British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, May 1, 2007

H0501am-05

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, May 1, 2007 Morning Sitting Volume 19, Number 5 THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Iona V. Campagnolo, CM, OBC THIRD SESSION, 38TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Bill Barisoff EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations .......................................................................................................... Hon.

John van Dongen Deputy Premier and Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy...................... Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ........................................................................................................ Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology ........................................... Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of Agriculture and Lands.......................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism............................................................................... Hon. Wally Oppal, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................................................Hon.

Tom Christensen Minister of State for Childcare ........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors’ and Women’s Issues........................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics.................Hon.

Colin Hansen Minister of Employment and Income Assistance ...........................................................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources .......................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining......................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Krueger Minister of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities ...............Hon. Barry Penner Minister of Finance.......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Carole Taylor Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing ............................................................................. Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Health ......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of Labour and Citizens’ Services ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General................................................................................................................................Hon.

John Les Minister of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform............................................ Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of State for ActNow B.C. ............................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Gordon Hogg Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition .........................................................................................................................................................Carole James Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................Sindi Hawkins Assistant Deputy Speaker.....................................................................................................................................................................Sue Hammell Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole.................................................................................................................................................

Harry Bloy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .........................................................................................................................E. George MacMinn, OBC, QC Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .......................................................................................................................................................Ian D.

Izard, QC Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H. James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ...................................................................................................................................................................Jo-Anne Kern Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Dan Arbic

Party Standings: Liberal 46; New Democratic 33 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) .................................................................... Shuswap Austin, Robin (NDP)............................................................................. Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP).................................................................. Surrey-Newton Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)..........................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) .............................................................Prince George North Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................ East Kootenay Black, Iain (L) ............................................................ Port Moody–Westwood Bloy, Harry (L)................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).....................................Prince George–Mount Robson Brar, Jagrup (NDP).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Campbell, Hon.

Gordon (L) .........................................Vancouver–Point Grey Cantelon, Ron (L)..............................................................Nanaimo-Parksville Chong, Hon. Ida (L) .................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ................................................. Okanagan-Vernon Chudnovsky, David (NDP) ......................................... Vancouver-Kensington Coell, Hon.

Murray (L) .....................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)...........................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .......................................... West Kootenay–Boundary Coons, Gary (NDP) ....................................................................... North Coast Cubberley, David (NDP)............................................................Saanich South de Jong, Hon.

Michael (L) ...................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Dix, Adrian (NDP) .........................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Evans, Corky (NDP).................................................................Nelson-Creston Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ...............................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Fleming, Rob (NDP) ..............................................................Victoria-Hillside Fraser, Scott (NDP) ..............................................................Alberni-Qualicum Gentner, Guy (NDP).......................................................................Delta North Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................ Comox Valley Hammell, Sue (NDP) ................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) ..................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Hawes, Randy (L).......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Sindi (L) ............................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................ Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon.

Gordon (L).....................................................Surrey–White Rock Horgan, John (NDP)......................................................Malahat–Juan de Fuca Horning, Al (L)........................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Ilich, Hon. Olga (L)...............................................................Richmond Centre James, Carole (NDP).......................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Jarvis, Daniel (L)..................................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................... Esquimalt-Metchosin Krog, Leonard (NDP)......................................................................... Nanaimo Krueger, Hon. Kevin (L) .....................................Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lali, Harry (NDP)........................................................................

Yale-Lillooet Lee, Richard T. (L)....................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L).............................................................. Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L)............................................................... Chilliwack-Sumas Macdonald, Norm (NDP).................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine Mayencourt, Lorne (L).......................................................Vancouver-Burrard McIntyre, Joan (L).................................................West Vancouver–Garibaldi Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .................................................. Peace River North Nuraney, John (L).............................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Oppal, Hon. Wally, QC (L).......................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Penner, Hon. Barry (L)...........................................................

Chilliwack-Kent Polak, Mary (L) ....................................................................................Langley Puchmayr, Chuck (NDP)...................................................... New Westminster Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ............................................................. Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................ Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L).............................................................

Kamloops Robertson, Gregor (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Roddick, Valerie (L).......................................................................Delta South Routley, Doug (NDP)..................................................... Cowichan-Ladysmith Rustad, John (L) ........................................................

Prince George–Omineca Sather, Michael (NDP).........................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ...................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Bob (NDP)..................................................................Cariboo North Simpson, Shane (NDP) ....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sultan, Ralph (L) ....................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Taylor, Hon.

Carole (L).....................................................Vancouver-Langara Thorne, Diane (NDP) .................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L).......................................................Okanagan-Westside Trevena, Claire (NDP) ..................................................................North Island van Dongen, Hon. John (L)............................................ Abbotsford-Clayburn Whittred, Katherine (L)........................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wyse, Charlie (NDP) .................................................................Cariboo South Yap, John (L)...................................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman .......................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Bulkley Valley–Stikine ...........................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North ...........................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Willingdon................................................................... John Nuraney Burquitlam.......................................................................................Harry Bloy Cariboo North..............................................................................

Bob Simpson Cariboo South..............................................................................Charlie Wyse Chilliwack-Kent ..................................................................Hon. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas...................................................................... Hon. John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley........................................................................ Hon.

Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville..............................................................Diane Thorne Cowichan-Ladysmith ................................................................. Doug Routley Delta North ...................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South ............................................................................. Valerie Roddick East Kootenay................................................................................

Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin.........................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops.....................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ............................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country.................................................................. Al Horning Kelowna-Mission ......................................................................

Sindi Hawkins Langley ...........................................................................................Mary Polak Malahat–Juan de Fuca .................................................................. John Horgan Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................ Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..................................................... Michael Sather Nanaimo......................................................................................

Leonard Krog Nanaimo-Parksville .....................................................................Ron Cantelon Nelson-Creston .............................................................................Corky Evans New Westminster .................................................................. Chuck Puchmayr North Coast....................................................................................

Gary Coons North Island ...............................................................................Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour..........................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head ........................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon......................................................... Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside..............................................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Peace River North.......................................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South..................................................................... Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley .................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ............................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Westwood.................................................................... Iain Black Powell River–Sunshine Coast ...............................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George North.................................................................... Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson ............................................Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................ John Rustad Richmond Centre......................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Richmond East........................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston...........................................................................John Yap Saanich North and the Islands ............................................ Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South ........................................................................ David Cubberley Shuswap............................................................................Hon. George Abbott Skeena.......................................................................................... Robin Austin Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................... Hon.

Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers ................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton............................................................................... Harry Bains Surrey–Panorama Ridge.................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey-Tynehead ....................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley...........................................................................Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................Hon.

Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard..............................................................Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................Gregor Robertson Vancouver-Fraserview .................................................Hon.

Wally Oppal, QC Vancouver-Hastings .................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington.......................................................David Chudnovsky Vancouver-Kingsway ......................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara ........................................................... Hon. Carole Taylor Vancouver–Mount Pleasant........................................ Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena.........................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill...................................................................

Carole James Victoria-Hillside ...........................................................................Rob Fleming West Kootenay–Boundary........................................................Katrine Conroy West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ........................................................Joan McIntyre Yale-Lillooet..................................................................................... Harry Lali

CONTENTS Tuesday, May 1, 2007 Morning Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... .............................................. 7343 Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... .......................................... 7343 School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 20) D. Cubberley Hon. S. Bond L. Krog G. Coons C.

Trevena Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................... 7357 Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (continued) Hon. R. Neufeld J. Horgan C. Evans Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General Hon. J. Les M. Farnworth

7343 TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 The House met at 10:02 a.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Prayers. Introductions by Members Hon. M. Coell: I would like the House to welcome a constituent of mine and a teacher-librarian from Parkland Secondary School in Sidn ey, Bonnie McComb. Would the House please make her welcome. M. Karagianis: Somewhere in the precinct today I have visitors here from View Royal Elementary School — 40 grade 5 students with their teacher Miss Lynn Moorhouse. Could we please all extend them a great welcome while they're here. Hon. L.

Reid: I would like the House to welcome Karyl Mills, a dear friend and colleague who is today making her way to this place. I would like the House to please make her very welcome. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Abbott: In this chamber, I call committee stage debate on Bill 20, the School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007.

In Committee A, I call the continuing estimates debate of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, followed by the estimates debate of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. [1005] Committee of the Whole House SCHOOL (STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT ENABLING) AMENDMENT ACT, 2007 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 20; S. Hammell in the chair. The committee met at 10:06 a.m.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. D. Cubberley: I wonder if we could begin by the minister giving us a sense of what the substitution of an achievement contract for an accountability contract means in practice. Why would we be moving to do that after a relatively short experience with accountability contracts? Hon. S. Bond: I think it's an opportunity for us to look at adding some additional expectations. Primarily, the name change reflects the intent that we have.

We want to move to an achievement agenda that would certainly begin to, we hope, address some of the gaps that exist — especially for those 11,000 students who don't graduate. D. Cubberley: Well, accountability was a very big word for a long time, and government led with this and I believe was talking about it even during the last election campaign. So I'm interested to know what happened to the accountability agenda. What didn't work in that? Why would we have this move now? Hon. S.

Bond: Well, we're not moving away from accountability, and certainly, after listening to the members opposite for two days, that was a significant point. We are actually looking for more accountability. What we're saying is simply that we have a system that is working very well for the vast majority of students, but for others it's not. We want very much to focus in on achievement, and that would be student by student. We literally want to begin to look at how we help every child in this province be more successful.

We think that a contract that, in essence, focuses on achievement but does not move away from accountability is important. D. Cubberley: I wonder if the minister would elaborate a little bit on what achievement means, just to give us a sense of what is in her mind by bringing these changes in. These are very large-scale changes at one level, and I'm assuming it's not simply a language change. Hon. S. Bond: I think, first of all, clearly there is a measure that we are concerned about.

I don't mean to say that there's only one thing we're thinking about, but certainly, one of the measures is high school completion. [1010] We live in a world where… . It's a very changing world. As we move forward in this province, and we see that over the next 12 years we're going to add, you know, a million new jobs, the vast majority — 70 percent of them — will require some degree of post-secondary education. So obviously, one of the achievement measures that is pretty significant for students today is high school completion, and we have no t seen an improvement in high school completion rates.

Having said that, achievem ent is also a day-to-day experience, child by child. One of the things we want to ensure is that as we are wo rking in classrooms across this province, we're consid ering individual children and the levels that they are achieving. So it's very much a focus on individual children, but a significant measure will be completion rates. D. Cubberley: I'd like to explore that a little bit further. Of course, the term "contract" is quasi-legal language, and I will want to get at the implications of saying it's a contract — who it's a contract between.

It's presumably a contract between a school district and the minister, which will be administered or overseen by the proposed superintendents of achievement.

7344 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 We'll get more to what may flow from it being a contract. But I'd be interested in hearing, in the minister's own words, in what sense it's a contract. How does she understand this to be placing a contractual obligation on school districts? Hon. S. Bond: What it reflects is a commitment to work toward a particular set of outcomes. One of the significant concerns that we have is that we have seen a levelling off of completion rates in this province over the last four years.

While there are excellent results for many students, we've not seen a significant improvement in those completion rates. Of most concern is the significant gap that we have for aboriginal children in this province. So in fact, it is a commitment that school districts will make to engage in a process of ongoing improvement. D. Cubberley: The minister mentions a tapering off in completion rates in high school. My sense is that what we have is a plateau of some kind which hasn't been exceeded. One of my questions is: is that correct? Is it a plateau?

But connected to that, have we seen in some other jurisdiction an ability to move beyond the level that we are at in terms of graduating — graduating four out of five? Hon. S. Bond: It is a plateau, and since 2000-2001 we have seen an increase in co mpletion rates, particularly on the aboriginal side. However, last year the aboriginal completion rates actually dropped a percent. They went from 48 percent to 47 percent. In the case of all of our students, if you look at that average, it's currently at 79 percent, and it has been there for four years — so a levelling off.

We certainly look at our competitors in terms of globally. We look at other countries and other provinces, and we do excel. Our 15-year-olds are the best in the world in math and reading. So there is certainly much to celebrate. Having said that, I think it's fair to say that we're not satisfied that a 47-percent completion rate for aboriginal students is acceptable, and I also am concerned that 21 percent of our students don't complete high school. We think that means there's more work to do. D.

Cubberley: We would certainly agree around both completion rates and those students who underachieve and are passed through the school system, who may leave it having less than full literacy. We certainly share that concern. But what we're trying to get at is whether the mechanism being proposed here is a viable mechanism to actually achieve the outcome. [1015] One of the questions that I had asked…. I did link two things together, and please forgive me for that. I'll try and keep everything separated out so that we can focus.

Are there other jurisdictions in Canada that have avoided this plateau — that are above the level of achievement of graduating? If there are, what is there in the nature of what they're doing that might be brought to British Columbia? Hon. S. Bond: When you look at completion rates, one of the challenges we face — or measures to look at achievement across the coun try….

There is no single definition that provinces use, so it's very difficult for us to say: "Here's what's happening in British Columbia compared to what's happening in Alberta or Manitoba." Having said that, there are certainly other jurisdictions that set targets with school boards. The province of Ontario is a good example where boards working with ministries set targets and mutually agree to work toward those, not unlike what we'r e talking about here.

But I can assure you of this, having been at numerous federal- provincial-territorial meetings with other ministers from across the country: all of the other jurisdictions are striving to see improved completion rates and significantly improved achievement in their provinces. I think that anytime any province says, "We think we're doing just fine," and leave it at that…. I don't think that's an attitude you' re going to see. Certainly, many other provinces are looking at ways to try to see achievement improve in their provinces as well. D. Cubberley: Y e s .

W e l l , w e w o u l d b e a m o n g t h e first to decry any sense that that's being presented — that what we're doing now is as good as it gets and that it would be fine to just stay with the status quo. The chal- lenge really, though, is to try to define whether the mechanisms that are being proposed are the appropriate ones and what may or may not be embedded in them. The language in a bill is fairly dry and by its nature is rudimentary, if you will — perhaps a skeleton at best.

What gets fleshed in onto that and the way it actually operates once it's unleashed in the world can be some- thing entirely different, which is why we on this side of the House tend to pore over what government is proposing in a bill. That may appear excessive at some level, but at another level, that's part of our diligence on the bill. Certainly, if we think about specific populations that are underachieving relative to the course results for the system as a whole…. There are a number of them that we could break out.

One of the things that jumps out at you when you look at those populations is that, by and large, they have lower socioeconomic status, on average. One of the things there which is always a concern is: to what extent are we attempting to put the entire responsibili ty for lifting individuals, irrespective of their circumstance, onto the public education system?

I just want to introduce that, because I think that in looking at the ideas of contractual obligations for school districts, one has to be mindful of what's being asked by way of performance and achievement, and ensure that appropriate resources are being put in place to enable school districts to achieve those outcomes. My question really is: is there a recognition on gov- ernment's part that many of the disadvantages that h a v e t o b e o v e r c o m e i n t he school system are created outside the school system an d are in fact reinforced outside the school system? [1020]

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7345 Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, classrooms are very complex places, and I very much appreciated the discussion that we had about this in estimates — about the influences of the world that end up in classrooms. I don't think this is about putting this all on the shoulders of the school board or the teacher or the school system. I think that's why we're trying to build a system of additional support.

For example, we want to come alongside those school districts, with the use of superintendents of achievement, which I'm sure we will get to at some point in this discussion. The reality of it is that we do provide supplemental funding for English-as-a-second-language students and aboriginal students, and we know that we can actually make a difference in the lives of vulnerable children with targeted programs and with specific, focused programs in classroom s. I have been in many of what wou ld be considered the inner-city schools that are doing a remarkable job.

We're seeing unbelievable improvement, particularly in reading and numeracy, with some very innovative teaching done by incredible teachers, so absolutely we can make a difference in the lives of those populations. I should say, though, that one of the things around creating an achievement contra ct is that they're not all going to be the same. We will very much look at the context of that school, of that district, and work with the district to set reasonable expectations, understanding, hopefully, the nature of that school district. So they're not all going to be the same.

They will have to address some similar issues, including literacy, which is pretty fundamental. They won't be the same. They will try to take into consideration context, but they will ask school districts to set goals for improvement. D. Cubberley: I'm interested in exploring that a little bit further, and I think it's important: the notion that the expectations placed on school districts will be reasonable. Presumably it will be up to school districts, in some kind of dialogue, to establish what would be reasonable expectations. Perhaps you could give me a little bit of a sense of what that would look like.

This is based on what kind of work: assessing the characteristics of the population that is failing to thrive in high school currently? Would it be setting a target for a percentage increase in graduates and then backcasting in some fashion? What's the expectation about how a district is going to go about establishing what the content of a contract would be? Hon. S. Bond: Absolutely, this will be done in a collaborative way. One of the things we would expect school districts to do — a n d t h e y d o i t n o w , b u t w e want to look at how that's being done….

That is the use of data, which includes far more than standardized testing. The member opposite will be happy to know that it includes all of those things that teachers do in classrooms. They use an incredible number of assessment tools, so it will be about data collection, but it will look at cultural context, socioeconomic context. We will look at seeing incremental impr ovement, and that may be percentage increases in a variety of things. But it will be unlike the model that's been used in the United Kingdom, for example, where targets were set by government and, in essence, imposed on school districts.

The suggestion was: "Here's your target. You need to meet this." We don't contemplate using that model. In fact, we want to work together with school boards, work alongside them to say what is reasonable, what the expectations are that you should have for students within the context that they live. D. Cubberley: Typically, when th e term "contract" is used, there are obligations placed on both parties to any contract, so I'm interested in exploring that notion a little bit.

The way in which the direction of this contract is characterized in the legislation is essentially one way, from what I can see, which is that there will be a contract which a school district places upon itself, as a set of obligations upon it, to try and perform in a particular manner. Apart from the polici ng function of the super- intendents of achievement, what obligation is placed on the government under the contract? [1025] Hon. S. Bond: I guess I choose not to characterize the role of superintendents of achievement as a policing function.

There will obviously be a responsibility to review the district plans to ensure that we're actually seeing progress. I would hardly characterize it as policing. I think that's certainly something we want to counter as we move forward with this model. What it's about is finding ways of resourcing and working collaboratively with school districts to see increased student achievement. I'm not sure how that could be a negative thing. I think it is how we work that out.

We're looking at not only having superintendents of achievement to be part of that process, but we're looking at the rural education network, at webcasting, at professional development and at additional resources. We're going to work collaboratively with school districts to try to see an improvement for those students who are currently not finding success in public education. D.

Cubberley: I want to get a little more at whether there's some power being conferred on school districts to be able to negotiate with the ministry about changes that need to be made in order to attain the outcomes of one of these contractual agreements. So let's use this as an example. Let's say a school district is struggling because it has a very high concentration of lower-socioeconomic-status students, and it would like to see improvement of a

part icular order. But it says that in order to do that, there are a set of changes that lie outside of the classroom that need to be supplied in order for the population coming to the door to be supported appropriately in making the changes. What would the ministry's reaction be to that? Would i t b e t h a t w e a r e o n l y c o n cerned with the things that are internal to the classroom ? Or would there be some basis for the minister to involve herself in attempting to negotiate the supports that the school district believed would be essential to attaining the outcomes?

7346 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 Hon. S. Bond: I can assure the member opposite that school districts are constantly in two-way dialogue with not only the minister but the ministry about resources that are additional to outside of classrooms and the kinds of things that they would love to see from government. This is about a conversati on. This is about working with school districts more closely to sit down and have discussions about how together we improve student achievement in this province. Obviously, one of the things that we are trying to do a better job of is sharing best practice.

As a ministry, we have the ability to see across the province what works in some districts. We're seeing, for example, the incredible inconsistency in aboriginal completion rates. We have school districts in this province that have a 20-percent completion rate for aboriginal students. I absolutely know that the member opposite would think there's probably something we need to be doing about that, because we've had a lot of discussions about that. We also have districts that have 65-percent or 75-percent aboriginal completion rates. What we need to do is be the conduit for bringing those districts together.

We can do that with the use of a superintendent of achievement t o s a y : " L o o k w h a t t h i s d i s t r i c t i s d o i n g . H a v e y o u contemplated this as you create your achievement contracts?" So in fact, it's a conversation — a collaborative process — that will ultimately end up in a reasonable strategic plan to say: "Here's how we think we can improve student achievement." [1030] D. Cubberley: Well, I definitely think that the overwhelming majority of those who administer, are responsible for or deliver public education would agree that a collaborative approach is desirable.

They would probably also say that we have not always enjoyed that in British Columbia and that sincere commitments to improve it are welcome at all times. There is the challenge, of course, of translating intent into outcomes. While it is not always a question of resources, there are many questions about the adequacy of resources and existing skill sets and the like. I was somewhat encouraged to hear the minister using language around targeted funding and tailored programs, but I have to say that the gist of most of what we have heard through the estimates discussion and the like can be summarized at two levels.

One is that the money is the money, meaning that there's no more money available. The second is that we are avoiding targeting resources, because we want to leave school districts the maximum flexibility. I'd just like to tease that out a little bit further, because to me it's not entirely consistent to hear that tailored programs and targeted funding are part of the answer. I would agree that they are, but I would like to hear more about it. Hon. S. Bond: It is a consistent view, and the member opposite does accurately point out what we have debated in estimates.

We have some targeted funding, and the area in particular that is noteworthy in this discussion is certainly additional fund ing for aboriginal education students. They receive an additional supplement, and so do English-as-a-second-language students. We have actually removed many of the targets on the funding to school districts so that they have more flexibility. My comments around targeted programming are when those are made individually in school districts by school boards.

For example, there are school districts who have chosen to provide additional dollars out of their envelope to specific schools within their school district because of the very complex nature of those schools. There would be specific reading programs. There would be targeted programs. We also, of course, have Community LINK funding that is very specifically targeted to the types of schools that the member opposite and I have talked about on numerous occasions, which provides for things like breakfast programs and additional supports outside of the classroom. So we do have that envelope of funding.

In essence, the principle is that while we don't target those dollars, other than th e ones I've noted, school districts do. They make choices about focused programs — for example, literacy programs and reading programs, a broad number of them. School districts are using targeted programming to ma ke a difference with those populations. D. Cubberley: I just wanted to move into another area for a little while. There have been concerns expressed. I know the minister is aware of them because the docu- mentation that I have around the concerns was sent to her, and I was simply copied on it.

Certainly, the BCSTA has expressed considerable concern about achievement contracts, not at the level of identifying targets that could serve as a focus for efforts to improve achievement but a concern that there may be undue emphasis placed on the attainment of percentage or numerical targets. One of the things that I'd like to get at a little bit…. I'm often struck, in looking at legislation, by what seems to be a certain decoupling between the overall aspiration — indeed, the commitment — expressed in the

preamble to the School Act, which speaks much more to the whole person, and the language in bills, which tends to be more about measurable outcomes. [1035] The School Act

preamble gives us the purpose of the school system: "to enable all learners to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy, democratic and pluralistic society and a prosperous and sustainable economy." One of the challenges that I and many others see is that we move increasingly towards very narrow measurable outcomes as an indicator of how well we're doing in achieving this overall goal expressed in the

preamble. I'd like to get a sense of whether and how achievement contracts would be linked to these forms of measurement that we seem to prefer, which are largely based on testing individuals and testable achi evements on the part of individuals and groups. I'd just like some comment on that.

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7347 Hon. S. Bond: My staff are actually having a debate amongst themselves. You've prompted some interesting thoughts on this side of the House. We know that achievement is more than simply a specific measure on a specific test. I think it's fair to say that in the world we live in, one of the measures that people would assume should be an important part of any child's life is graduation from high school, in a day and age where we're actually mo ving toward a knowledge- based economy.

Obviously, th at is a measure that is important to us, and I think it's fair to say that it's important to most British Columbians. The achievement contract…. I should point out, too, to the member opposite — and I know he's aware of this — that the word "contract" is not changing. We had an accountability contract. The achievement

part is the part that's changing, so the concern about contract…. I mean, boards have actually managed those very well, and there hasn't been a lot of reaction to the use of that word. Our achievement contracts have the opportunity for us to include things like school health, like arts, and like looking at safe and healthy schools so that it's really a comprehensive plan that says to a district and to a community: "Here's what our plan is." Obviously, it's important that the plan relate to the Ministry of Education.

More importantly, perhaps, that achievement plan — that achievement contract, that achievement commitment — is something that the board has a responsibility to share with its community. In fact, if I'm a parent and I'm in a school district and my children are attending, I'd actually like to know what the plans and strategies are to ensure that our students are receiving the best possible opportunities. So it's going to have a broad base of opportunities for school districts to set those plans, not simply limited to measures that are reflected from test results. D.

Cubberley: Well, I guess I'll take a little bit of comfort from that. But if we come back to an example that I raised in estimates, which is concerning to me…. We measure the number of people that drop out, and we're very concerned with that — and rightly so. We want people to graduate because, if they graduate, they have the opportunity to do post-secondary. Even by graduating, they will in all likelihood do better in the economy.

Certainly if they take post-secondary education, they will have a greater likelihood of prospering and being able to lead an independent and self-fulfilling life, which is the ultimate goal. They may even contribute to a democratic and pluralistic society, which is a whole other element that we don't spend much time talking about but is central to the purpose of our education system. I come back to something that I mentioned in estimates, and I think it's a cause for concern because I don't see any focus on this at all.

A significant number — I don't know what the number is because we don't measure this — of those people who drop out enjoy probably very close to level-3 literacy. Many of them are capable of graduating but don't because they go off for a variety of reasons to do other things. A certain portion of those who are passed through the system and come out the other end — don't drop out of high school — may have low literacy. They may have lower literacy than some significant portion of those who drop out. We aren't focusing on that group of people.

I don't hear any discussion of that group of people, those grey area kids that are passed through the system, who for whatever reason don't leave it and come out the other end. There's no discussion of them at all. [1040] If we're actually talk ing about achievement and equipping people to be able to participate in the knowledge economy, they're every bit as important as those kids who drop out. In fact, they may even be more important, because the kids who drop out, rightly or wrongly, are expressing some sign of independence and are rejecting something and moving on to something else.

There is at least some indication within them that they believe, rightly or wrongly, that they can go off and fend for themselves. The others in the grey area stay and are passed through. One wonders why there isn't the same concern about those kids and mapping of how many of those there are in order to better understand what we're trying to do by way of achievement for all learners. Hon. S. Bond: I would disagree with the member opposite. I think there is that concern, and that's precisely one of the groups of people that we want to talk about. The achievement contracts are about individual stu- dents.

Whether you're successful in some area or not, we want to work with our boards to look at those students, wherever they're at, and say: "What are we going do to help improve the achievement of this child?" I actually think the member opposite and I agree on that topic. Whether or not the bill captures it in the way that the member opposite wo uld hope…. Certainly, he makes a valid point about the intent and what happens with that. Our intent is that we want school boards to look at individual student success, and that certainly includes the children the member opposite refers to.

While 79 percent of our children graduate, there may well be issues about wh at that means when they actually leave our schools. This is a bill that we hope will address the 21 percent of our children, our non- aboriginal children, that do n't complete and also those children caught in the system who need a specific strategy for improvement. I'm not sure we disagree. Perhaps it's the inadequacy of language that's placed in bills, but certainly our intent would be very much to work with those students. L.

Krog: The effect of repealing the accountability contract talks about substituting an achievement contract, etc. The existing definition in the School Act of an accountability contract means an accountability contract prepared and submitted unde r

section 79.2. Then you go to

section 79.2, and it says: "A board must prepare an accountability contract with respect to improving student achievement in th e school district and any other matters ordered by the minister."

7348 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 With great respect, it's kind of like a character in Alice in Wonderland . I mean, it says what I mean it to say. In other words, the definition just takes us back to the section. One of my questions is around the purpose of this change. Is it in fact acknowledging that the existing definition is somewhat inadequate, leaves it to ministry or regulations, and we're now, by the new definition…? I hesitate to jump ahead to

section 16, which amends

section 79.2 and sets out a number of components to the contract. Is this in fact what we're doing? We've figured out that what we've got doesn't really work that well and isn't terribly defined, certainly by statute. Now we're moving to something that is hopefully an improvement that is clearer for boards so that they can manage this contract. [1045] Hon. S. Bond: I'm sitting here feeling rather remiss as I look at the great team of people sitting here with me. I neglected to introduce them in the House, and I apologize for that.

With me today, part of an incredible executive team and ministry, we have Emery Dosdall, Rick Davis, Dave Duerkson and Peter Owen. They are an incredible team that help to work through these issues. I apologize for the tardiness in the introductions. I don't think it's a case of abandoning ship in terms of the accountability contract process. It really is a sense of recognizing that we have more work to do in the area of helping our stud ents be successful.

There may have been some concern by boards around what an accountability contract really means, although I should say that I think boards manage that process very well. It was a change in practice. The point is that we want to be clear that we want boards to focus on achievement. While it might sound unusual to have to say that, I think it is an important point to be very clear about. The achievement contracts will specifically — the member opposite is correct — include some elements that will be required in that contract, including a literacy plan, which is articulated in the bill.

It's probably accurate to describe the change as being more specific about what elements would be in cluded in an achievement contract, but it is not moving away from the practice that was created through accountability. L. Krog: If I understand this correctly, I take it this is about what I will call a general contract as opposed to submitting…. I don't understand perfectly how these things work. A general contract as opposed to a student-specific contract.

It's not that the mi nistry is asking the boards to submit a plan for little Johnny Smith in Nanaimo and how Johnny is going to do at the end of the school year. It is about an overall achievement based on statistical averages or whatever for that school district. Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is correct. This is about the general achievement process and strategy. Having said that, it will be incumbent on boards…. For the vast majority, they do th at now. They will have to have a plan in place for Johnny from Nanaimo.

They wouldn't convey that in the contract that's submitted as part of their documentation for ministry and for their communities. The member opposite has captured the heart of what we really hope will happen. It is that every child — Johnny, Susie or whoever from Nanaimo or Prince George — has that individual plan, though not conveyed in this document to government. L. Krog: One of the concerns expressed to me on various occasions by the members of my school board is the bureaucratization of the education system generally — that boards are expected to do more and more.

What we're talking about this morning is an example of that. The ministry is trying to achieve goals and place this on the boards. Is there any intention to provide any specific or targeted funding to deal with these issues? If the ministry is expecting this to be done, somebody at the bottom has to actually fill out the paper and do all the public service work associated with it. Hon. S. Bond: I think this is one of the issues that we will end up debating from now until the end of t i m e .

I n f a c t , w e e x p e c t b o a r d s t o b e a b l e t o m a n a g e this not only within their fiscal envelope but also within the staffing complement that they have. The member opposite is correct. I hear about that continuously as well. This may be a case of looking at how you do things and making some changes in doing that. We don't want to place additional pressures. We actually want to have the opportunity to work with boards to look at how we do things in public education. Are there things we can do differently? I recognize the concerns that are expressed, because we hear them as well.

It is not our intention to be overly bureaucratic. We thin k the processes that are in place now will allow us, with the accountability contracts that came before…. We don't see significant changes in terms of paperwork and all those things. Having said that, as this process unfolds, one of the things we hope to do is engage in an ongoing dialogue about how best to move from intent to implementation. Those are discussions that I'm confident we will have with districts as this moves forward. [1050] D. Cubberley: Just to follow a little further on that before we move on..

As my colleague has mentioned, the achievement contract sets out a number of areas of responsibility for school districts that the contract is to be elaborated around. A number of those, or elements of them, are new areas of responsibility for school districts — areas of responsibility that school districts welcome and that, on the other hand, they are pensive about because they're very seized of the fact that the money is the money and that in the eyes of trustees there aren't the resources to do the optimal job in some cases with the responsibilities they currently have. So they have an

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7349 apprehension around new resp onsibilities, and that is amplified around the idea of a new requirement in the form of an achievement contract. My question to the mini ster is…. An achievement contract, which is looking for ways of improving outcomes within existing re sources, coupled with new responsibilities without new resources…. Are you really convinced, Minister, that there is an ability to rearrange the existing allocation of resources to do all of these things? Hon. S.

Bond: Well, at the risk of getting eye-rolling from my colleague on the other side and repeating it again, we are at a very different place in public education in terms of funding levels. It is the highest level of funding that we've ever had in this province, and at a time of increasingly rapid declining enrolment. We have committed to continue to add funds to public education at a time when the number of students is dropping fairly dramatically. I believe that school districts can manage through this process, and I think it's less about the money than it is about the focus and the process.

We're simply saying we need to sit down and talk about those 21 percent of our students and, as the me mber opposite points out, those students who work their way through and in many cases still end up with low literacy levels at the end of their journey. We need to sit down and talk about how we better serve those students. A lot of this, in my view and the view of a team of incredibly experienced educators in our ministry, is that much of that is around best practice and sharing information and strategically planning how we move those completion rates forwar d.

So the simple answer w o u l d h a v e b e e n y e s , b u t I f e l t t h a t I n e e d e d t o j u s t provide some context around how we think that may be possible. D. Cubberley: I appreciate that, Minister, because it would simply have led to another question. I think it's best to supply the context, especially with this questioner. I just want to make a comment before moving on, unless there's anybody else in our ranks who would like to ask a question on this . One thing that strikes me is that there's been quite a bit of talk this morning about collaboration.

I'm one of those who think that collaboration is a very positive word and that public education would benefit from even higher levels of collaboration than we have seen in the past. In fact, to improve outcomes will take more collaboration than we have. In looking at the legislation and the far-reaching scope of what is in this act, one wonders why we didn't begin the collaborative approach prior to bringing in legislation.

Why would we not have gone through some public exposing of a direction that was being thought about, allowed school trustees generally to reflect on that, begin the process of suggesting to people the kinds of contents that might go into this and allow for some grooming — if not redefining — of some elements of what eventually comes forward in a bill? Why not put collaboration before action rather than acting and then hoping for collaboration afterwards? [1055] Hon. S. Bond: I actually don't th ink that's accurate. For over a year now we have been in conversation across this province in a variety of ways.

While it hasn't been, "Here's what we're thin king. Here's the piece of paper. Let's all sit down in one room," it absolutely has been about meeting with groups that have never been met with before, regular attendance at workshops and AGMs, holding congresses with students and parents and teachers, visiting almost 50 school districts in this province — hundreds of schools, hundreds of parent meetings. We've been very clear that we need to sort out how we make some changes in public education that will benefit all our students.

I understand that once a bill is tabled and there's language around the discussions we've been having for a year, it makes people uncomfortable. Change does that. Having said that, I think it's unfair to actually characterize this as a lack of consultation. We've spent the last year…. And in fact , our throne speeches two years in a row have been very clear about our priorities and our direction.

It did not spell out the specifics, but I can assure the member opposite that in all of my meetings with boards and trustees and parents across this province — hundreds of visits — I've been very clear about the kinds of things that we have been considering. I understand there is some concern about that. We did have a community consultation across the province with the Ministry of Children and Families in 2006. I think there has been much discussion.

It's when it reaches the floor of the Legislature with specific language that uncertainty increases, and our intent is to continue to improve a collaborative working relationship. I would agree with the member opposite whole- heartedly that in British Columbia, the relationships between partners in public education have been very difficult — and very negative in many ways — for well over a decade in this pr ovince. When I was a school board chair I remember feeling those same feelings. So do we need to do a better job? Absolutely we do. D.

Cubberley: I thank the minister for that, and I believe that she has been out meeting with some and may well have gleaned some sense of need for change from those kinds of contacts. But I would suggest that this legislation has the potential to affect the relationship with the co-governors of education, the boards who are elected locally. My sense is that this took them by surprise, especially the sweep and scope of the legislation.

They have been placed in a position where they have to react to some- thing which is imparting some significant additional powers, both to the minister and to superintendents of achievement, to intervene in various ways in the operation of boards, both via the contract and outside of the contract. I think it would have been appropriate — given that they are the partners and effectively oversee the

7350 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 delivery of public education and deal with all of the problems at the local level that we who happily enjoy positions at the pointy end of the organization do not have to deal directly with — to involve them in some discussion about direction. That would have been more fruitful than what we now ha ve to go through, which, as the minister is aware, has led to resolutions calling for the withdrawal of this legislation. I think that more collaboration at the front end would have been useful in getting this bill to where it ought to be.

Anyway, I'm going to cede the floor for a moment to a colleague who wishes to ask a question or two. G. Coons: Thank you, hon. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to this. I have just got a concern, as many teachers do, with the new achievement contract — how the FSA scores and the program will fall into it. Are there any proposed changes to the FSA program, in how it interacts with the new achievement contract? [1100] Hon. S. Bond: As the member opposite may know, we are contemplating when FSAs are administered.

That's the only significant change that we're thinking of — when they might be administered, to try to fit them more appropriately into a school year. In terms of content or fr equency, things like that, there are no major changes intended with the FSA. In fact, we would expect what we already expect with foundation skills assessment results, so there would be no change. It would be part of a package of information that school boards and school planning councils use now to make decisions. The only pending change would be when in the year FSAs are actually given to children. G.

Coons: The minister mentioned that there will be a whole variety of data and those things in classrooms that are used by teachers. We look at this achievement contract throughout the province and how it can be facilitated to use best practices and get tied into what's best for an individual school district. As the deputy minister and the minister know, the north coast and that region, with the EDI scores, are one of the most challenging in the province.

I'm just wondering how an achievement contract may differ in a region like Prince Rupert that has a high first nations population versus some place down in West Vancouver or North Vancouver, and how socio- economic situations and all th e other factors that affect children in the classroom are going to be taken into account with these achievement contracts. Hon. S. Bond: Well, first of all, we've used the word "reasonable," and I want to reiterate it.

We are obviously concerned about completion rates and want to make sure that we're focusing on those, but we also want to be reasonable and look at this in a proper context. It is clear in the legislation that, in fact, achievement contracts may be different from district to district, and they will be. Perhaps I can use this example of how we might ensure that they're not going to be the same. I can't imagine us expecting that a school district that currently, today, has a 20-pe rcent completion rate for aboriginal students…. On e can't imagine that we would ask them to be at the provincial average within a year.

That would be a completion rate that moves from 20 percent to 48 percent or 47 percent now, I suppose. So that's not reasonable, and that's actually not likely to happen. We want each contract to reflect the context of the school district. We're simply saying that it's time we worked together to provide more of a focus on how we're going to see student achievement improve. So the contracts will be different, and certainly in the legislation, it makes it clear that that will be the case. G. Coons: Just one last question before I pass it back to my colleague.

How tightly will classroom assessment be aligned with FSA scores? [H. Bloy in the chair.] Hon. S. Bond: We know that foundation skills assessment results are only one small part of the infor- mation that is used to create strategies for improvement for children. So classroom assessment has today and will continue to provide a key component to creating an achievement contract. We want to use as much information as possible, including those assessments that are used within class- rooms and FSAs, to make sure that we are looking at individual success for our children. [1105] D.

Cubberley: I'd like to move on to the definition of "administrative directive." This definition refers to

section 79(4) in the bill, which provides for specific powers to the minister to issue administrative directives. I'd like to know what powers the minister currently has to intervene along these lines and why there is an additional power that is required around achievement. We've been talking about these contracts as being collaborative. We have been talking about school districts working together with the minister and the ministry to achieve mutually acceptable targets.

The minister was very resistant to the phrase I used around the idea of a policing power, but this is in effect, as I read it, a power to police within a contract. I would like the minister to elaborate why she feels she needs this power. Hon. S. Bond: Currently, the minister can actually intervene in two ways. We can appoint a special adviser, or we can remove a school board. Those are pretty dramatic circumstances. On e doesn't go there easily, and one would hope not to.

The administrative directiv e, again, is a discussion we are currently having with school boards in terms of when and how that might take place. What it does is allow us to have the opportunity…. In the case that over a significant period of time there is an unwillingness or a lack of demonstrated ability to focus on student

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7351 achievement and if a board continues to be unwilling to deal with the fact that their students are not moving forward, it allows for there to be some direction about how student achievement may be undertaken within a district. Let me make sure that on the record we are clear about this. It is not something that would happen quickly. It is not something that would not happen without a great deal of discussion with school boards. It certainly would only take place when we felt that students were not having the opportunities they need to be successful.

So it provides another step, which is in our view far less dramatic or significant than sending in a special adviser or replacing a school board. D. Cubberley: Perhaps the minister could explain to the House how it's different from a special adviser and why a special adviser is a more dramatic, or more draconian, intervention than issuing an administrative directive. Hon. S. Bond: Let me walk through that language again, because I don't want it to sound like one is more draconian than the other. Ultimately, it's not something that one actually wants to have happen in any case.

To be candid about this, we don't want to have to use an administrative directive or a ministerial directive either. But we felt it was important to have the opportunity that, in a case where a school board is unwilling or has not made significant efforts to ensure that their students are being successful…. Again, these are discussi ons that we are having w i t h s c h o o l b o a r d s a s w e s p e a k . T h a t w o u ld n o t b e a regular or frequent occurrence. We know how hard boards work to make this happen.

In this case the difference is that the special adviser goes in and obviously has the ability to make recommendations about a number of things. They make recomm endations; they are not obligatory. [1110] In this case, it might be a very specific direction about a literacy plan or something that has not been generated by the board. It would be a very specific direction related to the achievement agenda — but not used lightly, and certainly not used without a significant degree of consultation and discussion with a board before that were to take place. D. Cubberley: It's interesting.

Here we have legislation which is going to require boards to develop targets to improve outcomes under the ru bric of achievement. If one accepts the premise around achievement, it contains some very useful requirements for transparency around the setting of the targets, the making public of elements of the plan. There is a requirement for the school boards to become boards of education to engage with their local communities around the expectations that are embedded in the plan.

My question would be: why is there such pessimism around the potential sorting out of failures to meet targets by a democratic citizenry which has the opportunity to select its trustees? Why would there not be a reliance on the democratic process to compel the compliance, and an opportunity for those populations — who receive the benefit and who pay the taxes towards the educational system — to be able to simply change trustees if they're unhappy with the way in which the trustees are operating the system? Hon. S. Bond: I don't think it is about pessimism.

I think we are optimistic th at, by working with school boards with a renewed focu s on achievement in this province, we c an, wil l s ee an d wil l m ak e a difference , first of all, for those 11,000 students who are not successful in terms of the measure of completion. It isn't about being pessimistic. It is about this: after all of our best efforts, if we work collaboratively with school boards and we still see that children are not ha ving the opportunities they should have in order to be successful, our responsibility is to do something about that.

In the event that that does not take place, we are prepared to indicate to a board, in that unique circumstance, that we would expect something to take place in a particular area. I don't think that's pessimistic; I think it's called lead- ership. It says that if stud ents are not being successful, we're going to make sure we help them to be successful. D. Cubberley: I just want to speak to the fact that we do have a system of co-governance in public education and that the part of the sy stem of co-governance that allows electors to have a direct say over who will represent them is the local school district.

It is not, by the nature of the party system, at the parliamentary end of our democracy. I mean absolutely no insult to the sitting minister or any other Minister of Education, but the electors do not vote on the ministers who oversee the systems, so they have no direct control over the way in which any of us comport ourselves should we happen to be given the honour of actually directing a ministry as the minister. The part of the system wh ere the electors actually do have control — and, given the nature of the business, relatively easy control — over who will represent them is at the local level.

So it is, at one level, curious to see the pointy end of the system, which is very remote from any direct democratic control by electors, seeking to be the guarantor that lo cally elected boards will meet their contractual obligations. I think it's worth noting, both for the record and for the broader public, on this issue of administrative directives, that the British Columbia School Trustees Association expressed profound concer n.

I will quote from the document forwarded to the minister: "While we assume that the purpose of the administrative directives is to provide the minister and the superintendents of achievement with a mechanism to enforce the achieve- ment contracts, we feel strongly that the provision is too sweeping and represents a violation of the principle of co- governance of the education system, in which each of the co-governors respects the jurisdiction of the other.

7352 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 "Boards have a distinctive democratic responsibility, and the imposition of administrative directives changes the fundamental principle of local accountability. Any unpopular decision of a board that is overridden by an administrative direction would destabilize local decision- making and have no direct accountability back to the local community.

Furthermore, there could be undue pressure exerted on MLAs and the minister to intervene on in- variably controversial decisions such as school closures." [1115] I think the image that is raised of an intervention under this power, which could actually destabilize local decision- making, is a real possibility.

I'm not suggesting that it's this minister's intention, but I think you have to countenance, when you're considering passing any law that empowers the pointy end to be able to do these kinds of things, the circumstances under which the power will operate and what kinds of constraints are being placed on a future minister under it. I would ask the minister to speak to that. Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite has quoted a paragraph in the letter from the B.C. School Trustees Association, and we are in ongoing discussion with them. I guess there comes a place….

We are co-governors, and ultimately our responsibility is to ensure that all of the children in this province have an opportunity to be successful. Today in this province we have 11,000 children who do not graduate. We have 53 percent of our aboriginal students who do not complete what most would consider a basic measure in the public education system.

In the event, after a significant amount of discussion, collaboration, time and effort in working to gether, that there is still a sense a board has not taken that seriously in the sense of looking at strategies, there may well be an opportunity for a minister to say: "We think you should concentrate on this." At the end of the day, that is the responsibility that the minister — whoever sits in this chair — or government — whoever sits on this side of the House — has to the people of British Columbia.

We understand that it needs to be exercised with care and caution, but ultimately, the importance is that students today deserve all of us to be working together to make sure that they have every opportunity possible. I recognize the uncomfortable position that school trustees feel they're in. I should tell the member opposite that we had a very productive day yesterday — from our perspective and, hopefully, from the trustees' perspective — as we worked through the legislation with them line by line and walked through all of the discussions with them. Obviously, they want to continue that dialogue.

We're committed to doing just that as we look at the areas that would be outlined by this and several other concerns that have been expressed in this letter. D. Cubberley: Well, I'm absolutely certain that trustees will work to make the best of whatever circumstance is visited upon them. But for our purposes today, we are looking at the wisdom of actually allowing this to pass as written.

I think that one of the distinctions we have to make as legislators in the chamber is between the minister's stated intention — which I believe is sincere and which I take as stated, around what she wants to see as outcomes — and the reason why she thinks she needs to have this power conferred. This power is conferred for all time or until such time as another Legislature decides that it should be removed — if it is in fact put in place.

I think we have t o l o o k a t w h a t c o u l d b e e n a b l e d b y t h e l a n g u a g e — not what a stated intention for the language is, which is a far broader perspective. This would, under any number of circumstances, empower a Minister of Education to intervene in the activities of a board without the kinds of constraints we would like to see placed upon the power. In fact, we have a significant concern that we are moving into a level of power which is surplus to requirements.

The powers exist under current legislation to allow a Minister of Education to intervene in a way which is less draconian than this. She or he also has a power to intervene in ways that are more draconian. [1120] I think that in the one ca se, the lesser power already available engages a process with a board which is a softer process, a less directive process, but ups the ante for that board, both vis-à-vis the minister and the local electorate, and has the potential to focus public attention on the fact that the board is in some significant way not meeting expectations.

I also think that in the case where a board is remiss in its duty, the minister has the power to, holus-bolus, intervene. We think that the creation of this additional power is not necessary, that it is an intervention that gives many actors within the system, who have responsibilities locally, grave concern. It is therefore my intention to propose an amendment to this

section of the act that would delete the power for an administrative directive. This being my first amendm ent, I will confer with the Clerk as to whether I'm doing it properly or at the right time. Interjection. D. Cubberley: I am. I'm deleting the definition and proposing the removal of the powers that would…. Interjection. D. Cubberley: I have a copy here for the minister. I haven't done it before, Minister, so…. The Chair: The Chair will not accept the amendment at this time and will consider it at the appropriate time in the review, at a later section. D.

Cubberley: The next definition given is for a district literacy plan, which means a plan to improve literacy in a school district. Because of what is focused

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7353 under the achievement contract, which is responsibility for a literacy plan, and because the minister's title includes literacy, which is more inclusive than K-to-12 literacy, I would ask what is included in this definition of a district literacy plan. Is this a literacy plan focused on learners within K-to-12? Does this include learners prior to their coming to K-to-12? Does it include adult learners? Does it include lifelong learning? [1125] Hon. S. Bond: Well, I think perhaps it's best to tackle this by looking at what the intent of a literacy plan is.

In virtually all of the communities I have visited — and believe me, there have been a lot in the last year — there are enormous number s of initiatives in the community to deal with the issue of literacy. There's incredible momentum. There are people working very hard across the province. The intent here is to have school boards create a literacy plan for the learners that they deal with and that it be done in consultation with community. It's a chance for them to provide leadership and partnership. In fact, it's already happening today.

I know that in a round table that I attended in my own community, the school district was one of the leaders in the creation of a community literacy plan. We simply want to make sure that we're coordinating our resources and efforts to tackle what is a challenging topic. We think it's best done in collaboration and part- nership with the community — not taking over the responsibility of those communities but working closely with them.

The legislation articulates that boards of education will need to have a discussion with individuals and partner groups that might have similar interests or goals in mind when it comes to literacy. D. Cubberley: Would it in fact include learners prior to their coming to kindergarten? Would that be part of the plan? Would the school district be responsible for those learners, or would they be responsible for engaging in dialogue with non-school entities who are engaged in preparing children for school? Hon. S. Bond: Well, I want to be very careful about making this clear.

We're not at all interested in having the boards of education take over the responsibility for community literacy planning or anything of that nature. The work that's going on is phenomenal across the province. Many non-profits and agencies are very involved in this. It really is about coordinating a school district's plan within the context of community literacy, and we think that's a pretty important thing for us to be doing. To better prepare our students, we're asking boards of education to develop literacy plans that, yes, actually do look at the interests of preschoolers in particular.

This legislation also, as the member opposite would know, looks at an expanded mandate that does include pre- kindergarten programs. We are looking at preschoolers, school-age children. As well, as the member opposite would know, school boards — boards of education after this — also do serve adults who are struggling with literacy. We do have programs. So it includes adults in that context as well. D. Cubberley: I do think that's important, and it does make me feel that perhaps the definition should have been a little more expressive of what's involved in it.

After all, we are going to, if this bill passes, place additional responsibility on boards of education. We are going to give them achievement contracts, and within achievement contracts part of their responsibility is to develop a district literacy plan. Clearly, from what the minister is saying, a component of the district literacy plan — some several components — will lie outside K-to-12.

Given that boards will be assessed in part on their meeting of contractual obligations under their achievement contracts on the basis of their literacy plan, which is named as one of the components, and will be responsible for making the document public and engaging with communities about it, I think it's important that they have some idea of what responsibilities they're being asked to assume. Are they playing a coordinati ng role? Are they actually responsible?

Could they be assessed, for example, on deficits in the continuum of services that help to build literacy in preschool populations, among low-literacy adults, in special populations and the like? Just trying to get a sense of what's loaded into something. Hon. S. Bond: They are not expected to be the only service provider or would we ever expect that to be the case. It is very much about a coordinating role, and it is actually including areas that boards are currently involved in. Across the province we have boards involved with adult basic education. We have them involved with preschool programs already.

So it really is not unlike what they're doing currently, and we believe that the new mandate in many ways captures what is current practice. [1130] D. Cubberley: Perhaps we could pass into "early learning program" in the de finitions section. The text suggests that an early learning program means "a program for children who are less th an school age, or whose enrollment in an educational program has been deferred under

section 3 (2), that (

a) is designed to improve readiness for and success in kindergarten…." My first question for the minister — I believe I know the answer to this, but I would like her to spell it out for me — is if the minister understands that there are a wide variety of programs that would qualify as designed to improve readiness and success in kindergarten. Hon. S. Bond: Absolutely, and I have visited numbers of them across the province . This is not about a one- size-fits-all model — absolutely not. However, govern- ment has a program in place which will be located in all of our school districts across this province, and that's only one opportunity for parents. I think that's an important note.

7354 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 We have great work being done by organizations. This is to enhance opportunity. Of course, there are different options and models, and that will continue. D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for that response. It is a very important discussion, and I hope I won't incite impatience around this. While item (

a) under early learning program gives a relatively expansive definition, item (

b) gives a very tight definition of what would qualify as early learning. Therefore, I wish to persist in asking some questions about the types of programs that qualify. I'm interested to know whether the minister would include devel- opmental child care delivered in licensed centres by qualified early childhood educators as an early learning program. Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I'm not quite certain how to approach this question, bu t let me try this. Learning takes place wherever children are, so early learning is provided in a number of models across this province.

It occurs most importantly between parents and their children. They are the first te achers that children have. That will all continue. The only thing we are clarifying here is that the programs that are funded and operated by school boards — which in this case, in terms of early learning, in terms of what government is going to provide resources for, is StrongStart British Columbia…. But that does not at all preclude school boards from providing space for providers who are currently in their buildings today. That will continue. [S.

Hammell in the chair.] I certainly hope that the intent is not to cause concern with people who prov ide those services across this province, because this legislation does not mean change for them. What it means is that we're going to enhance opportunities by providing StrongStart centres in school districts across the province. This is not about taking away opportunities; it's actually talking about enhancing them. D.

Cubberley: I'm sure the minister would agree that early learning programs are probably one of the chief interventions that mi ght be available to school districts to actually affect the 11,000 people who are not graduating and the unknown number of people who are being passed through with low literacy. It is an area of growth throughout modern industrial countries.

In fact, in looking at Canada and British Columbia in particular, if we were to evaluate ourselves against what other countries are doing, our system is stunted in regard to early learning programs. [1135] One of the things that's very significant about this bill, and one of the things that I think is most positively greeted by educators and school trustees, is the recognition of early learning as something that can be part of their mandate — hence the importance of trying to get at the way in which the language of the bill has been designed and what it's actually intending to do.

Bill language can do a number of things. One of the things it can do is what those who champion it hope it will do or tell us it will do. But it can also do other things because, of course, it can be interpreted in various ways. I won't go into all th e fascinating and creative ways in which bill language can be interpreted, but members who have been present here for more than one session will have an intimate knowledge of what I'm alluding to. This is very important.

One of the reasons that it's important is because while the legislation in front of us creates an expansive definition at the front end of early learning…. Having said that, it contracts it — as I read it — to a single option via a subclause. I want to get to what that is about. Why does item (

d) say that an early learning program "means a program for children who are less than school age" — that "(

a) is designed to improve readiness for and success in kinder- garten, and (

b) requires a child participating in the program to be accompanied and supervised by the child's parent or other person designated in writing by the parent"? This is defining an early learning program — what a board can involve itself directly in. It's defining it as requiring parental or adult accompaniment to participate in the program. So having opened it up, it is closing it down to a single option. What I want to know is: why is it designed in that manner? Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I know the member opposite and I have canvassed this with other members in estimates. Let's be clear.

This legislation talks about one model, and that's the model that we will be supporting in terms of StrongStart British Columbia. It does not and will not preclude boards from offering all kinds of wonderful programs in their buildings and in their particular districts. What this says is that the model we will look at expanding across the province requires parent participation. There's a really good reason for that. This is one model. There are lots of other places that children learn. Those are going to continue and expand. This model is about resourcing not only a child but an adult in that child's life.

Absolutely correct, member opposite, that this can make a difference for those 11,000 students. This is very good news, and it's exactly where we need to focus. Our point is simply this. In the model that we are talking about — one model; others will continue — this one requires there be an adult there. I also want to clarify the record. It is not just about parents. It is about care- givers or, as the legislation points out, another person designated in writing…. It could be a caregiver, an aunt, a grandparent. The criticism around who can be there….

This is a pretty broad scope about who can be there with that child, but the thinking behind this model is that you resource families in order to support children when they're learning to read and get ready for school.

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7355 D. Cubberley: I think the thinking behind all models of preschool is that you resource families in the process. I don't think it's any less resourcing of families to provide them with a care component in a developmental learning situation for children that enables them to participate in the economy. That's resourcing of families. It's certainly resourcing of women upon whom the burden for child care tends to fall in our society, and whose participation in the labour force is much lower than men's. [H.

Bloy in the chair.] That certainly should be of concern to us if anything we're doing by way of legislation is sending a message that there is a single definition of what constitutes an early learning program. [1140] What I don't understand is why it would be necessary to raise in legislation a limiting clause that says…. No matter how you cut it, if you look at this, it sets up a definition of early learning for the first time. This is significant. This is conferring an ability on school districts to participate in it and telling them that we endorse this direction, that this is part of your respon- sibility.

It's potentially very significant if one looks at other countries and the extent to which pre-K is already in place. Even to the south of us, the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions have universal kindergarten, full-day kinder- garten programs and pre-K programs, and have had for a significant period of time. That's a model of early learning that is probably the most likely extension of the existing K-to-12 system. It's what is being done elsewhere.

Why would it be necessary to bring in a bill with language that essentially, if I'm hearing what the minister is saying, simply reflects the fact that the ministry's first priority — not school distri cts, not others — is to put a focus on the StrongStart program? Now, that to me is fine. Why would it show up in a bill? Bills don't typically deal with what is and isn't being funded. They deal with areas of responsibility. This would seem to be tightly prescriptive — in fact, almost siloed — and I'd like to know why. Hon. S.

Bond: If you actually look at a school board's mandate today, they themselves cannot offer an early learning program. They do not have the technical ability to do that. This legislation is required to allow them to offer an early learning program. That's number one. Number two. The reason we've defined it in this particular way is that the model we will see expanded across the province includes parent participation. It also includes that an early childhood educator be in that particular position. I'll say it again.

Early learning takes place wherever children are and in various settings, and that will continue in school districts across the province. The difference is that school boards themse lves do not offer those programs. Other providers do. They may provide space, and they certainly pa rtner in very innovative ways to make those early learning opportunities happen. This says that in British Columbia, school boards will be able to, when in an agreement with the minister, offer early learning programs — first time — and that the model will include an adult participating with that child. D.

Cubberley: Is the minister suggesting that with this early learning program definition brought in and this power extended to boards of education, if a school board decided that it wanted to involve itself directly in pre-K, that would be allowable? Hon. S. Bond: What the legislation says is that school boards may offer an early learning program that is designed to improve readiness. If there's a parent i n v o l v e d i n t h a t p r o c e s s , t h e n s c h o o l b o a r d s h a v e t h e legal ability, after this legislation is passed, to do that. [1145] C. Trevena: I wanted to clarify this.

I think that we're in agreement. We've talked to the minister before about the StrongStart program, and any opportunity children have to improve is great. From what the minister is saying, these programs will be run by school boards. There will be other programs that still may be using school premises to have their programs. Does this definition allow those programs also — if the school board desires, if the school board has the money to fund those programs as ea rly childhood development programs, early learning programs — without the parental involvement?

You could have the StrongStart program working in one school and another school having an early learning program that is funded by the school board but is not tied into StrongStart. Hon. S. Bond: This makes no change to the current p r a c t i c e f o r s c h o o l b o a r d s i n t e r m s o f w h a t t h e y o f f e r today. They will be able to continue to do that in part- nership. What this does allow is for school districts to offer early learning programs for the first time. If they meet the criteria outlined here, then they will be able to offer early learning programs.

But there is no change to current practice. C. Trevena: The only early learning programs that the school boards can offer, then, are those that require parental involvement or th e signed authority from a parent for a caregiver to attend. Hon. S. Bond: Yes. C. Trevena: I wanted to ask one question about this signed authority that a parent can give. Would that be for a caregiver who is looking after one child, or would there be a limit on the number of children? Can it be one child, two children, six children and a caregiver

7356 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 coming along to a StrongStart program? Is there going to be any definition on the numbers there? Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, the intent is that families that have two or three child ren or four children or ten children…. If there is permission for an adult who cares for those children — the letter is signed — then that family can participate in a program. C. Trevena: A bit of clarification on that.

If a parent takes their child to basically a licence-not-required family child care provider, who may have six children, the parent signs the authority that that family child care provider can go to the StrongStart with the six children. That would be acceptable under the StrongStart desig- nation as is provided. Hon. S. Bond: The intent of a StrongStart centre — and they are fabulous; we ha ve them operating in the province, and we're excited about expanding the number of them — is that families would be able to provide the name of someone who cares for their children on a regular basis.

They would have that letter signed, and they would be able to participate fully in a StrongStart centre. D. Cubberley: I would like to know what the rationale is for fettering school districts in this way — for saying not just that the minister is going to prioritize this class of program aimed at parent-accompanied children…. Why would the intent be to fetter school boards so that they cannot involve themselves in areas of early childhood development that will have a larger payoff in terms of affecting a broader range of families? I would like to know why you would fetter them. Why would you not allow them…?

Prioritize the program you want to prioritize, but why fetter them? Hon. S. Bond: I hardly consider that giving boards of education the right to o ffer early learning programs for the first time in British Columbia is fettering a school board. What I would like to suggest is that this is the model that we intend to fund and expand across this province. It's going to give families new opportunities, and it does not take away from current practice.

There are school boards across this province that have amazing partnerships with other providers, where the partnership allows for other organizations to continue to provide services for children in British Columbia. Why would we want to alter that? That would be my question to the member opposite. [1150] D. Cubberley: There are answers, and very direct ones, to that. That is because we are undersupplied with those very opportunities you are admiring. We are absolutely deficient in this province and in this country and in the entire western world in the provision of opportunities for developmental child care.

British Columbia is at the bottom in Canada, which is at the bottom of industrialized countries. Hon. G. Abbott: I don't think so. D. Cubberley: Well, check the OECD, Minister. I'll bring you the studies. I know you have time…. The Chair: Please direct your comments through the Chair. D. Cubberley: Yes, and the minister too. The Chair: Yes. All members, please direct your comments through the Chair. D. Cubberley: It was just a little bit of collegial banter, and I will refrain in the future out of respect.

The point still stands — and I did not hear an answer to this — that the minister could prioritize any program that she or her mini stry care to prioritize. They can do it by funding it and suggesting to school boards that that is a direction they want to move in. Why would she fetter boards by providing them with the enticement that they are going to be allowed to involve themselves in early learning? For the first time in the history of this prov ince, boards will be enabled to catch up to our U.S. co usins and involve themselves directly in early learning.

I know members opposite listen to these kinds of things. The example south of us is very important to them, and it's important to be mindful of that example because it can cut both ways. Why would the government choose to say: "Boards of education, we're going to allow you to assume responsibility for early learning, and in fact, it will become part of your mandate, and you will be judged on it"? Having opened the door, immediately contract it down to a single form of program, which — and this is the key thing — will only ever deal with a tiny, tiny minority of adults.

There ar e very few adults who are at home with children, and there are very few — in fact, in my experience, none — day care providers who have staff available to ferry children from a day care centre to a StrongStart centre in order to learn parenting skills. Early childhood educators do not need to learn parenting skills. They're in the business of supplying it, so they are not going to be attending these centres. I have not heard a rationale fo r fettering school boards in this manner, and I would appreciate hearing that addressed. Hon. S. Bond: Actually, the member opposite did hear that answer.

The fact of the matter is we're not fettering school districts. We're giving them something that they haven't had the ability to do before. Why in the world would we stifle the opportunity for community partnerships, which school districts have engaged in for a long time in British Columbia? As I travel across the pr ovince, there are amazing early learning opportunities that already exist within school districts. School boards do not provide those services; other providers do. We welcome the opportunity

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7357 for other providers to work in partnership with school districts. We think that's fantastic. We don't want to detract from that, and this is about giving school boards a new opportunity. In fact, as a government we are very proud of the fact that StrongStart B.C. is new to this province. It will meet the needs of families for whom, perhaps, there has not been that opportunity. We look forward to expanding them across the province and giving school boards that opportunity for the first time in this province. D.

Cubberley: Well, I haven't heard anybody quibble with the value of the Strong Start program, although a great deal of emphasis has b een laid on it by the other side of the House. I think everyone accepts that it's a valuable program. The ques tion which has not been answered…. This is especially true, given the fact that a majority of working families are either two-income families or lone-provider families. Some 70 percent of families in this province are in that situation.

None of those families, unless they're well-enough off to have a nanny, are going to be able to participate in the one offering that the minister is saying school boards will be allowed to engage in as part of their mandate. I'm not talking about being able to formulate agreements with not-for-profit providers off the side of everyone's desk. Of course that's being done, and it should be expanded.

The question is really: given that you could fund and quarterb ack this program without restricting "early learning" to this definition in the bill, why would you choose to fetter school districts in this manner? [1155] Why would you not say: "We recognize that 11,000 kids every year are dropping out of school and that many of those kids are arriving developmentally not ready for school. We as a government recognize that we have to open up early learning because the whole rest of the industrial world is involved in early learning"? Why would you not say that, which you have said at the front end of this?

Then what you have done is contract it down to a tiny little program — an important program, but not one that addresses the needs of the overwhelming majority of families in British Columbia. Why fetter the boards? The Chair: Noting the time, Minister. Hon. S. Bond: I will comment and then…. Mr. Chair, I just have to say this. This is a government that fo r the first time is actually putting an emphasis on ea rly learning in British Columbia and allowing school boards to take that role as part of their mandate. We think that's great news.

This is the beginning of looking at programs and how we address those needs. I can assure the member opposite that we think there are great community providers of resources for children. They're partnering today with school boards across the province. That will continue. This is not at all about fettering school districts. It's about serving children in the province. Mr. Chair, noting the hour, I ask that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Motion approved. The committee rose at 11:56 a.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions and progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon. The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m. PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES (continued) The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Hayer in the chair. The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

On Vote 27: ministry operations, $43,899,000 (continued). Hon. R. Neufeld: Yesterday we left off the debate in regards to coalbed gas and some of the new policies that this government brought forward in the new energy plan. There was a discussion between me and the member for Vancouver-Hastings. It seemed to me, after leaving, that the member didn't understand what I was trying to explain or put on the record.

If that's because I didn't explain it well e n o u g h t o h i m , I w a n t t o g e t i t o n t h e r e c o r d n o w s o that he can have a read of it and maybe understand better, or I will put forward better, the position that this government has taken on coalbed gas. The discussion revolved around produced water, both from coalbed gas and from conventional natural gas and oilwell operations. Prior to the new energy plan, firms could apply to surface-discharge water,

7358 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 which is common practice across North America. There are different rules in all jurisdictions in regards to that — what you can release and how much. [1010] I won't go into that, but we have a code of practice for produced water. We still have that code of practice, obviously, but what we did change — and I'll read it directly out of the energy plan — is: "Companies will not be allowed to surface- discharge produced water. Any reinjected produced water must be injected well below the domestic water aquifer." That's what I was trying to say to the member.

The member had questions. Is this done anywhere else in North America? My re sponse was that, as far as I know, this is the only ju risdiction in North America that actually has a policy that reads as such. I think what the member didn't understand was that we actually do produce water out of coalbed gas wells today, as we speak, and haul that away and reinject it in a disposal well. He seemed to think that wasn't happening any- where in North America, and that's where our opinions differed. Today there is produced water that's highly saline that cannot be released to the environment and that actually is trucked.

I'll explain a little further. It's pumped off the coal t o r e l e a s e t h e g a s . I t w o u l d b e s t o r e d i n t a n k s . T a n k trucks would move it from those tanks to a site where there is a disposal well that allows the reinjection of water — whether it comes from coalbed gas or conventional oil and gas — deep into the aquifer. I hope that explains maybe a little bit of the misconception from yesterday. I'll leave that with the critic. J. Horgan: I know that the member for Vancouver- Hastings will get access to the Blues.

If he has any issues with the minister's comments, he can take them up directly. We have just a little bit of time left to conclude the estimates on Vote 27. We're spending $44 million, and that's not an unreasonable thing for us to do. We have already talked about the return to the treasury from activities with in the ministry. We talked about oil and gas. We talked about electricity.

I raised an issue just at the end of the day yesterday about what the Vancouver Sun said in a headline was the "hydrogen hype." We've had a series of announcements just in the past 24 hours about new vehicles being tested in Vancouver. I wanted to ask the minister…. My information is that we are a generation aw ay from this technology being commercially viable. Yet we do know that electric cars or hybrid cars or variations on that — bio- diesel and other fuels — t h a t h a v e l e s s i m p a c t o n t h e environment are available today. The technology exists today.

So why I hear concerns about the hydrogen highway is that we have expertise available to us right now that can have an immediate impact on climate change. Yet we're investing many, many millions of dollars in hydrogen. My question to the minister is: what analysis has the ministry done to support the hydrogen highway? [1015] Hon. R. Neufeld: First off, as I said yesterday, British Columbia is known worldwide for its hydrogen expertise. Ballard fuel cells obviously set us on the map across the world. There have been, as I said yesterday, at least a billion dollars invested in British Columbia.

Thousands of jobs depend on hydrogen development in the province. There is no one item that actually will be the silver bullet for all of us to use. So the hybrid car is not the total silver bullet for vehicles. They still have emissions, although admittedly their emissions are lower than other vehicles. But the member argued the other day that there are some other small cars that actually have just as low emissions as hybrids. So that's part of the answer for transpor- tation. Biodiesel and, I'd add, etha nol are part of the answer to tailpipe emissions in British Columbia.

But we also know that to develop biodiesel or ethanol will probably create, at some point in time, some emissions into the atmosphere, some CO 2 that will have to be dealt with. Obviously, when you go on the farm and start planting canola or use corn or use cellulose, which is another form of ethanol — cellulose ethanol — there will be some activity on the land base. Hydrogen or electric cars — let's think about electric cars. You're right, tailpipe emissions, I guess, from electric cars are zero, but you have to generate the electricity.

We talked at length about that, about how British Columbia is short of electricity right now. We need to actually build more generation in the province, and that has an effect on the atmosphere. No one here is trying to say that any one of those is a silver bullet, but they certainly will help us. Obviously, the development of hydrogen will either come from electricity — and, again, then you go back, and you have to build more generation — or could come from natural gas, which it does right now.

How you actually look at hydrogen in a bus system and in a transit system in the lower mainland or other places in the province, probab ly, later on is that there are zero emissions from that tailpipe. Now, converting natural gas to hydrogen obviously will create some CO 2. But if that's done at a plant site, you could actually sequester that CO 2. It's tough to sequester the CO 2 out of every tailpipe or every bu s that drives around the city of Vancouver. I'm certainly not here to say that hydrogen is the silver bullet.

I don't think biodiesel or ethanol or hybrid cars or electric cars are the silver bullet, but a combination of all of them to reduce our footprint as far as CO 2 is concerned is something that we should actively be looking at and exploring as we move forward. J. Horgan: I would call hydrogen perhaps the platinum bullet, based on the investment that we've made in that technology. The minister quite rightly said that the

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7359 most likely feedstock for this technology is natural gas. We're going to be creating greenhouse gases in producing the hydrogen to drive the vehicles. So none of these activities are without impact, and the minister is right. We agree on that. I know that the government in the 1990s invested in this technology, and I'm not saying that we should down tools.

I'm concerned, however, that the govern- ment is holding this up as a salvation when there are biofuels, hybrids, electric cars — and the other issues that the minister and I both acknowledge — available to this generation so that we could make an impact now and start changing behaviour now. So I ask the minister…. I was watching a news clip last night, and the news announcer said that the expectation was that this technology wouldn't be commercially viable until at least 2015.

Can the minister confirm that there will be no commercial access to hydrogen vehicles until 2015, or is that an optimistic date? [1020] Hon. R. Neufeld: The ministry is participating, along with Fuel Cells Canada and Ford of Canada — or Ford Motor corporation — in a test of five Ford Focus vehicles in the lower mainland and on Vancouver Island as we speak — hydrogen-powered with Ballard fuel cells. Yes, when you listen to Ford of Canada, they will clearly tell you that this is n't new. This isn't a news flash from yesterday. This is something from quite a l o n g t i m e a g o .

I n f a c t , w h e n t h e p r o g r a m w a s f i r s t initiated…. If all things go well, probably by the time you see commercialization and cars sitting on a car lot for sale that are powered by hydrogen, it's probably 15 years way. Ten years away, I would say now, because it was awhile ago when they said that. That all has some probabilities. It's newer technology. But hydrogen-powered bu ses are not new. There are a number of hydrogen-p owered buses around the world, as we speak today, being tried in different climates, in different cities, to see how they work.

These hy drog en bu ses that we'd have in British C olum bia…. I think it's great that we're looking to the future for hydrogen buses in transpor t, in the lower mainland, where most of the CO 2 is produced from vehicles. They will be there by 2010. There will be 20 of them, and I think we ought to be proud of that. I think we ought to be able to say: "Hey, a lot of that was developed right here in British Columbia. A lot of that was jobs right here in British Columbia. A lot of that was economic development here in the province, and there are zero emissions from those buses." I think we should be proud of that.

Do we take advantage of the things that are already there? For instance, the member agrees with me that it doesn't matter what you use; whether it's electricity or biodiesel or ethanol or all of those kind of things, it will have some effect on the environment. Every time we get up in the morning, it doesn't matter who we are or where we live or what we think politically, we have an effect on the environment. We just do. That's a fact of life. To respond a little bit to what the member said about hybrid cars and biodiesel: we reduced the taxes.

In fact, the sales tax on hybrid cars has been reduced, and it's been extended so people are encouraged to buy hybrid cars. I think that's taking advantage of something that we can take advantage of right now. Motive fuel tax on biodiesel or ethanol is not charged in the province. I think that 's great. That's something we initiated a while ago that 's ongoing. I think that's taking advantage of something that is good for the environment and things that we can look forward to. I would agree with the member when he says he agrees with me that there is no silver bullet in any one of them.

There has been a lot of investment in hydrogen, and I think that it's well worth it. We should look seriously at what we can do to

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0501am-05
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0501am 05
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6ef06f253fcae529bcb9352469889309d5886481

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).