration, for placer mining. They all have notice-of-work applications.

Out of the 229 that were backlogged, could the minister advise on which types of notices-of-work were backlogged in those various categories?

[1530]

Hon. S. Thomson: I was going to comment that when the member opposite said he took the interpretation that the minister was committed to meet those targets, I at least appreciate the fact that he didn't say, "He should be committed" — a little nuance there.

Just to deal with the total, I don't have the exact numbers as far as the mineral and coal. In notice-of-work permits, out of the 229 that were there, 100 were in mineral and coal, and those are now down to 19. The balance were aggregate and placer. That would be 129. While we don't have the exact numbers with us, staff advise me that it's about half-and-half between the two. That now has been reduced from 129 down to 35.

That makes up the total of the 54 that are currently left to be addressed in what would be considered the backlog applications. I think it's fair to say that of that 35, most are aggregate, and we're currently waiting for more information in terms of being able to address those. Again, we've got the work underway to make sure that we can move those backlog applications forward and get the full target addressed.
[ Page 11381 ]

D. Donaldson: Those are the backlogged numbers. How many notice-of-work applications are your ministry currently dealing with beyond the backlog? So since September, for example, when this backlog initiative was introduced, or in the past year, how many are on the books right now that you're currently dealing with — notice-of-work applications?

[1535]

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm advised that we receive about 1,100 applications a year. Currently in our offices there are about 300 applications.

D. Donaldson: What would be the average number of days that the ministry is setting for the turnaround time for those 300 applications?

Hon. S. Thomson: We started in the process with a turnaround time of about 110 days. Our current turnaround time is 81 days. Our target, as was pointed out earlier, is to achieve a turnaround time of 60 days by 2013.

D. Donaldson: So the 300 that are current notice-of-work applications — the goal is to have an 81-day turnaround time on those?

Hon. S. Thomson: The goal is to have a 60-day turnaround time by 2013. The current turnaround time is 81 days, and we continue to work to improve that turnaround time as we move towards the target of 60 days by 2013.

D. Donaldson: The 300 notice-of-work applications that are current for the ministry. Can you give me an idea of the breakdown, similar to the backlog, between mineral and coal, aggregate and sand, and gravel and placer?

Hon. S. Thomson: This is the staff's best estimate, and we can provide the exact breakdown as a follow-up. It would be roughly 50 percent mineral, 30 percent aggregate and 20 percent placer.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. As mining critic I'd appreciate an accurate breakdown, if you can provide that afterwards. That would be very good in writing.

What was the average…? You talked in the service plan that the 2011 baseline was 100-day turnaround time, on average, for these notice-of-work applications and that you've progressed to 81. What was the average turnaround time five years ago — so in 2007, let's say?

[1540]

Hon. S. Thomson: I indicated this morning that I didn't do the best job during the day of introducing the staff who were with me, so I should recognize Butch Morningstar, who has joined us. I'm fortunate. Butch has been in this side of the ministry and has been part of the ministry for a long time, so he's got good recollection of what those turnaround times might have been. Again, these are estimates, but his best estimate is that five years ago it would have been about 55 days. Three years ago it was about 70 days.

I think it's important to point out that as we've been working through this, a number of things are happening: increasing complexity on the land base, increasing requirements with respect to the First Nations consultation processes; record levels of activity last year, as you know; and record levels of exploration — $436 million in exploration activity.

Again, the target with the resources we have is to move the turnaround time back down to 60 days by 2013, to get back to the turnaround times that were there three to four years ago.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that institutional memory, to the staff.

There have been a couple of major reorganizations in ministries that impacted mining since 2010, and we were still faced with a 110-day average notice-of-work application processing time last year. How did the reorganizations, in the minister's opinion, improve permitting, or did the reorganization actually improve it at all?

[1545]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the results that we're achieving — being able to be well on track in terms of the targets for the reductions, the improvements in turnaround time — are a demonstration that the steps we've taken to streamline the processes — to move to one project, one process; to provide additional FrontCounter offices that take in those streamlined application processes; to provide the additional staff training — are all working towards achieving those targets, providing those enhanced services and the lower turnaround times while addressing the backlog.

As I said earlier, we're working to streamline the systems to integrate across the ministries, to move to one project, one process. As you know, when you have the notice-of-work permit application, it's not the only permit they require. They require the other permits. It's doing all of that in one process, providing an enhanced client service to businesses and to industry, both in major projects and in the regular notice-of-work applications.

D. Donaldson: Well, the evidence is that there has been one actual new metal mine opened in B.C. in the last ten years, and that's Mount Milligan. The evidence appears to be that the improved permitting has not resulted in new mines being opened at this point.

Let's talk about some of those other permits. We talked about this a little earlier. The goal is to reduce the backlog of water and land acts tenures by 50 percent as of
[ Page 11382 ]
December 31, 2012. That was the announcement in the fall. The Land Act has 2,785 backlogged permits. Can the minister explain the nature of these permits? What are the various categories and numbers?

[1550]

Hon. S. Thomson: Before I answer the other question, I'm not going to let the member opposite's comment go by, when he made the reference that there has only been one new mine approved. The record in the last two years — two major mines, Copper Mountain and Mount Milligan; two new smaller mines, Bonanza Ledge and Dome Mountain; major mine expansions at Elkview, Endako, Highland Valley, Mount Polley and Huckleberry.

To confirm, the process around keeping a focused effort on moving this sector forward continues with very, very significant success, making a major contribution to jobs and the economy of British Columbia.

To go to the specific question. I think it was the land management or the authorizations. I think the question was around the range and the types of permits that are in those processes or authorizations. We've got a process underway to address the backlog targets in those areas.

We've got them categorized by region. They cover the broad range across the resource sector — agriculture, commercial, commercial recreation, communication, community, energy production, environment, conservation, recreation, industrial, quarrying, residential, transportation, utility, water power and wind power.

D. Donaldson: Just a nod would be fine if the minister would be willing to share that regional information.

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes.

D. Donaldson: So much for the nod, but it's good. You're on record. Thank you very much. It's like a tennis match sometimes.

The Water Act, likewise — 3,899 backlogged Water Act tenures. Could the minister give me a brief description of the kinds of tenures we're looking at there? Again, if the information is available, similarly to the Land Act, would you be able to provide me, at a later date, with a regional breakdown?

[1555]

Hon. S. Thomson: The range of Water Act tenures — again, we would be able to find the specific breakdown in those — include water power applications, domestic, industrial, commercial use, agriculture and irrigation.

D. Donaldson: I'll look forward to receiving those in writing from your ministry.

A permit-related question to these budget estimates. Bill 19 came into effect in the fall. It was a miscellaneous act, but part 3 dealt with amendments to Energy and Mines. It gave the chief inspector the discretion to exempt the requirement for a permit in relation to mining. Since Bill 19 has come into effect, could the minister advise how many exemptions have been issued under it?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to advise the member opposite, this is a policy area that's under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Energy and Mines and would be appropriately canvassed in those estimates.

D. Donaldson: Well, I wanted to make sure of that because it is around exempting from permitting. This ministry appears to have permitting under its jurisdiction, so I'll ask a question around Bill 19 that might be more pertinent to your performance measures. Were any notice-of-work applications in the backlog addressed through exemptions under Bill 19?

Hon. S. Thomson: No.

D. Donaldson: How about under the backlog under the land and water act tenures? Are any of those being dealt with through the exemptions granted the chief inspector under Bill 19?

Hon. S. Thomson: No.

D. Donaldson: Well, we're just rolling along here. How about with the current 300 notice-of-work applications? Are any of those being dealt with by the chief inspector of mines under Bill 19–granted exemptions?

[1600]

Hon. S. Thomson: To the best of our knowledge, no.

D. Donaldson: I'll move on to just a couple of questions about another performance measure on page 26 of the service plan, "New mines and expansions to operating mines." This is a performance measure that's exactly the same as a performance measure in the Ministry of Energy and Mines service plan as well.

Could the minister advise what stakeholders were consulted in the decision to come up with the number eight, as many as eight new mines in B.C. by 2015?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: It would be appropriate to canvass that question through the Minister of Energy and Mines. We do the coordination and the delivery of the permitting processes. That's why the target is in our service plan in order to meet that target. In terms of the process to establish those targets, it would be appropriate to canvass with the Minister of Energy and Mines.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. I wanted to ensure
[ Page 11383 ]
that was actually where that responsibility lies, because it is the same performance measure, which I find somewhat curious.

The discussion that follows this performance measure says: "Selecting mining projects as an indicator" — in other words, the eight new mines as a goal, and the nine expanded — "the measure can help the ministry assess the transparency…of the regulatory review process for major projects."

Could the minister explain how having a goal of a certain number of mines relates to the transparency of the review process of major projects?

[1605]

Hon. S. Thomson: This references, as we set up our performance indicators in the overall service plan…. One of the ways that you measure the performance measures is whether you achieve them. You use those to see whether the systems you would put in place help achieve those targets, whether the streamlining processes that we've put in place for authorizations and permitting across our ministry help achieve that. We're working towards making sure that we do that in a predictable and transparent manner.

That's just a descriptor statement that says that those help you. It's one of the things that you look at that help you achieve the measurement of meeting those performance targets.

D. Donaldson: Given that the performance measure for this ministry is the same as the Ministry of Energy and Mines on these particular new mines and expansion mines, I'm trying to assess and drill down to what the different responsibilities are when it comes to this performance measure. I note in the discussion that that's something that's different from the Ministry of Energy and Mines service plan under this indicator.

When you talk about transparency, is that transparency to the public?

Hon. S. Thomson: The process, when we talk about transparency, is to want to be transparent to the public in those processes. That's the focus of our overall ministry — to streamline those processes, to be more efficient and predictable, and to meet those targets. We have a significant number of projects in the system that we're working on and addressing, but the overall goal is to be transparent and predictable in the processes, and that's to the public and to industry.

I think it's important to recognize that there's a joint role here between ourselves and the Ministry of Energy and Mines. We have an MOU that we work with between the two ministries on how we both move forward in achieving these with those respective roles. We can provide you a copy of the MOU, if you want. That may help clarify why we have the joint performance target in our service plan.

[1610]

But it is about being transparent, predictable and more efficient.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that, and yes, that MOU would be helpful as well.

I just wanted to say thank you to the minister and to the staff, and I'll canvass this topic of mines, which is very important in the province, to a much more thorough extent in the Ministry of Energy and Mines estimates. Thank you for your time, and I'll now pass the mike on to the next questioner.

B. Simpson: I've been given some leave to do one question, but we found out that I have a half-hour preamble in advance of the question. No, I'll be brief here, and I appreciate the opposition critic giving me a little bit of space.

Just a couple of comments. I want to thank the minister and his staff for working with us in the Cariboo region to get some resources in the Quesnel office to work with our placer miner community there. I think that's going to be very helpful, and it's already started a productive relationship.

There was a letter sent to the minister on January 16, 2012, by the Cariboo Mining Association with seven items that they wanted clarification on. If a letter hasn't gone out from the minister's office, they are at me to try and get a response to that. So if I could get that or get a copy of that.

Just a follow-up. A recent change has been announced to the Mineral Tenure Act regulations that has all kinds of issues relative to fees and how much material can be moved, etc. I need clarification in order to help the placer miners, as we've seen in the previous discussion, as to who owns that, because a lot of it has to do with permitting and activities. They're now dealing with FrontCounter B.C., but it is the Mineral Tenure Act regulations that are changing. If they have issues with the regulation changes, who do they speak to?

So two quick things. Was there a response to the letter? If not, can we get one? The second is: who do I talk to on behalf of the B.C. Placer Miners Association about the recent changes to the Mineral Tenures Act?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just in terms of the first question, in terms of the letter and the response, I don't have a copy with me, but what I'll undertake to do is to ensure that the member opposite receives a copy of the response. We'll make sure that has been done. In terms of the Mineral Tenure Act regulation, that's under the Ministry of Energy and Mines. I'm advised that the best contact to address the specifics of that would be the chief gold commissioner.

N. Macdonald: We're coming back, then, from where
[ Page 11384 ]
we left off this morning. In the last answer that the minister gave, he responded to a question about inventory. We said about $40 million was the high point in the mid-'90s compared to the range of $6 million to $7 million now. The question was: was there something that was a bigger crisis at that point? Of course, the minister did mention that currently we're dealing with crises such as the pine beetle and climate change.

Where I'll go from that is…. Not mentioned in the minister's response — or, for that matter, in the Auditor General's recently released audit of the ministry and, as well, not mentioned in the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals update on the status of forest inventory — are three important resource areas that require reliable, accurate and up-to-date inventory information. Those are the Zero Net Deforestation Act, the pending Resource Road Act and the Water Act, all of which are inextricably linked.

[1615]

Unless one has accurate information on how many roads we have and where they're located, on what areas have been deforested, reforested and afforested, and on the resulting impacts on water quality, quantity and flow regimes, then it is virtually impossible to manage B.C.'s renewable natural resources with any degree of confidence.

The question to the minister is: will he please tell the committee how many hectares were deforested by the oil and gas industry last year? For what areas, in the spirit of the Zero Net Deforestation Act, has the oil and gas industry voluntarily committed to plant with trees elsewhere?

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm advised by staff that we don't have that specific information available with us at this point. It's information we'll undertake to provide to the member opposite as quickly as we can.

N. Macdonald: On a related note, can the minister please tell us where one can go to readily obtain information on the volumes of timber logged by oil and gas industry interests in the northeast of the province and the revenues collected from such activities?

I mean, it strikes me that this information ought to be publicly available, as it is for logging by forest companies, and that it ought to be tracked by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to ensure that various government initiatives, such as the Zero Net Deforestation Act, are on track.

[1620]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, this is one where we don't have the specific information directly available, but it's one that we'll undertake to provide. My understanding is that the information is available. I think the question was if we can provide it or provide where you would be able to access it. Either we'll indicate where it can be accessed, or we'll provide the information.

N. Macdonald: As I say, if it's convenient to do so. I understand we're going to go in the afternoon. If the minister could put it on Hansard, that's useful for us. If not, I understand that in the past practice we've received a letter, and that works as well.

The next question is: given the sizeable inventory backlog and the critical importance of obviously having adequate data to make informed management decisions as well as strategic economic decisions, would the minister tell the committee what increase in inventory expenditure will be needed, and for how far into the future, in order to resurvey all timber supply areas and tree farm licences to the VRI standard to within ten years? I presume that after ten years, inventory data is essentially unreliable.

[1625]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, in terms of this question and the inventory work, I think the question is, in a sense, a bit of the wrong question. In inventory work, depending on area of activity and what's happening on the land base, some of that can be out of date much earlier than that kind of time frame.

What we do is make sure that we focus the inventory resources that we have in the strategic areas where we need to utilize those resources, those strategic dollars. As I said earlier, what I've directed staff to do is provide this all in a public plan that will be able to be reviewed and commented on as part of the overall inventory plan.

Just to reiterate, we do the annual overview of all the inventory areas. Those adjustments are put in. We've got the additional $2 million in targeted inventory work for the current fiscal year. We will target those resources into those areas where we need the inventory information in order to make the strategic decisions, much of it focused in the mountain pine beetle–impacted area.

N. Macdonald: Let's turn to the private sector for just a minute. In the 1980s the government privatized the field and mapping functions of forest inventory. Until this government came to power, there was a thriving consulting industry which conducted and maintained the provincial forest inventory for government and for tree farm licensees.

Then with a 60 percent cut on average to funding for forest inventory since 2000 compared to average budgets in the '90s, the inventory consulting industry started to fail. The number of certified photo interpreters declined from a high of 70 to the present low of 25, with no new photo interpreters being trained.

The question for the minister…. It's a highly specialized craft. There are issues going forward if we don't retain and train new individuals. What are the plans that the ministry has to retain that expertise?
[ Page 11385 ]

[1630]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, just to reaffirm, as we've indicated earlier, with new technologies having some impact on the amount of contractors required, we still use contractors. My understanding is that contractors are still able to hire and maintain the capacity that they need.

They're having a steady process of the amount of inventory work, and maintaining our current levels of inventory is important. In fact, with the increased inventory resources for the current fiscal year, again targeting the strategic inventory work that needs to be done…. What we've indicated previously is that in subsequent years those decisions are still to be made.

N. Macdonald: Maybe to turn attention now to the sustainable forest management and the chief forester and things that have been said over the years to the effect that our forests are being sustainably managed. That's what we put forward in the world. Some professional foresters dispute this assertion.

In its most recent State of British Columbia's Forests report in 2010 the government described sustainable forest management as the following: "Management that maintains and enhances the long-term health of forest ecosystems for the benefit of all living things while providing environmental, economic, social and cultural opportunities for present and future generations." That's the definition from the 2010 State of British Columbia's Forests report. In that report the ministry used a number of criteria and indicators to self-assess how sustainable it is managing forests on behalf of British Columbians.

Without getting into great detail, forest agencies throughout the world, I understand, use two very simple indicators of sustainability. One is for the timber resource alone, and it's called the growth depletion ratio. It's a simple ratio that looks at the amount of timber being added to the management unit versus the amount of timber being lost to things like logging, forest fires and pests.

The ministry, in response to recommendation 4 in the recent Auditor General's report, stressed the importance of accurate yield projections as far as B.C.'s timber base is concerned, which is essentially an acknowledgment of the central importance of knowing what our growth depletion rates are.

Could the minister please tell us what the growth depletion ratio on the timber harvesting land base is for Lakes TSA?

[1635]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to comment on this. We don't gather that specific ratio on a sub-unit basis like that, in terms of the specific TSA. But I think, very clearly, if the point the member opposite is making is that we don't have a particularly healthy situation here in the Lakes, we fully acknowledge that. We know that. This is one of the very, very significantly impacted areas.

So 71 million cubic metres of growing stock and 54 million cubic metres dead in that region — clearly, a region where we would agree there are significant challenges and a level that would lead anybody who's looking at it to say that we don't have a particularly healthy situation there.

N. Macdonald: But the focus is just on information. The Lakes District is one where a tremendous amount of effort has gone into in recent times in getting accurate information. My understanding is that very recently there have been decisions made based on hopefully adequate information.

If there's a lack of information like this on one TSA, does it not, in the minister's mind, raise questions moving forward about the veracity of information in all or many other management units — and that such a lack of adequate information raises questions about the veracity of the ministry's revenue estimates and the adequacy of expenditure estimates on forest stewardship?

[1640]

Hon. S. Thomson: We don't accept the assertion that just because we don't have this particular ratio, we don't have the information required.

As we pointed out, we've done a very significant analysis of the timber supply area. We believe we have the information on which to make decisions, and we continue to analyze that information. We believe we have the information available, as we've indicated, to engage in the public process around the options and things in terms of addressing the future with respect to that particular timber supply area — and more broadly.

N. Macdonald: Until 2000 the ministry reported annually in table 4 of its annual reports on the not-stocked status of forest land within all TSAs and TFLs. The reason the ministry derived this non-stocked area for each management and aggregated not-stocked area for the province was because the ratio of not-stocked to stocked land is a coarse indicator of sustainable forest management.

Could the minister tell us the areas of not-stocked and stocked forest land for the Lakes TSA, with some comment on the reliability of the descriptive statistics he provides?

Just so I can give some direction to ministry staff so that they're not pushed in the wrong direction, I'm not talking about net NSR obtained from the results database but the not-stocked area obtained from the inventory database — i.e., the forest inventory for the Lakes TSA.

Hon. S. Thomson: We were just trying to work through whether we have that information readily available. I'm advised that we don't have it readily available but that we do have that information. Again, this is information that
[ Page 11386 ]
I'd undertake to provide to the member opposite.

N. Macdonald: Okay. So the minister has that information and presumably has that information for all of the TSAs. Am I assuming that that's correct? I see the minister nodding.

[1645]

One of the most pressing issues facing the provincial forests, then, in light of climate change is maintaining a healthy balance of animal and plant species. Now, of the $95.62 million allocated in the ministry's estimates for resource stewardship, can the minister tell the committee how much funding the ministry is dedicating to establishing wildlife corridors to allow for the migration of species and their adaption to climate change?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, this is a level of detail that is not readily attainable in our overall budget. What we have is regional wildlife staff. We have fish and wildlife staff in Victoria. They perform this function as part of their overall duties. In order to break it down into the specifics, it would be a level of detail that we don't currently have.

N. Macdonald: Maybe we'll talk about something that was in the media some time ago. The government garnered quite a bit of media coverage for its decision to convene the Species-at-Risk Task Force. The task force's report was submitted to government last August, 2011. Since then — well, certainly in the opposition — we have heard nothing about what the government intends to do by way of acting on the report's recommendations.

Can the minister tell us how much new money and how many new staff have been allocated to implement the 88 recommendations, which certainly appear to be important, extensive and costly? What's the planning on that? How much money and how many staff have been applied to that project?

[1650]

Hon. S. Thomson: The response and the process with respect to the Species-at-Risk Task Force and the policy and the recommendations is under the responsibility of the Minister of Environment, and that's where that would be appropriately canvassed.

Just to add, though, that within our ministry we are providing additional resources for wildlife inventory work in this current fiscal year — $2.65 million for important inventory wildlife work. We continue to cooperate in a number of recovery plans — for example, the mountain caribou recovery plan, the Nechako white sturgeon, and a number of different recovery plans around endangered species. But the policy approach with respect to the Species-at-Risk Task Force and its recommendations would be appropriately canvassed in the Ministry of Environment.

N. Macdonald: Just to stay on the subject of species diversity — which is a key indicator of sustainability, as the minister would know — Biodiversity B.C. has indicated that without immediate remedial action, British Columbia's biodiversity will rapidly deteriorate. Would the minister tell the committee what efforts and funding his ministry is contributing to incorporate Biodiversity B.C.'s recommendations into its policy and planning?

[1655]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to comment here on this particular question. Our ministry has long been involved in focusing on biodiversity as one of the 11 values of the Forest and Range Practices Act. We do this in a number of ways. I mentioned specifically the work in the fish and wildlife inventory and the funding provided to that, stocking standards, species diversity targets, landscape unit objectives for old-growth, stand-level-diversity guidelines — all of those. We're now monitoring those by district.

Again, we've recognized the importance of it. It is a fundamental approach to forests and the work that we do. As I said, there are a number of initiatives underway — specific resources in fish and wildlife and a specific focus on a number of initiatives to achieve biodiversity.

N. Macdonald: Okay. Then, let's look at another definition of sustainability, especially for forest-dependent communities situated in the 12 TSAs worst affected by the mountain pine beetle. That would be from the perspective of safety, both for employment and also for homes and family.

Over the last decade the province has spent over $2 billion on fire suppression and rehabilitation, yet in a decade of reduced budgets for renewable resource ministries, very little money has gone into proactive efforts to control the cost of fire suppression spending. What I'm hearing from fire experts is that there's general agreement that we are going to experience a higher incidence of fire. In fact, the minister's predecessor would say that all the time. We're also likely to have higher fire intensity due to climate change.

Research suggests that the fuel treatments are effective at reducing costs, yet the province really has not invested significantly in proactively addressing fuels on the publicly owned landscape. Even a 10 percent redirection of funds to proactive fuel management would have a significant positive impact on fire hazard and on fire suppression costs.

Would the minister please tell the committee why there isn't a greater emphasis on fuel management over priority landscapes and a greater emphasis on treatment of Crown lands within the urban wildland interface for communities at risk of catastrophic wildfires?

[1700]

Hon. S. Thomson: I certainly recognize the importance of this particular question. As the member opposite knows, we've made significant progress. We've invested significantly in the provincial wildfire prevention program. We've completed over 289 funded community wildfire protection plans and 207 operational projects. Over 225 wildlife management crew projects have been completed in the past seven seasons with fire crews.

This is in partnership with local government through UBCM. There's still funding available through that program, with the additional resources that we added to that program. This will continue to be a focus in working with local government through that program. Additionally, we do work in the ecosystem-based program and everything like that to address those areas. Again, this is a long-term project, one where we do recognize, as the member opposite indicated, the risks and the challenges with respect to this.

N. Macdonald: I think we'll just move through. We'll come back to this very important section maybe at a later time, maybe tomorrow afternoon. I'm sure the minister is hearing from the same people that we do.

The areas that were identified as areas that needed to be treated — what we were told is that at the pace we're going, we would get to them in 640 years. Clearly, it's not a question here of, necessarily, resources but of the approach. What I would hope to do when we focus on this area is maybe talk about some of the approaches in terms of doing that, rather than simply focusing on funds available.

[1705]

The minister has pointed out that there have been significant investments, and yet we really have not achieved what we want to. So we'll go back to that at a later time in this debate. Like I say, the focus will be on the approach that's being taken and if there are alternatives.

Just to continue with the theme of sustainable forest management. In the public's mind I think that no forest management ranks higher than reforestation, replanting, as an indicator of how well the ministry is performing. Just as a context to that, let's remind the minister that in 2002 this government cut reforestation and the silviculture budget by 90 percent. That year the government also rescinded the statutory requirement for the ministry to assess areas disturbed by fire and pest, and to draw up plans for reforestation of those areas.

In 2004-05 the ministry restored 14 percent of the budget, some $12.5 million, for the initiation of the Forests for Tomorrow program. Meanwhile, the ministry essentially stopped its own reforestation of backlog NSR and its silviculture activities, such as thinning, pruning and brushing.

By 2008 and 2009 the Forests for Tomorrow program had a budget of $44 million, less than half of the reforestation and silviculture budget prior to 2002. Since 2008 the annual budget for the Forests for Tomorrow program has steadily declined, to $34.5 million in 2011-2012, underscoring this government's continued neglect of the publicly owned forest resource.

Would the minister please tell the House what is the budget for the Forests for Tomorrow program for the coming fiscal year, 2012-2013?

Hon. S. Thomson: The specific number that the member opposite asked for, for '12-13 is $34.5 million.

N. Macdonald: Okay, $34.5 million. By my calculation, the annual Forests for Tomorrow budget is steadily declining and has dropped by about 25 percent since 2008.

Now, as the minister will know, the Forest Practices Board recently stated: "There may be approximately two million hectares of potential net NSR."

Would the minister please justify a declining budget for the Forests for Tomorrow program to deal with an increasing area of potential net NSR that is economic and feasible to plant?

[1710]

Hon. S. Thomson: The $34.5 million — just to indicate that this year it's the same as last year. This year we're planting 14½ million trees and next year 22 million trees in the program.

If we're doing comparison numbers, it's important to point out that the previous numbers that the member was referring to included fertilization. So in terms of the $34.5 million, you'd need to add, in the current fiscal year, $11 million for fertilization to do the comparison.

N. Macdonald: Thanks for that explanation. Nevertheless, if the minister is contending that there hasn't been a 25 percent decrease since 2008 — which I think he did; he explained the differences as being that fertilization was included in the 2008 number and is not included currently — I presume the minister is suggesting that there has been some consistency in terms of the funding.

I would remind the minister…. It does predate his time, but when this program was introduced, I do remember the speeches that were made by predecessors about where we were going to get to with funding. Of course, we have come nowhere close to approaching that.

Nevertheless, just to come back to what the Forest Practices Board is saying is a possibility — of possibly two million hectares that are economically feasible to plant and that haven't been planted — speaking as a layman, it just seems incredibly irresponsible that that would be allowed to build up.

Can the minister comment on that — that the resources that have gone towards replanting seem to be, and have continued to be over the past decade, clearly, incredibly low for the need that's currently out there?
[ Page 11388 ]

[1715]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to work through this in terms of providing the response…. In terms of the fire-impacted areas, we believe we are very current in those areas in terms of the reforestation activities on fire-impacted land.

With respect to the mountain pine beetle areas — and we're just coming to that point now — the approach has been to harvest and to allow the harvest to continue in that area. The reforestation responsibilities extract value from that, and then the reforestation responsibilities belong to the licensees in that case.

It's only now that we're getting to the point where we know that we're now moving into where some of those areas may be uneconomic to harvest. Many of those areas are steep and have low productivity, and the work will need to be done in terms of assessing which of those areas are economic to reforest.

The gross number that was provided has to be netted down to determine which of those areas you would reforest and which you would allow to naturally regenerate. We have to allow those harvesting decisions to take place. We believe the number is somewhere closer to the area of 300,000 to 400,000 hectares.

N. Macdonald: This is a debate that has been going on for quite a while, and we get different ideas. I expect that the Forest Practices Board will be releasing a report relatively soon. I think that, rather than settling the matter, will add another layer. There is no question, though, that for the public as a whole, the expectation is that the replanting would be done.

[1720]

It's pretty clear that the government — this is long before the minister's time — made a conscious decision not to invest in reforestation. I think there is no question that when we look back at that over the past ten years, we see opportunity lost and a degradation of our Crown resource.

I want to come back to some of the numbers the minister gave. Sometimes it's difficult to pick them up. I think the minister gave some questions about the hectares intended to be replanted and the number of seedlings. These are the numbers that I have for 2012-2013. I have 12,000 hectares, the area that would be replanted, and 14 million seedlings. That's roughly what I have. Then going on into 2013-2014, I have about 18,000 hectares and about 21½ million seedlings.

Assuming that's in the ballpark, I guess the question for the minister would be…. If in the fiscal year 2013-2014 the minister is expecting a 48 percent increase in the area planted and a 54 percent increase in the number of seedlings planted, to attain this, it would seem to me that the minister would need to increase the 2013-2014 budget for Forests for Tomorrow in the order of 50 percent. As a layman, that's what I look at, and that's what I would understand. So what budget is the minister anticipating to allocate for the Forests for Tomorrow program in 2013-2014?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, the intentions are, as we said, 14 million planted this year, 21 million in the following year and 21 million again. We've planned for this. Site preparation has been done. Seedlings have been planted and partially paid for. So it's all built into the budget projections and the budget plans to be able to meet those targets for each of those years.

[1725]

N. Macdonald: I just presume that the costs are shared over the two-year period or maybe over a multi-year period. I would assume that you're planting, and that's how it shows up — okay? Just as we have done in previous questions, it's often more meaningful to ask a question to illustrate a point by using a local example. Again, we're going back to the Lakes TSA.

The first question is: what is the potential net NSR area economic and feasible to plant for non-obligation lands? This is excluding the net NSR for which industry is legally responsible to reforest. Again, this is within the timber-harvesting land base of the Lakes TSA.

Hon. S. Thomson: This is a similar request to a question that was asked earlier, where we indicated that we didn't have the information specifically available. We will be able to provide the information in addition to the response earlier. We'll undertake to get that and hopefully be able to provide you that information tomorrow.

N. Macdonald: Thank you for that. What I'll do is I'll just ask the next four questions, because I think they'll be similar — they all deal with the Lakes TSA — just so we can get around that.

The second of the questions would be: how many hectares of non-obligation net NSR — and this is attributable to disturbance by mountain pine beetle and wildfire — have been surveyed to date under the Forests for Tomorrow program?

The third question would be: how many hectares of non-obligation net NSR in the Lakes TSA, again attributable to disturbance by mountain pine beetle and wildfire, have been planted to date under the Forests for Tomorrow program?

The next question would be: how many seedlings have been planted in the Lakes TSA under the Forests for Tomorrow program? Finally, how many dollars have been spent on reforestation in the Lakes TSA under the Forests for Tomorrow program?

That's on Hansard. The minister presumably will get back to me on that. If that's the case, I'll just move on to the next question. It's, again, a bigger picture question.

Given the sizeable new backlog of potential net NSR
[ Page 11389 ]
that the Forest Practices Board recently said could be as high as two million hectares, of which half a million hectares will be planted by industry, and given the critical importance of future timber supply to many forest-dependent communities, would the minister tell the House how many years it will take government to plant the remaining 1.5 million hectares of potential net NSR, assuming the 2012-2013 level of funding and estimated area to be planted for the Forests for Tomorrow program?

[1730]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to state for the record and confirm, we don't agree and do not accept that the two million hectares figure is what all needs to be reforested. That contains steep areas. It contains low-productivity areas. It contains high-wildlife areas.

As we step down from that, what we are doing over the next six months is that we're working to complete an update of the strategic plan for the FFT program to ensure that the reforestation dollars that we have are targeted and focused into those strategic areas where it makes the most sense and where it's the most effective use of taxpayer resources in addressing the reforestation obligations on that land. That work is underway.

Again, the number needs to step down from that overall two million figure, and we need to determine exactly where the most strategic investments need to be made.

N. Macdonald: I understand that there will be disagreement on that number going forward. The minister has heard me use the term — that it would take 124 years.

[1735]

That's just simple math — right? Just taking the amount that the minister has identified for 2012-2013 and then just extrapolating it for the bigger number. The number is huge. I'm sure the minister has wondered — or maybe it was obvious — where the number 124 years came from. That would be the assertion, at the pace we're going. It would be over a hundred years to even get caught up to what possibly could be out there.

In terms of reforestation, I think there are an awful lot of people in pine beetle areas that would be asking themselves where the government has been over the past ten years. Even as the minister responsible, I'm sure that you wish you had the opportunity to work with a forest that had silviculture and replanting done — that that would have been an opportunity that would have been expected when you're dealing with, really, a natural disaster of epic proportions.

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

It's true that far worse natural resources have received federal government assistance. It seems to me that we heard again and again that the federal government did come forward with a promise of $1 billion. I know that some money was put forward. I think the figure of around $200 million was actually put forward.

Now, because we're next to Alberta and a number of people from Golden go and work in Alberta, I am familiar with how money that came from the federal government was used in Alberta for the pine beetle. I don't have a full list of what was done there, but the projects that I hear about were very clearly related to forestry. A gentleman that I know well did an awful lot of inventory work. That's how they chose to spend the money.

Is it not true that the portion of that $1 billion that actually came to British Columbia went to projects…? One example would be the Prince George Airport road infrastructure. It's clearly important but not really related to forestry.

The question I have is: can the minister tell the committee why the federal government terminated the financial assistance? Having promised $1 billion, my understanding is that they delivered about 20 percent of that. Why did they choose to terminate the additional money that was promised?

[1740]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, the federal government has put about $340 million in. I don't speak for the federal government. They've been important partners in the process. As you know, they invested significantly in the forest industry, particularly in the program with the pulp and paper industry and the green transformation fund, which B.C. benefited from, in response to U.S. policy that was very, very important for our current forest industry.

As we go forward in addressing the response in this area…. It was part of the public process in addressing the future there. I'm sure this is a conversation that we'll be continuing to engage in with the federal government.

N. Macdonald: Now, my understanding was that the $1 billion…. The federal government said that there was no plan and that that was part of the reason they pulled the money. But just give us a sense of the $350 million that the federal government put towards the province for dealing with the forest crisis.

Just to remind the member — the member will know this — in the 1980s there was an NSR crisis that the federal government participated in. Between 1985 and 1995 I think they spent about $500 million, but this is many times worse. Just to get a sense of how much of the money the federal government spent went to projects that the minister would describe as true forestry projects.

Hon. S. Thomson: I don't have the specific breakdown. Just to review the general areas of support that were provided through that funding: $200 million in forestry and economic diversification; $100 million in communities, spread control, fuel management, the First Nations
[ Page 11390 ]
Forestry Council; $40 million in research and remediation in federal and private forest land.

So a significant investment — it depends on your definition of "significant investment" — in forestry mitigation and assistance to those communities in mitigating the impacts of this very significant epidemic of the mountain pine beetle.

N. Macdonald: Of that $200 million that the minister described, much of that is roadwork. Much of that is a highway project.

If you look at the choices that the provincial government makes, there's a choice not to invest in forest health and replanting, and there is not even the decision to use the federal government in a way that helps the forest. That's a conscious decision.

[1745]

There's not even an ability to make a plan so that the federal government feels like investing the full $1 billion that they had promised. Like I say, it's anecdotal, but I just compare it to what I hear from Alberta — the choices that they made in spending the money. They seemed to be doing work like inventory, things that have a practical purpose for forestry.

Again, I just question if the ministry has now given up on approaching the federal government and asking them to invest in a program that the ministry could lay out that would actually meet, presumably, some of the criteria the federal government would have for dealing with what is really a natural disaster. Are there any plans by the ministry to put together a comprehensive recovery plan in these areas and take it to the federal government and ask them to participate in funding the work that should have been done over the past ten years but certainly needs to be done now?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I've indicated earlier in response to questions, it is our intention and the direction to staff over the next few months to develop that updated strategic plan for the FFT program and the reforestation program. I certainly do not rule out having those discussions with the federal government as that plan is developed.

That will have to be done in the context of all the other priorities of federal government expenditures and their plans, but certainly our focus will be to update the plan, to continue to work through all the analysis that we're doing in this area, to continue to move forward on the plans to engage the communities and the public in the process of considering the options for this area, in terms of mitigating the impacts that we know are there and that have been identified. That's what we will be committing to do over the next number of months.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister.

In terms of when we shut down, which isn't likely for another half hour, the member for North Coast has one question. When it comes time for the minister to wrap up, if he could just signal me and I'll let North Coast pop up and do the one question quickly, and then we'll move back to the big House to wrap up for the day.

I guess the next question is: when is the minister going to be providing communities in the pine beetle–impacted areas with reliable data on the status of their specific local forests so that they can understand the timber supply issues affecting them?

The minister and the Premier have talked about an engagement process — that it's to be a frank and transparent dialogue and that communities as well as the opposition are going to be involved in that dialogue to plan the future without destroying, of course, the natural capital that is there.

[1750]

Has the minister set aside funds specifically earmarked to engage communities in discussion about their future, or is that something that would come from a different ministry?

Hon. S. Thomson: The member referenced the availability of data and information. So he's aware, and I'll make sure he is, the timber supply project and the analysis have been done for the four areas. It's work that has been done. That information is posted publicly. The report and all the appendices for that are available to the public. As part of the ongoing process, continued analytical work is being done and will continue to be done.

In terms of the engagement process that the member referenced, we will need to determine exactly how that process will take place. Whatever the decision is in terms of the process, it will be resourced adequately to ensure that it's an appropriate process. We hope to be able to provide the communities and the public and the interested stakeholders with information on how that will take place in the near future.

N. Macdonald: Maybe we'll load up a couple of questions so that we wrap up this section in the time that remains.

The minister says "near future." If it's possible for the minister to be specific, is near future days? Is near future weeks? Is it months? I realize that perhaps the minister hasn't got it nailed down exactly, but just a bit more precision than the near future.

Then it seems to me that we're looking at land use planning, that that's part of that discussion. I wanted to know the amount of expenditure allocated for land use planning in the province and if that money is included as part of the $95.62 million allocated in the ministry's estimates for resource stewardship.

The other question on top of that that I would have is: how many full-time-equivalents does the ministry have assigned to land use planning?

[1755]

Hon. S. Thomson: In terms of the land use planning, I'm advised that this touches across many parts of the ministry both in regional offices and in headquarters offices. There are a number of plans that are being worked on, and some have just been completed — for example, the Taku plan. It varies, but I'm advised somewhere between six to eight staff involved in those.

Again, the overall…. It varies because it all depends on the level of activity. It crosses…. Identifying out specific numbers and budget would require a lot more analysis before we could do that.

To address the member's first question around timing, I think the best that I can say is: "In the near future." We recognize the level of interest, and we recognize the need to be able to advance that process as quickly as we can.

N. Macdonald: In retrospect, this is something that really should have begun about a decade ago. The minister can't go back in time and change it, but where we are is certainly predictable and certainly exacerbated by the approach that the government has taken.

This is our most valuable asset. It could easily be worth $1 trillion if we look after it. It's an asset that should be providing wealth on into the future. I mean, from what we see here, there seems to be a crisis of underfunding and a lack of strategic vision in the face of some really major changes and challenges. It's not just the opposition that would assert that. This is what the ministry and the government is hearing from the Auditor General, from forestry professionals as well as from many of the things that the Forest Practices Board is saying.

Just a partial list — and the minister will be well aware of these changes. We have climate change. We have population growth. There are all sorts of development pressures. We have forest industry consolidation. We have an expanded role for First Nations that's not completely defined. We have outdated inventories, inadequate silviculture and reforestation programs that seem inadequate. We have a woefully inadequate research program and underfunded operational and interpretive programs in our parks. We have issues with compliance and enforcement. I mean, it's a pretty long list and daunting in many ways.

So in light of what the Auditor General said in his first recommendation, is it the minister's intention to provide the committee with some indication as to whether the government is going to commit to developing a strategic vision or plan for B.C.'s natural resources going into the 21st century?

[1800]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, in response to the Auditor General's report, we have indicated that the objectives for timber are established under the Forest and Range Practices Act, under forest planning and practice regulations. We believe that the data work and the analytical work is being done. We do agree that there can be more work done at the timber supply area, TSA level as we work through all of this.

We've committed significant investment to the program — over $235 million in the Forests for Tomorrow program, as we have talked previously. We are going to continue to invest in that program. We've got the plans in order to achieve the targets for the next years — 14 million trees in reforestation in the current year, 21 million in the following year and 20 million following that year. We believe we're making the appropriate investments. We've said that we are going to engage in the process in the impacted area in terms of the options that are available to mitigate the midterm timber supply impact through that area.

We recognize that that's going to be very important work. We've said that it will get underway shortly, that we will need to do it. There are a number of options that we have indicated are part of that consideration, and that dialogue needs to take place as we address the critical issues through that region.

N. Macdonald: Just in the time that remains — and the minister will be aware of this. As we look at this budget, we know that over the past ten years…. Maybe it's a reflection of where the broader society is, but in areas that, I guess, are deemed by the government or by the public to be important, there has been growth in budgets. We've seen this all the way through, but in budgets for the land, we have seen reduction after reduction.

I think it's so significant. The impact on the land is so significant. What we are hearing…. And it's not just the opposition that's saying it; it's from all sorts of independent voices. We are hearing that there is a need for a vision, that there is a need to consult with the public, to take outside experts that are there, to speak to forest-dependent communities and come up with a vision.

[1805]

I guess the question for the minister is: is there no thought at all of going into a public process? In the past we could look to work done in royal commissions, or we could look at other programs or other processes where we could get a new vision, where there was clarity in terms of where we were going to go over the next 50 years. Is there no interest in the government in doing something like that at all? Is it just going to be a continuation of what we've seen over the past ten years?

Hon. S. Thomson: Okay, as I've indicated, our focus is to engage in the public process with respect to the mountain pine beetle–impacted area. We know we need to do that through the Interior. That's the plan, and that's our intention.

Our focus has been…. We think we've built a competitive sector coming out of the most significant downturn this sector has been through. The approach
[ Page 11392 ]
we've had in terms of investing in the market diversification for the industry has helped ensure that the industry has come through that significant downturn with a foundation to continue to build on. It's one that has allowed….

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Minister, do you want to also move a recess? We'll have a short recess because the vote is called in the big House, and we'll come back.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:08 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada