2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007

Morning Sitting

Volume 19, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Committee of the Whole House

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

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

[ Page 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

Sidney, 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.

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 not seen an improvement in high school completion

rates.

Having said that, achievement is also a day-to-day experience,

child by child. One of the things we want to ensure is that as we are working in

classrooms across this province, we're considering 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.

[ Page 7344 ]

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 completion 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 country….

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're 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: Yes. Well, we would be among the 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

challenge 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

something 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 responsibility

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 government's part

that many of the disadvantages that have to be overcome in the school system are

created outside the school system and are in fact reinforced outside the school

system?

[1020]

[ Page 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

we can actually make a difference in the lives of vulnerable children with

targeted programs and with specific, focused programs in classrooms. I have been

in many of what would 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 contract 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 —

and they do it now, but we 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 improvement, 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 the 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 policing function of the superintendents 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

particular 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 it be that we

are only concerned 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?

[ Page 7346 ]

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 conversation. 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 to say: "Look what this district is doing. Have you 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 funding for aboriginal education students.

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 the 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 make 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 documentation 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 achievements on the part of

individuals and groups. I'd just like some comment on that.

[ Page 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

moving toward a knowledge-based economy. Obviously, that 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 talking 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

students. 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 would

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 what 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 don'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 under

section 79.2. Then you go

section 79.2, and it says: "A board must prepare an accountability contract

with respect to improving student achievement in the school district and any

other matters ordered by the minister."

[ Page 7348 ]

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 students 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 included 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 ministry 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 that 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 time. In fact, we expect boards

to be able to manage 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 think 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

[ Page 7349 ]

apprehension around new responsibilities, and that is amplified around the

idea of a new requirement in the form of an achievement contract.

My question to the minister is…. An achievement contract, which is

looking for ways of improving outcomes within existing resources, 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 member 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 forward. So the simple answer would have been yes, but I felt

that I needed to just 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 think 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 thinking. 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 wholeheartedly 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 province. 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 something 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

[ Page 7350 ]

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 have 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 frequency, 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 socioeconomic

situations and all the 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-percent completion rate for aboriginal students…. One 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 information 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 classrooms 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. One doesn't go there

easily, and one would hope not to.

The administrative directive, 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

[ Page 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 discussions that we are having with school boards

as we speak. That would not be 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 recommendations; 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 rubric 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 that, by working with school boards with a renewed focus on

achievement in this province, we can, will see and will make 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 having

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 leadership.

It says that if students 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

system 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 where 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 locally 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 concern. 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 achievement 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.

[ Page 7352 ]

"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 invariably

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 together, 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 to look at what could be enabled by the language — 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 case, 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 amendment, 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

[ Page 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 numbers 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 partnership 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 prekindergarten 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 coordinating 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

definitions section. The text suggests that an early learning

program means "a program for children who are less than 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, government 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.

[ Page 7354 ]

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 developmental 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, but 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 teachers 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 provide 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 might 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 the 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

kindergarten, 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

caregivers 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.

[ Page 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

responsibility.

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

kindergarten 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 districts, 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 themselves do not offer those

programs. Other providers do. They may provide space, and they certainly partner

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 involved in that process, then school boards have

the 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 early 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 practice

for school boards in terms of what they offer today. They will be able to

continue to do that in partnership. 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

the 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

[ Page 7356 ]

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 children 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 designation as is provided.

Hon. S. Bond: The intent of a StrongStart centre — and they

are fabulous; we have 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 offer 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 ministry 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

province, boards will be enabled to catch up to our U.S. cousins 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 are 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 for 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 province, 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

[ Page 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 StrongStart program, although a great deal of emphasis has been

laid on it by the other side of the House. I think everyone accepts that it's a

valuable program. The question 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 quarterback 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 for the first time is actually putting

an emphasis on early 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 enough to him, I want to get it on the record now so 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,

[ Page 7358 ]

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 response was that, as far as I know, this is the only jurisdiction

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 anywhere 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 to release

the gas. It would be stored in tanks. Tank 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 within 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 away from this technology being commercially viable. Yet we do know

that electric cars or hybrid cars or variations on that — biodiesel and other

fuels — that have less impact on the 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 transportation.

Biodiesel and, I'd add, ethanol 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, probably, 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 bus 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

[ Page 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 government 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 isn't new. This isn't a news flash from yesterday. This is something

from quite a long time ago. In fact, when the program was first 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 buses are not new. There are a number of

hydrogen-powered buses around the world, as we speak today, being tried in

different climates, in different cities, to see how they work. These hydrogen

buses that we'd have in British Columbia…. I think it's great that we're looking

to the future for hydrogen buses in transport, 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 advance that.

I would say that when you listen to the Governors of the western

U.S. states wanting to actually have a hydrogen highway south of us, that's

encouraging. When that will happen, I don't know. I think that's great.

But 20 hydrogen-powered buses working for B.C. Transit in British

Columbia on a hydrogen highway that will be in place for the 2010 Olympic and

Paralympic Games I think is wonderful news for the province.

J. Horgan: The minister made reference to thousands of jobs

in the hydrogen sector in B.C. I wonder if he could outline just where those

jobs are?

Hon. R. Neufeld: In the lower mainland.

J. Horgan: In one particular place or in a number of

places, or are there a host of companies involved? Could he break that down for

me?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There are quite a number of companies that

are involved. I don't know them all off by heart, but there are quite a number

of companies in the lower mainland investing in hydrogen and IT.

J. Horgan: Is there any way that the minister could provide

that list to me so that I can have a better understanding of the success of the

investment we've made over time?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We'll get that.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that.

Just on the notion of the hydrogen highway. Again, I understand

through media reports that there is interest in this and, of course, there would

be. We're looking for technological solutions to our dependence on, our

addiction to, fossil fuels and the damage that they create over time around the

world. If we were to be successful and B.C. was to lead the way, as it has up to

this point in time, I would be delighted.

[ Page 7360 ]

But there are concerns. I raised those today so that the committee

and the minister has a better understanding of what I hear. I know that he is

not immune to the e-mail that I receive, and it's coming to his mailbox and to

his deputy and to others.

[1025]

I wanted to flag that we're spending a good deal of money on

hydrogen. If we were able to invest half of that…. This is more of a question

for the Minister of Transportation who, sadly, has had his time and has come and

gone. If we could invest in more transit with biofuels, electricity and

hydrogen, we'd all be the better for it.

The public sees a massive investment in a Whistler corridor for a

highway and a massive investment in a Whistler corridor for hydrogen, and they

have to wonder out in Coquitlam and Maple Ridge: "What's in it for me?" That's

why I raise the issue.

Certainly, here on Vancouver Island we've had minimal investments

in transit until just this past budget, and I know that my constituents are

curious as to when the payback will come to them. With that, I'll move on.

Before we get into Columbia Power, I just have a few questions

about communications. I raised the issue yesterday with the Minister for Mines.

I'm wondering if the minister could advise me how many communications staff he

has working for him.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Not to belabour it, but the member did

acknowledge that developing hydrogen in the province is good and having some

buses run on hydrogen in the province is good. It's for the Olympic and

Paralympic Games that we're targeting to get Vancouver, Whistler and Victoria….

Victoria has a fuelling station already. There is a fuelling station in

Vancouver. What we need to do is finish it off to Whistler. That certainly

allows…. That doesn't mean that's going to be the only fuelling station in the

province.

There are opportunities to have fuelling stations in other parts

of the lower mainland. Places like Maple Ridge and Coquitlam, which the member

brings up, could benefit from those same things, from expanded transit with

hydrogen buses. Like I say, there's already a station on Vancouver Island.

The number is seven in total for the ministry.

J. Horgan: Is that a director, assistant director and five

communications officers?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There are seven that help within the

ministry. Whether they're called directors, assistant directors or all those

kind of things, they report to the Minister of Finance. I'd encourage the member

to ask the Minister of Finance about those issues.

We have seven people from PAB that actually provide us with the

services we need. The rest of the questions, actually, the Minister of Finance

could answer for you.

J. Horgan: Are there any other employees of government that

don't report directly to the minister who are doing work for the ministry, as

these seven individuals are?

[1030]

Hon. R. Neufeld: We share services with the Minister of

Economic Development. Doug Callbeck is responsible in both of those ministries

and provides to us financial, IT and human resources. That is shared, like I

said, with the Ministry of Economic Development.

J. Horgan: Are there individuals within the Crown agencies

secretariat that do work notionally for the Ministry of Energy when in fact they

report elsewhere?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The Crown agencies secretariat reports to

the Ministry of Finance. Does the Crown agencies secretariat do work directly

for the ministry? We get information from them, the same as we may provide

information to Crown agencies secretariat if in fact they need it for some

things. But they oversee mainly the Crowns that operate in British Columbia,

overseeing them from a high level.

I'm responsible for them at the end of the day, so we share

information. It's not as though they provide all the information to us.

J. Horgan: In addition to the FTE count for the ministry —

for those who are keeping track — there would be seven at the public affairs

bureau who are also doing work or are dedicated to the Ministry of Energy. We

have people in Crown agencies that are doing work on energy-related issues. We

have shared IT, financial and human resource issues being done jointly by the

ADM for two ministries, Economic Development and Energy.

My question now is: are there any other agencies of government

that have employees doing work that would assist the Ministry of Energy?

Hon. R. Neufeld: In government — and I know the member

knows this — there are services provided to us from the Ministry of Attorney

General. Are they directly employed with the Ministry of Energy and Mines? No,

they're not.

Are there services that we get from the Ministry of Environment

from time to time in regards to environment and how we deal with things in

Energy and Mines? Yes, there are services. Are they employees of the Ministry of

Energy and Mines? No, they are not. Do we provide information to the Ministry of

Environment at times for them to actually reach some of the goals they have to

reach? Yes, we do.

Actually, this is a government that's not in silos like it used to

be. This is a government that works across. We want to provide information to

one another so that things can be done in government a lot more effectively, and

we work hard at doing that.

Going back to the number of members from the public affairs bureau

for what services they give us,

[ Page 7361 ]

there are seven. Is there information provided to us from different

ministries, the same as we provide other ministries with information? Yes.

J. Horgan: I would like to move for a moment, to get on the

record…. Last fall I had the opportunity to question the CEO of B.C. Hydro, Bob

Elton, about the impact of storms on my constituency of Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

[1035]

He undertook at that time to provide staff resources to better

advise the people in my community of what steps Hydro had taken to address the

storm damage.

We had a meeting last Thursday — the rationale for me leaving very

briefly before the end of estimates. I just wanted to acknowledge the staff that

came from B.C. Hydro — Ted Olynyk, Klaus Kreye, Neil Sharpe, Linda Sartario,

Martin McMinn, Don Callawaert and Scott McLean. They're outstanding employees of

B.C. Hydro who did tremendous service here on southern Vancouver Island in

November, December and January to keep the lights on, to keep people warm, and

to ensure as little damage as possible to property and to individuals during

that horrific period.

I wanted to advise the minister that those Hydro staff did come to

my community. We held a public meeting. Sadly, as they rightly expected, if we

had the public meeting the day after the storm, we would have had more people.

But four months later the lights haven't gone off, the trees are off the roads,

the lines are up, and life is good. The next time we'll see people is when we go

to clear some brush, when they say: "What are you doing cutting down those

trees?"

I wanted to acknowledge that Mr. Elton was good to his word and

sent out some fantastic staff, who did great work on southern Vancouver Island.

My colleague from Nelson-Creston has a number of questions for

Columbia Power. Before we get to that, I was wondering if I could briefly ask

some questions about the aboriginal affairs work that's being done by the

minister and the ministry, particularly with respect to independent power

producers and also the oil and gas sector in the northeast. I know the minister

is well versed in that.

Could he give me a sense of whether he believes that the Treaty 8

bands in particular and others in the oil and gas community are satisfied with

the level of consultation and cooperation, and if there are any problems that he

may want to flag for us now so that we can address them in the future?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I actually think, if we're referring to

Treaty 8, there is a well-understood process ongoing there. New MOUs have been

signed with the bands, including the Dene Tha centred in High Level, but their

traditional territory goes into northeastern British Columbia.

We have, as far as I know, a good working relationship. It's

normal, if you ask the Treaty 8 bands or the chiefs, that they may tell you they

have all kinds of problems. I understand that, but generally speaking, I think

the MOUs are well adhered to and that industry is working well on the land base.

Under this part of the ministry, we also have NEEMAC out there for

the last year. That's a group of people working on issues about access to

private land in the northeast part of the province, a whole mediation

arbitration board and a whole host of other things.

Are there some discussions and differences of opinion there?

Certainly there are, and they expect there to be. I appreciate that, but what we

need to do is try to resolve those to the best of our ability with both the

aboriginal and the non-aboriginal people.

J. Horgan: With respect to two issues in the northwest —

coalbed methane in Telkwa and the Wet'suwet'en response to that as well as

Tahltan concerns about mining in their territory — I've had representations from

both of those groups about those issues, with mixed reviews.

I mentioned to the minister the electrification of Highway 37, as

well as to the minister of mines that certainly the Tahltan are welcoming Galore

Creek. There is a good working relationship with the company and a good working

relationship with the ministry on that file. There are multiple opportunities

for the mining sector in and around Tahltan territory, and there is some concern

about how that's unfolding.

Could the minister advise me how the ministry is responding to the

Wet'suwet'en concerns around Telkwa and also how they're proposing to manage the

Tahltan people with respect to mining in and around Highway 37?

[1040]

Hon. R. Neufeld: We have a policeman in here now to make

sure that we get this done right.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm just answering questions. I have no

control over the time frame.

J. Horgan: You have control over the duration of your

answers.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, I do, but I have to make them full.

As we witnessed yesterday, they have to be full and complete answers, or they're

taken out of context.

In any event, as to the Wet'suwet'en, we have had a working group

with them for about a year or better and have provided capacity funding in

regards to coalbed gas. We continue to work with them — the ministry staff do —

to provide them the information they need, and they think it's going on

relatively well. Does that mean that we're at any kind of a conclusion? No. I'll

give that answer now.

Secondly, as far as the Tahltan go, we work together with MARR,

but MARR leads the discussions on the issues around the Tahltan and what's

happening in there, although, as I said earlier, we'll provide some

[ Page 7362 ]

information. As I understand, that process is going along quite well.

C. Evans: Would it be okay if we moved to questions about

the Columbia Power Corporation at this point?

Hon. R. Neufeld: However you want to do it.

C. Evans: Last year during these estimates we were able to

canvass a little bit of the history of the Keenleyside project, the power plant

at Castlegar and the Brilliant project. We established that Keenleyside was

profitable and that the construction problems were coming to some resolution

concerning the spillway issue. Can you advise whether the Keenleyside or the

Castlegar power plant project is now finished, or where they stand in their

restoration?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The Arrow channel has been fully

remediated as of May of 2006 and has been in full operation since then.

C. Evans: I wonder if the minister could tell us whether

the insurance and contractual relationships with the contractor paid for the

cost of remediation, or whether Columbia Power Corporation is out of pocket for

that work.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The insurance policy paid a large part of

it — $34.5 million, as I understand. The total cost, including lost revenues,

was $51 million. To get the project on and going, CPC actually paid to make sure

that they could get the project generating electricity again.

They will be pursuing the prime contractor on the job for the

balance between the $34.5 million and the $51 million. That is ongoing.

[1045]

C. Evans: Would I be correct in assuming that should there

be a difference, say, between $35 million and $51 million — should there be an

unpaid balance — that cost will then be shared, essentially, by Columbia Basin

Trust and Columbia Power Corporation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes.

C. Evans: That brings up the larger question and a concise

answer. But just for the benefit of MLAs who are here and who perhaps may not

understand, could the minister explain to the assembled folks here how Columbia

Power Corporation and the trust are structured, who owns the assets and who

profits from the electricity?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, I think most of the people here

understand that. For the ones who don't, you can have a quick meeting with them

afterwards.

I'm responsible for Columbia Power Corporation, and the Ministry

of Economic Development is responsible for Columbia Basin Trust, but there is a

sharing of the net revenue from the operations that Columbia Power Corporation

has in the Kootenays from a high level.

I think the critic has actually encouraged me to hurry along. I'm

not trying to be curt or short, I'm just…. Instead of reviewing a world that

happened in 1995, somewhere in that era a long time ago…. I don't know. If you

want to explain it, go ahead, Member. It's your time.

C. Evans: I was of the opinion that we were reviewing a

world that is ongoing and is approximately 50-percent finished, if you see the

Arrow project, the Brilliant project and Waneta project as a set of work that we

are not yet finished with.

Can the minister advise the group what the sum of revenue was that

accrued to the Crown from Columbia Power Corporation last year?

Interjections.

The Chair: Order in the House. Order.

Hon. R. Neufeld: If you go to the service plan, you will

find that the net profit for Columbia Power Corporation — although the financial

statements aren't completed yet — is $11.694 million. You would double that,

because that same amount would go to the Columbia Basin Trust. That's available

on the website or in the service plan.

C. Evans: I'll move to Brilliant. I wonder if the minister

would tell us the state of completion of the Brilliant project and the

ribbon-cutting date. When is it intended that Brilliant will be operational?

Hon. R. Neufeld: They inform me that it will be sometime

this June. All things being equal, they anticipate to have commercial operation

likely closer to the end of June. When the ribbon cutting is…. We'll make sure

that we invite the member. I'll make sure that we send a letter to the member so

he understands. He can put it in his calendar so he can be there.

[1050]

C. Evans: That's very kind. Maybe the minister can do that

some weeks in advance, because I'm not so good at short-term….

Back to the Brilliant project. I wonder, in a general sense…. It

will begin this June, which will be a shortened fiscal year, but it is the

estimate of Columbia Power Corporation that the Brilliant project, when

operational and running for a full fiscal year, will return what revenue to the

Crown?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We'll try to get as much advance notice as

we possibly can to the member, understanding that his calendar is relatively

tight. But sometimes I've got to let you know that my calendar…. I find these

things out just a few weeks ahead of time. I'm sure it's important enough to the

member that he will be there regardless if it's just four days ahead of time

when

[ Page 7363 ]

he gets the invite — but you will get the invite, Member.

As I understand from Columbia Power Corporation staff, the total

net after a full operation, all things being equal, on average, depending on all

kinds of things — water, the price of electricity — will be in the neighbourhood

of $10 million net.

C. Evans: Will the Brilliant project be completed within

the original budget — contractual intentions — of Columbia Power Corporation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Hopefully, it will be in the original

budget. The contractor is claiming some extras, which Columbia Power Corporation

is dealing with the contractor on. Those numbers won't be known for a while, so

I would rather not speculate on them.

C. Evans: Will they be completed within the original time

estimate of the Columbia Power Corporation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The original time frame that Columbia

Power Corporation thought that the project would be finished, and I'm sure the

member is aware of this, was September of '06. As we spoke just a little while

ago, all things being equal, June of '07 is when it should become commercial.

C. Evans: I would like to say congratulations, through the

Chair to the minister and through the minister to Columbia Power Corporation. It

would appear, then, that the Brilliant project will be the second project

finished more or less on budget and within one calendar year of its original

time of operation. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I would say that Brilliant will be almost

a year late. I think, before we jump on that bandwagon, we better make sure we

find out what the exact numbers are out of Brilliant and what the contractor is

claiming for in Brilliant.

We don't know all those numbers yet. So before we get real happy

about dancing on the table, we should make sure we have all the numbers. I'm not

trying to be elusive. I'm trying to be honest and straightforward with the

member that until we get those numbers, we shouldn't say that it's meeting the

completion date and the dollar amount.

C. Evans: Yes, I appreciate that. The minister's caution is

in order, and I don't wish to exaggerate success before we get there.

Obviously, where I'm going here is pretty clear. It would appear

that the Columbia Power Corporation — in spite of some high-profile Crown

corporation overages, both in terms of time and dollars of both the previous

government, the New Democrats, and the present government, the Liberals — is now

on track to finish its second major project, more or less within its original

estimates of budget.

[1055]

I accept that there may be disputed charges on overages; that's

within our experience on just about everything that happens. I accept that we

may be as much as a year late or close to it. But there would appear to be

tremendous success in two areas in which we don't have a lot of experience in

recent years.

One is Crown corporations doing their job without failing to meet

their targets, and second is the creation of new power into the provincial grid,

which is utterly green and celebrated by everybody, because as everybody here

knows, both the Castlegar project and Brilliant are essentially technological

upgrades of historical operations which flood not one acre.

The Castlegar project. I was some time ago in discussions with

Seattle City Light about whether or not that power might have a "green" price

advantage to them.

My next question about Brilliant: is it possible that the power at

Brilliant would enter the grid or be sold in future anywhere and get a price

advantage as green energy?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I want to caution on the "let's

jump on the table" effect. We still don't know what's going to happen at the end

of the day with Brilliant. Arrow — not any fault of CPC — had some problems and

was shut down for quite a while to have a $51 million repair done to it not long

after it started generating electricity.

Columbia Power Corporation is a great corporation, if that's what

the member is getting at. I agree with that. B.C. Hydro is a great corporation.

British Columbia Transmission is a great corporation. They all do solid work for

the province and provide us with some of the greatest green energy that most

other jurisdictions can only dream about. So it's great.

In fact, if you look at what you get for electricity, there is a

green premium for green electricity, regardless of where it's produced. It

doesn't have to be produced by CPC. Even though your party has rejected and

outright said that we shouldn't be doing some of the run-of-the-river projects,

they are fully green — no different than Columbia Power Corporation's.

I would say that not everybody celebrates green energy. At least

it seems to me that that's the way it goes. But I would say it doesn't matter

who generates it. As long as it's green electricity, we should be happy, whether

it comes from CPC or some other independent power producer — which CPC is — from

someplace else. So yes, it could demand a premium, and the majority of it is

sold to B.C. Hydro.

C. Evans: That's great news. I would