2011 Legislative Session: Third Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 5

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Point of Order (Speaker's Ruling)

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act

Hon. M. Polak

Bill M206 — Election Transparency Amendment Act, 2011

B. Simpson

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Community Connections and services for East Kootenay families

B. Bennett

Doukhobor youth festival

K. Conroy

Cystic fibrosis

L. Reid

Camosun College child care services

R. Fleming

Golf in B.C.

J. Slater

Environmental school in Maple Ridge

M. Sather

Oral Questions

Conditions at Royal Columbian Hospital

A. Dix

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

Beds and facilities at Vernon Jubilee Hospital

S. Hammell

Hon. M. de Jong

Community Living B.C. and services for developmentally disabled persons

N. Simons

Hon. H. Bloy

Care plans for persons with disabilities

C. Trevena

Hon. H. Bloy

Services for developmentally disabled persons

M. Karagianis

Hon. H. Bloy

C. James

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

D. Routley

Hon. G. Abbott

D. Thorne

H. Bains

J. Brar

M. Sather

J. Kwan

G. Coons

B. Simpson

M. Farnworth

R. Austin

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment

Hon. T. Lake

R. Fleming

D. Donaldson

V. Huntington

[ Page 7151 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2011

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Polak: Today I rise to introduce some very special guests who have travelled here to join us in the gallery. They are members of the Yale First Nation, which is located in the lower Fraser Valley. I would like to first acknowledge Chief Robert Hope of the Yale First Nation, who is here with us on the floor of the assembly. [Applause.]

Earlier I was honoured to act as emcee at an event to mark today's introduction of the Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act. I'd like to single out three very remarkable young members of the Yale First Nation: Talon Coghill, age 12; Dyllan James, age 14; and Megan Hope, age 17. These young people represent the future of Yale First Nation and of British Columbia.

Earlier today they spoke about what treaty means to them and placed some personal objects, along with copies of their speeches, in a time capsule to be returned to Yale First Nation. There, all the children in the community will also have the opportunity to contribute personal items to the time capsule.

Also with us in the visitors' gallery today is Sophie Pierre, chief commissioner, along with fellow commissioners Dave Haggard and Celeste Haldane of the B.C. Treaty Commission. Joining them is Mark Smith with the BCTC.

From the First Nations Summit we are joined by Dan Smith, First Nations Summit Task Group; Leah George-Wilson, First Nations Summit co-chair; and Ray Harris, First Nations Summit co-chair.

I want to congratulate Chief Hope and the members of Yale First Nation, and I am extremely pleased that they are able to join us today. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is no one that you would not recognize in your office, hon. Speaker, going through drawers and such, and a good friend of the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill as well. My constituent Kody Bell is with us. Would the House please make him very, very, very welcome.

Hon. H. Bloy: I would like to welcome to the House today family members, advocates and others who support British Columbians living with developmental disabilities. Frank and open discussion is a hallmark of democratic institutions like this House here and is an essential part of finding solutions. Would the House please make them very welcome.

S. Fraser: Friends of mine are visiting in the gallery today. Dennis Adamson and Sequel Adamson, his daughter, are visiting to witness the introduction of the Yale treaty. Dennis is the electoral director area B for the Fraser Valley regional district. His daughter Sequel is a grade 5 student at C.E. Barry Middle School in Hope, and she's on the honour roll. Would you please join me in making them feel very welcome.

K. Heed: I ask that you join me in welcoming three constituents from Vancouver-Fraserview: Cathy Grant, Ed Harkness and John Watt.

M. Karagianis: A constituent of mine has joined us in the gallery today. He actually is the cohort of the aforementioned Kody Bell, an avid fan of question period and debates. I'd like you to welcome Mark Bridges.

Hon. M. McNeil: Joining us in the House today are two of my constituents from Vancouver–False Creek, Andy Hedley and Michael Mather. They are here along with other representatives from the B.C. Allied Golf Association. Would the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

D. Black: Two of my friends have been visiting the Legislature today. I would like to introduce them. They're Catherine Bell and Roger Kishi. Catherine Bell served with me in the House of Commons.

[1340]

She was the Member of Parliament for Vancouver Island North. She has now changed careers and has opened a restaurant in Courtenay called Zocalo Café. I understand it's a terrific restaurant. I would ask the members to please make them welcome today.

D. Horne: It's with pleasure that I introduce a close friend of mine who is here in the gallery today. Pam Hiller is here for the B.C. teachers institute, and I hope the House will make her truly welcome.

C. Trevena: In the precincts today there was a very special school visit from my constituency, from Kyuquot Elementary Secondary School. I think everybody has heard me talk about Kyuquot. It's, I think, the second most remote part of my constituency. They've come a long, long way to see how our Legislature works.

Joining the 23 grade 1s to 6s were Virginia Vincent, Larissa Hanson, Devon Hansen, Lisa Morrison, Jen Manuel, Nick Caumanns, Ron Chidley, Wayne Vincent Sr. and Priscilla Jack. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

[ Page 7152 ]

Hon. B. Penner: It is truly a terrific day. I have the honour to represent and introduce today a number of constituents. With the introduction of the legislation to enable the completion of the Yale First Nation treaty, a number of constituents have travelled from the Fraser Canyon and the upper Fraser Valley.

Already the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim has introduced Dennis Adamson and his very bright daughter Sequel. In addition, a previous electoral area representative from the Fraser Valley regional district, Terry Raymond, is here today as well.

I'd like the House to make him welcome, as well as all the members of the Yale First Nation, including Chief Robert Hope.

N. Simons: I'd like to echo the words of the Minister of Social Development in welcoming people representing families with members who have developmental disabilities or disabilities. In particular, I'd like to welcome Cathy Grant, Ed Harkness, John Watt and Maria Squance from B.C. FamilyNet; Dawn Steele from Moms on the Move; Pat Danforth from the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities; Bob Wilson from the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union; along with family advocates Allan McNeely, Wendy Lilley and Sandra Philips.

Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: Joining us in the gallery today is a good friend from Prince George, a constituent of the Solicitor General but someone who constantly watches question period every day. I'd like opposition members as well as government members to make sure that Mr. Dennis Jackson has a great show today.

D. Routley: I have two introductions today. Joining us in the precinct are 42 grade 4 students from Georgia Avenue community school in Nanaimo with their teacher Melody Botten and, I believe, ten parents. They have had a wonderful time with a tour, and I was able to speak to the kids. So I'd like the members to help me make them all welcome to the precinct.

Secondly, I'd like the House to help me welcome my friend Kurt Knock. He's visiting us from Duncan. He's actually a constituent of the member for Cowichan Valley but a good friend of my partner Leanne and mine. Kurt is a longtime cyclist and markets his own bicycles, Everti Bicycles, but he's also a very accomplished photographer. Kurt Knock Photography is the business that he runs.

He's looking to expand his talents, and he's ready to take pictures of all the members, particularly the members opposite. I would like the House to help me make Kurt very welcome.

R. Lee: Visiting the House today are 31 grade 5 students from Holy Cross Elementary School in Burnaby, with nine adults. Would the House help me to welcome them.

D. Donaldson: I don't often have a chance to welcome school groups from a thousand kilometres north of here, but today the Kispiox community school class is visiting. Kispiox village is part of the Gitxsan Nation. They welcome students from all backgrounds. Their teacher Brian Muldon is here as well. Would the House make them welcome.

[1345]

L. Reid: Hon. Members, in the House today I am pleased to welcome 15 teachers from across British Columbia who have been selected to participate in the 12th B.C. Teachers Institute on Parliamentary Democracy. They will be with us for the remainder of this week, expanding their knowledge of our parliamentary system. They are joined by three of their peers who are returning alumni acting in the role of facilitator — Ms. Gaye Burton-Coe, Mr. Bud Linquist and Mr. Robert Boates.

I trust you'll take this opportunity to meet with them at tomorrow's luncheon hosted by the hon. Minister of Education. Would you please make them feel very welcome.

Point of Order

(Speaker's Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, on Monday morning, May 16, the member for Cariboo North rose on a point of order pertaining to the conduct of private members' time and particularly directed his attention to Standing Order 25A. On raising his point of order, the hon. member asked for guidance from the Chair as to three questions.

(1) What is the spirit and the intent of the private members' time?

(2) What process is to be used to determine which MLAs get time?

(3) Are speakers lists necessary for respondents, or do these lists undermine the spirit of the intent of private members' time?

Firstly, there have been several Speaker's decisions on the nature and intent of private members' statements, and I refer hon. members to the fourth edition of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , pages 60 and 61. Basically, the intent was to provide a definite and certain time on Orders of the Day when members other than cabinet ministers could bring to the attention of the House matters of concern which did not fall into other proceedings of the House.

The second question the hon. member has put to the Chair is the relation to the process used to determine which MLAs get time during private members' statements. Standing Order 25A(2) suggests that such

[ Page 7153 ]

a determination is made by the Speaker after drawing lots. When this standing order was first used, it was discovered that random drawing of lots often produced an undesirable result, in that four random choices could produce the effect that all private members' statements on a particular day would go to one party or another.

Accordingly, the practice developed that the designated members on private members' day were chosen by agreement between the House Leaders, and this process has worked admirably over the years that Standing Order 25 has been in place. It was hoped that with the advent of independent members, their turn to be chosen for private members would be negotiated in the same spirit of fairness that has prevailed over the years.

As Speaker, I would hope that the existing processes would be continued and that independent members would be part of the process and would be prepared to accept the decision by the House Leaders of the majority parties. The Chair would suggest that the overriding principle is that of fairness. I have every reason to believe that the principle will be observed in allocating the time for private members' statements.

The final question put to the Chair was whether or not speakers lists are necessary or do they undermine the spirit and the intent of private members' time. In relation to this last question, it seems to the Chair that respondents lists add some certainty to the House proceedings and also provide time for preparation of replies when appropriate. Once the subject matter of the statement is known, research can be commenced on the reply, thereby adding, hopefully, to the quality of debate on the particular subject.

Failing this consensual approach to the allocation of time in private members' statements, an arbitrary mathematical decision could be devised, bearing in mind the number of members and the number of independent members.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Yale First Nation

Final Agreement Act

Hon. M. Polak presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak: I am honoured today to introduce Bill 11, the Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act.

[1350]

This landmark legislation will enable the Yale final agreement, British Columbia's third modern treaty, to reach the Legislature under the framework of B.C.'s treaty process, which was established in 1992.

Chief Hope, whom I introduced a few minutes ago, has been at the treaty table since the beginning and has worked tirelessly to bring this treaty to his people. In fact, Chief Hope is here carrying out the work of his father, the late elder and Chief, Lawrence Hope, who was also a great champion of this treaty and who I think we can all agree would be very proud of his son and his people today.

The Premier and I were very privileged to attend an event with Chief Hope and members of the Yale First Nation earlier today recognizing this historic day. I was particularly moved by the children and young people of Yale who joined us today. Their spirit and enthusiasm is infectious, and I was struck by their optimism for their future under this treaty.

The treaty removes the Yale First Nation from the federal Indian Act. It provides the Yale First Nation with self-government powers that will allow them to design and deliver programming in a way that best supports the Yale community and their families. This treaty converts the uncertainty regarding Yale First Nation's aboriginal rights and title into defined treaty rights. It establishes ownership and management of lands and resources within Yale's traditional territory, and it provides land and financial resources so Yale can create economic opportunities and jobs for their families.

Chief Hope has described treaties as having the potential to be the single largest catalyst for economic development, partnership and improved governance in British Columbia. It is an extraordinary moment for the Yale people and all British Columbians, because we all benefit when local economies flourish, when neighbours support one another and when there is stability on the land base.

I am honoured to bring this settlement legislation to the chamber, and I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M206 — Election Transparency

Amendment Act, 2011

B. Simpson presented a bill intituled Election Transparency Amendment Act, 2011.

B. Simpson: I move that this bill be introduced and read now for a first time.

[ Page 7154 ]

Motion approved.

B. Simpson: The Election Transparency Amendment Act legislates the reporting of political donations during a general election. It will enable voters to make a more informed choice when they mark a ballot, as it requires candidates, constituency associations and political parties to submit ongoing reports to Elections B.C. during the election period.

The first comprehensive donation report will be required on the tenth day of a general election, and all donations received from the last public report by Elections B.C. would be disclosed. Thereafter candidates, constituency associations and political parties would be required to update their donors list on a daily basis.

This act will ensure that the public will be able to see which organizations and individuals are donating to political candidates and political parties prior to making their choice on election day.

During the recent leadership contests of both political parties, leadership candidates publicly reported who donated to their campaigns prior to party members selecting a leader. This level of transparency is laudable. The Election Transparency Amendment Act would simply extend this right to know to all voters during general elections.

I move that the bill be placed on the order paper for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M206, Election Transparency Amendment Act, 2011, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS AND

SERVICES FOR EAST KOOTENAY FAMILIES

B. Bennett: One of the most important things that we can do as MLAs here in the House is to give voice to our constituents who can't be here to speak for themselves, particularly where you have a group of constituents who are working towards a noble goal.

I'm speaking today on behalf of a small non-profit society from Cranbrook in the East Kootenay known as Community Connections. These individuals are mostly volunteers. They're led by a woman by the name of Gwen Noble, and they work with children in our region.

[1355]

They're involved with things like assessment, child care resource and referral, early intervention, preschool, supported child development, infant development, pediatricians, Children First, developmental disability services, mental health services — just some of the things that they work with and services that are delivered across the region.

Most of the regions of the province have a coordinated network of child health and development services, and parents can go in and find the services they need in one place, as opposed to having to scramble and try and figure out the maze of services that we have.

We'd like, in the East Kootenay, to emulate communities like Fort Nelson, Fort St. John, Smithers, Quesnel, Williams Lake, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton and their child health centres.

That's where Gwen Noble and her hard-working volunteers come in. Gwen and a small group of dedicated volunteers have been working away tirelessly, acquiring a good building, improving that building, raising money. Community Connections has so far raised $350,000 from our community.

Families will stay in rural communities when they know there's access to services for their children. The promise of a new child health and development centre in Cranbrook has already helped us attract two new pediatricians to our area. We need to retain them. We also need to attract more specialists for our children.

In conclusion, I look forward to working with government and with Community Connections to ensure that rural families get the support they need in the East Kootenay.

DOUKHOBOR YOUTH FESTIVAL

K. Conroy: This coming weekend the 64th annual Union of Spiritual Communities of Christ Union of Youth Festival will be celebrated. Every year this festival attracts upwards of 1,500 people to the Brilliant Cultural Centre just outside of Castlegar for a weekend full of culture, song, prayer, food and fun. The first festival was held in 1948 in Grand Forks on the Easter weekend. Since then the festival has grown significantly, moving to the Brilliant Cultural Centre and held on the May long weekend.

This year's theme is "Strengthening Doukhobor connections: forging unity, celebrating culture and sharing hope." The three-day festival kicks off Saturday morning, followed by the ever-popular Saturday evening variety program. On Sunday the festival begins with a traditional Doukhobor prayer meeting, followed by performances leading into the late afternoon. The festival wraps up on Monday with a fun-filled family sports day, including children's games, softball and family picnics.

[ Page 7155 ]

theme. Dignitaries from all walks of life bring greetings throughout the weekend.

It is a great opportunity to share the mouth-watering meals the Doukhobors have become famous for — borscht, pyrahi, lapsha, pickles, atvar, homemade bread and always-delicious pies.

It's a moving experience to be in the cultural centre with its incredible acoustic properties and listen to the choirs join their voices together. It's a sound that makes one feel awed and fortunate to be in the company of such amazing talent.

The USCC Union of Youth Council organizes the weekend with some help from the Doukhobor elders, but the council themselves work to prepare this exciting weekend. Their ages range from 15 to 30, and it is great to watch these young people in leadership roles ensuring their Doukhobor heritage is here to stay for many more years to come in our country and this province.

CYSTIC FIBROSIS

L. Reid: I rise today to pay tribute to the individuals in this building who work for this cause. I thank each and every one of them.

For thousands of people living in communities throughout Canada, cystic fibrosis is very much a reality. Cystic fibrosis is the most common fatal disease affecting young Canadians today.

While the vast majority of us take simple acts of breathing for granted, most of those living with cystic fibrosis must undergo hours each day of physical and inhalation therapy. This is just one of the many physical hardships facing those living with the disease. It is why May has been declared Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month to help bring a greater understanding of those who live with it each and every day.

There is currently no cure for cystic fibrosis. In the 1960s most children with cystic fibrosis did not live long enough to attend kindergarten. Today half of all Canadians are expected to live into their 40s and beyond.

This could not have been done without the amazing fundraising efforts sponsored by Cystic Fibrosis Canada — the Great Strides walk, which takes place this month in communities across the country; and Shinerama, where post-secondary students from coast to coast collect donations every September for cystic fibrosis research. We must also recognize Kin Canada for their continued support in raising funds and awareness to help combat this disease.

It is through fundraisers and dedicated volunteers such as these that one day help will make CF stand not for "cystic fibrosis" but for "cure found." It's time to breathe new life into this disease.

[1400]

CAMOSUN COLLEGE

CHILD CARE SERVICES

R. Fleming: I want to recognize today an extremely valuable organization in my community, the Camosun College child care services organization, who are celebrating a significant anniversary, their 20th anniversary, and holding a garden party on Sunday, May 29 to commemorate that. May is Child Care Month, so it's only fitting that we acknowledge this best-practice facility in my community.

The demand for quality child care in the capital region remains very high, and since 1990 Camosun College child care services has been providing quality child care on campus, allowing parents the opportunity to pursue their educational and career goals while raising children.

The centre provides small caregiving groups and respect for cultural diversity in a safe, supportive and nurturing environment. It also provides educational opportunities for students in early childhood education to complete observations, conduct research, provide workshops, interviews and obtain supervised practicum experiences.

As the opposition Environment critic, I'm also very pleased to report that both the child care facilities look for opportunities to promote sustainability. Recently they replaced disposable juice cartons with reusable containers for liquids, and I'm told that during snack and lunch times the children identify and separate anything recyclable or compostable into bins.

This child care service has been recognized and is nominated for the Prime Minister's Awards for Excellence in Early Childhood Education. I hope and expect that we will hear a positive announcement from Ottawa to award this centre in the fall.

I invite all members of this House to join me in thanking the Camosun College child care services operations manager, Lisa Stekelenburg, and past and present staff who do so much for children and their families in my community, and to recognize this extraordinary anniversary.

GOLF IN B.C.

J. Slater: I'd like to talk today about golf. Today is Golf Awareness Day, and I rise to pay tribute to a sport that I love and that has done so much for British Columbia.

Let's start with golf's immense economic impact. Some 14½ million rounds of golf are played every year in B.C. That sustains over 17,000 seasonal and full-time jobs in the province. A lot of those jobs are filled by the youth of our communities and account for $477 million in direct household income.

In 2007 the International Association of Golf Tour Operators named B.C. as the best golf destination in

[ Page 7156 ]

North America. According to the B.C. Golf Association, those destination golfers spent $330 million on travel, accommodation and meals in B.C. As anyone who has played our B.C. courses can tell you, they are world-class.

In the Boundary-Similkameen I have nine golf courses: Christina Lake, Kettle Valley, Sonora Dunes, Osooyos Desert, Osooyos Parkmeadows, Nk'Mip Canyon Desert, Fairview Mountain, Twin Lakes and St. Andrews by the Lake. Yes, I have to admit that I've played them all.

Economic impact aside, golf is one of the few sports that families can play together, involving kids to parents to seniors. Many of the golf courses have junior programs that are geared to having youth get involved. Golf doesn't demand you be tall, muscular, thin or heavy, but it does provide you with the opportunity for great exercise: walking.

From tourism dollars to jobs to simple weekend outings with families, golf is a sport that can be enjoyed by every member of the family. Fore!

ENVIRONMENTAL SCHOOL IN MAPLE RIDGE

M. Sather: A new school is opening up in the district of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, one without walls, textbooks or desks. [Applause.]

I've got to get extra time there, Mr. Speaker.

One without walls, textbooks or desks — at least not in the way we usually think of them. Instead, the walls will sometimes be the tent of a donated yurt; the textbooks, the leaves of the trees; and the desks will be the grass, rocks and fields.

Nature is the classroom, and the community itself becomes the school. A school is not a building. A school is a place of learning. Imagine what happens when you get rid of the walls, and children are outside in contact with their subjects all the time.

[1405]

School district 42 is opening its first-ever environmental school, an idea that grew from imagining that learning can happen outside the box, literally. It will be based on the principles of place and community, nature, ecology and sustainability, inquiry and possibility, interdependence and flourishing, imagination and integration.

Sixty children from kindergarten to grade 7 will participate in this unique opportunity. Three teachers will go through the regular curriculum in a way that is consistently interwoven with the outdoor setting. There will be remarkable fluidity between the grades. Children will be able to help others of different ages while being challenged at their individual learning level.

Clayton Maitland is the vice-principal and coordinator of this project. Since August 2008 his passionate involvement has linked the cooperation of the municipalities, parks and rec, First Nations and environmental groups.

A $1 million grant over five years from SFU, in addition to regular funding from the school district, has given this brainchild its legs, which will begin walking this September. I am proud that Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows is the location of this school and believe that our fabulous parks and environment are the perfect classroom for these lucky, adventurous students.

Thank you to Mr. Maitland, the parents, the school board and community groups such as KEEPS, ARMS and the CEED Centre for believing in the power of our greatest teacher, planet Earth.

Oral Questions

CONDITIONS AT

ROYAL COLUMBIAN HOSPITAL

A. Dix: Today at Royal Columbian Hospital there are 20 hallway beds full. At ten o'clock there were 55 patients admitted to the emergency room in overflow areas, waiting to go up to the wards. It's a pretty typical day at Royal Columbian after years of government neglect.

It's particularly keenly felt in the neurosurgery wards of the hospital, and I want to ask the minister if he thinks a hallway is an appropriate place for a neurosurgery patient recovering from serious surgery to be getting care.

Hon. M. de Jong: There's no question that there are still facilities, Royal Columbian Hospital being one of them, where our dedicated health care professionals are still confronted by some challenges. That translates into challenges for patients, and it's why the government, over the last ten years, has taken such extraordinary steps to improve the capital infrastructure — that is, the hospitals that are available.

Whether or not it's at Surrey Memorial, whether it's the Pattison care centre that is due to open just in a matter of days, whether it's Abbotsford, whether it's VGH, these represent in total upwards of $7 billion in capital investment in improving the health care infrastructure.

There are still challenges, and this government is going to apply itself with every diligence and make every effort to address those challenges, just as we've done over the past ten years.

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

A. Dix: Whether or not it's the Premier's campaign chair, the Solicitor General, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Finance or, now, the new Minister of Health, for the last ten years the government of British Columbia has let down the staff at Royal Columbian Hospital. They've been warned again and again about this crisis, and they have done nothing except close down the 71 acute care beds at St. Mary's.

[ Page 7157 ]

The fact of the matter is that it is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to be put in the position that a woman has been put in this past week at that hospital. It's contrary to the policy of the hospital where we have a patient recovering from neurosurgery to be put in the hallway.

It wasn't because the staff wasn't working hard. It's because they had no more option. When is the government finally, after years of neglect to this hospital, going to take action and improve the situation at Royal Columbian Hospital?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm a bit surprised. I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition, as a former Health critic, would have been aware that we have already begun to take that action, that we have…

[1410]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: …initiated the preparation of a site redevelopment plan.

There's no question that this is expensive. The redevelopment of the site, in addition to the $60 million or $70 million that has already been spent, will be very expensive. Just down the road at the Surrey Memorial Hospital is the single largest investment ever made in hospital infrastructure, and the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: …member for Surrey-Fleetwood today in this place seems to diminish the importance of that. If I go into my hard drive here, I think I can find a picture of him at the opening, smiling broadly.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister, and wrap it up, please.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, there are challenges. There will continue to be challenges. But the record of this government, reflected as it is in over $7 billion of investment in hospital and health care infrastructure, is the single biggest guarantor of our commitment to B.C. families.

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

A. Dix: Well, it's clear that the nurses and the doctors and the health care workers and the patients at Royal Columbian Hospital have been let down for years by this government. The government talks about a site development plan.

Eight years after they were warned of this crisis by emergency room physicians they talk about a site development plan, seven years after they got the acute care capacity initiative results that told them they were way down in acute care beds at Royal Columbian Hospital. It's clear that the patients at the Royal Columbian Hospital rolled up the rim, but they did not win.

I asked the question to the hon. minister. I asked the question to him, which is pretty clear. They have failed again and again. They haven't taken action. They got a development plan 18 months ago. They still haven't taken action. When is the minister going to get off these delays and take action for the patients at Royal Columbian Hospital, who have suffered enough from the incompetence of successive Ministers of Health?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I have been as forthright as, I think, one can be. I acknowledge that there are ongoing challenges, but when we make decisions, when we try to balance our passion and commitment to build with the ability of the taxpayers to finance that construction, we do make choices. We made choices.

The hon. member was in Vernon. Somehow the leader of the NDP, the Leader of the Official Opposition, found a way to characterize as bad news a $180 million investment at Vernon Jubilee Hospital. Today he stands here and purports to be offended by what is taking place — $7 billion in capital investment.

I wonder how offended he was when the government that he advised for a decade left a tower in Vancouver 12 floors empty for an entire decade. I wonder how offended he was then.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

[1415]

M. Farnworth: Actually, Member, the outrage is by the public of British Columbia. The outrage is the members of a family whose loved one has been recovering in a hallway in Royal Columbian Hospital. The outrage is from doctors and nurses and physicians and patients and the public, who have been waiting for eight years for improvements at Royal Columbian Hospital since St. Mary's was closed and demolished.

The question is clear. When will the minister address the concerns of the health care providers of this province at Royal Columbian and the public, who expect a lot better at Royal Columbian than they've been getting for the last eight years?

[ Page 7158 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm always interested when members of the opposition, including former Health Ministers, include in their questions references to doctors and nurses, because of course when they had an opportunity to make a difference, they chose not to train one additional nurse or one additional doctor.

The member referred to the eight-year period. It takes eight years from the time someone enters university to when they are trained and qualified to provide just the kind of service members of the opposition say they care about for B.C. families.

We have doubled the number of doctors that are being….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: We have made the long-term investment necessary to significantly increase the number of nurses that are trained in British Columbia. We will apply ourselves with equal diligence to ensuring that the families that rely on Surrey Memorial Hospital or Royal Columbian Hospital have the service that they require in a timely way. That's our commitment, and we will see that commitment through.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: It's 2011, and Tim Hortons health care is no longer acceptable in the province of British Columbia. Doctors have been making it clear, and nurses have been making it clear, and health care professionals have been making it clear.

For the last eight years since this government closed and demolished St. Mary's Hospital, there has been crisis after crisis in Royal Columbian Hospital, and this government has failed to address that. It's not about $7 billion. It's not about Surrey Memorial. It's about Royal Columbian Hospital and the crisis in there and a woman recovering from serious surgery in a hallway.

When is this minister going to actually finally act and fix the problems in Royal Columbian Hospital?

Hon. M. de Jong: As I mentioned a few moments ago, the record of this government in addressing the health care needs of British Columbians in terms of the professionals that we rely upon, in terms of the facilities that we rely upon, will withstand any scrutiny whatsoever.

We are going to continue to do the work. We are going to continue to train the professionals. We are going to continue to invest in a responsible way. That includes Royal Columbian Hospital, but it also includes Vernon Jubilee, VGH, Women's Hospital, Children's Hospital, Surrey Memorial, St. Paul's and Abbotsford Hospital, which these folks over there left languishing for an entire decade.

The difference between this government and those folks is when we say we're going to do it, we do it. It's not just talk. It's action, and that's what distinguishes this government from that opposition.

[1420]

BEDS AND FACILITIES AT

VERNON JUBILEE HOSPITAL

S. Hammell: Minister, the Leader of the Opposition is not the only one concerned about Vernon Jubilee Hospital. On May 9 Vernon city council voted publicly to endorse a purple-ribbon community campaign that is protesting the crowded conditions at Vernon Jubilee Hospital.

The solution is obvious. The patient tower being built at Vernon Jubilee has the space but not the beds. Will the Minister of Health listen to the people of Vernon, listen to the doctors and nurses in Vernon and promise to open more acute beds at Vernon Jubilee Hospital?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, it was also good to see her at the sod-turning at the Surrey Memorial campus just a few weeks ago.

The situation at Vernon Jubilee, to put it in some sort of context, of course, revolves around a $180 million investment in health care infrastructure in a new patient tower. It includes a state-of-the-art ICU, state-of-the-art maternity care, state-of-the-art surgical facilities and expanded emergency room provision as well. It is a significant investment in improving the delivery of health care services in Vernon.

I have been to Vernon. In fact, it was one of my first stops upon taking responsibility for this portfolio. I have met with the clinicians. I understand the pressures that have been felt, and we are working with them and the health authority to ensure that there is a plan in place to address those pressures that capitalizes upon that $180 million investment at the Vernon Jubilee Hospital.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Hammell: To the Health Minister again: I thank you for welcoming me to Surrey Memorial sod-turning, but I didn't come there to celebrate. I came there to underline the years and years of neglect for the Surrey Memorial Hospital and health care in Surrey.

A $180 million tower is being built without the gain of one more acute care beds at Vernon Jubilee Hospital. It's almost perverse. A new tower is built, and two floors are left as empty shelves. I mean, what are you thinking? In the future, code purples will be announced regularly and daily in a brand-new shiny tower.

Will the minister commit to opening more acute care beds at Vernon Jubilee Hospital?

Hon. M. de Jong: I accept as genuine the member's expression of concern. I can only imagine the outrage

[ Page 7159 ]

she must have felt when she was a member of a government that presided for a decade over not two floors, not four floors, not six floors, not eight, not ten but 12 empty floors at VGH — 12 empty floors.

The member chooses to assign no value to the benefits of an enhanced emergency room facility. She chooses to assign no value to a state-of-the-art ICU. She chooses to assign no value to the new surgical facilities that are going to be available there. I can assure her of this: having met with the clinicians in Vernon, they do.

[1425]

They also have concerns about some ongoing pressures, and the MLA from Vernon, myself and this government, on behalf of the families of the Vernon area and those served by Vernon Jubilee Hospital, are going to work on that, and we are going to ensure that there is a plan in place to address those pressures.

COMMUNITY LIVING B.C. AND SERVICES FOR

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS

N. Simons: It was seven years ago tomorrow, in fact, that the Community Living Authority Act was introduced for the first time in this Legislature, creating Community Living B.C. With it were the hopes of families of people with developmental disabilities, their advocates. They'd worked hard on this.

Seven years later, after being told by then Deputy Premier and current Premier Christy Clark that this legislation gives British Columbians with developmental disabilities and their families better options and more opportunities in their communities…. They'll be able to look forward to a safer, healthier and better quality of life.

Well, unfortunately, the reality in communities across this province does not match that description. Will the minister acknowledge the problems that exist, and will he do what's necessary to honour the promises that were made seven years ago and provide the resources necessary for people with developmental disabilities in this province?

Hon. H. Bloy: I am listening to the concerns of these families. Their dedication and hard work on behalf of family members and others in the community with developmental disabilities is admirable. You know, these parents and caregivers are the very backbone of community inclusion, and we are working to serve every member of Community Living British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: MLAs are getting letters from families concerned about their family members languishing on wait-lists, unable to get services, worried about the future of their children. This is a crisis in this province. They were promised. They were given hope. Hopes were raised, and hopes were dashed. Promises were made, and promises were broken.

The Premier, Christy Clark, said back then that we have such an opportunity here in British Columbia to do something great, to do something innovative and to do something that leads the world and that will be good for all people who depend on the services government provides. Yes, an admirable goal, if it weren't so sad with the truth of the matter, and that is that those goals have not been reached.

Seven years later these families are waiting. Advocates are speaking out loudly and clearly. If the minister doesn't understand, I hope someone does on that side of the House that these needs need to be addressed, and they need to be addressed urgently. Will the minister do what his government has said they'd be doing and provide the necessary resources so that families in this province don't have to live from one crisis to the next?

Hon. H. Bloy: I can assure the members across the street that this government is concerned and is working with other government ministries, with other government organizations to provide the individuals that they need with the support. But let me assure the members across the street that we have always supported Community Living British Columbia. We've invested now…. Mr. Speaker, $701 million was our budget this year. In fact, in the last three years we've increased our budget by $31 million, servicing over 13,000 individuals in this community.

CARE PLANS FOR

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

C. Trevena: Lesley Wasylyk's daughter Margo has a developmental disability as well as a progressive genetic condition that impairs her balance and coordination. She needs one-on-one supervision at all times and needs help with all of her personal care.

[1430]

Yesterday in this House the Minister of Social Development talked about the importance of drawing up plans. Well, Lesley submitted a three-year plan for Margo's care before she turned 19. Eight months later that plan, for which the family was praised by CLBC, has not been funded. Lesley and her husband are exhausted trying to provide 24-7 care for Margo. They're being pushed to a crisis. I'd like to ask the Minister of Social Development whether he still believes that support for families like the Wasylyks is adequate.

Hon. H. Bloy: I can't talk about individual cases, due to confidentiality. I would invite the member to send the information to me, and I'd be pleased to sit down and talk to her. We are committed to helping every individual

[ Page 7160 ]

within Community Living B.C., and I look forward to receiving the plan so that we can talk about it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I'm very surprised by the minister. This case has come directly to the minister. I was actually copied on a letter that was addressed to the minister, so it is on his desk.

I would like to ask the minister, however — if we are not going to a specific case, which I hope he does address, having had the letter on his desk — whether he thinks that the plans he talks so articulately about should be addressed. These are plans drawn up with CLBC by families with the complete trust that they will be funded, and then they turn around and are told that no matter what the level of need, there isn't the money.

What are these families supposed to do, Minister? Are you going to respect the plans? Are you going to implement the plans? What are you going to do as a minister?

Hon. H. Bloy: You know, dealing with individuals in Community Living British Columbia is not without its challenges for the families and/or for government. But I support the work that Community Living British Columbia does. I support the 3,200 care providers there and the employees. We are helping over 13,000 individuals a year with a budget of over $700 million. It's a $31 million increase over the last three years.

We're here to work with every family and to support every family.

SERVICES FOR

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS

M. Karagianis: In 2004 the Premier, Christy Clark, promised that the creation of CLBC would change the lives of people with developmental disabilities and their families for the better. But the Caulder family, who live in my community, can attest to the failure of that promise.

Christie Caulder was forced out of a group home against her family's wishes. She had her services cut by two-thirds, and she's currently been put in a setting with inadequate staffing for her needs. As a result, she has lost weight — and at 80 pounds, she cannot afford to lose any weight — and she's been hospitalized for illness for the first time in 15 years. Her mother is worried for her daughter's safety.

So I'd like to know when this callous B.C. Liberal government is going to stop denying the crisis at hand in community living and ensure that people like Christie are living in a safe environment.

Hon. H. Bloy: Let me assure the member across the way and people in British Columbia that the first concern of Community Living B.C. is the individuals they serve. They are now serving over 13,000 individuals a year with services and programs. In fact, last year 766 new individuals came into the system with services, and over a thousand individuals received services who were already in the system.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: The reality is that hundreds and hundreds of families in this province are finding themselves with little or no services. Families are paying the price, and this minister and this government are in complete denial about it. Families are here today to tell this government that they have been pushed to the crisis limit. It doesn't get any clearer than that, hon. Speaker.

To the minister responsible: will you commit to the families today that you will give them adequate services, because the families are depending on you to do something? Do something about this.

[1435]

Hon. H. Bloy: As I said earlier, providing services is a challenge for some of the families and for government to do it. We have worked at it. We have been increasing services. I've met with the British Columbia Association for Community Living, and I look forward to meeting with many other groups. They've sent in requests, and we're setting up meetings this June to meet with them.

C. James: For seven years families have been working hard, advocates have been working hard, and caregivers have been working hard. They deserve better than they're getting from this government and this minister today.

Parents are told that they have to put together plans. They put together plans, they submit the plans, and then what happens? Nothing. No resources after all that work that they've done putting that together.

My question is to the minister. How does this government's inaction put families first?

Hon. H. Bloy: As a government, and Community Living B.C. was initiated by this government…. It's celebrating its seventh-year anniversary. There are lots of great achievements with Community Living B.C. It's recognized as a leader in Canada for the development work that they are doing. Many advocates support the work that we're doing, and I look forward to meeting with these groups on how we can always improve.

This government has always supported Community Living British Columbia with more money every year, year after year, with more services year after year. This government has been a full partner in working with Community Living British Columbia and all the individuals with developmental disabilities that we serve.

[End of question period.]

[ Page 7161 ]

Point of Order

B. Ralston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It concerns the

interpretation of a motion passed by the assembly constituting the Special Committee to Appoint a Chief Electoral Officer. The committee was constituted by motion of the House on Thursday, May 6, 2010. The committee was charged, among other things, that it "shall report to the House as soon as possible or following any adjournment or at the next following session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment, and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly."

The committee last met on February 9, 2011. The new session of this parliament, obviously the third, began in February 2011. The House sat February 14 to 17 and then regularly from April 28 until today's date.

Contrary to the clear motion of this assembly, which gives it its powers, the committee has not in fact reported to this House. I seek your ruling on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I'll take it under advisement.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. McRae: I have three constituents from the Comox Valley in the House today, and I'd like to introduce them if I may.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. D. McRae: Three great teachers are here attending the B.C. teachers institute. We have Ian Hargreaves from Miracle Beach Elementary; Carolyn Parrish from Queneesh Elementary School; and Liska Roger who, when I was in elementary school, I used to call Liska Mark. She's gotten married since. She is from Airport Elementary School.

I would like to ask the House to please make these people welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon, we will be continuing the estimates of the Minister of Education, and in Committee A, we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

[1440]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

On Vote 22: ministry operations, $5,241,877,000 (continued).

D. Routley: I'll begin in a Shakespearean tone, and I'm sure the minister will appreciate that. I will say that lawless are those who make their wills their law. I think the recent decision by Madam Justice Griffin reminds us that the will that was driving the government in 2002 to make the changes it deemed necessary allowed it to become lawless in that it made changes to the collective bargaining process and the contract process for the teachers of this province and that stu dents have paid the price for that ever since.

Clearly, the government had its intentions, and those intentions were spelled out in material that was before the courts. In 2002 then Education Minister Christy Clark avowed that she was delighted to speak in favour of Bill 28, the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act. She said that it was about putting students first in that it would meet the needs of individual children.

Well, it became clear that that bill was never about students and that it was about the dismantling of the system. In fact, in material that was put before the court it showed that many months in advance, officials in the Education Ministry and the minister herself, now Premier, knew that the legislation they were passing would mean deep cuts and hundreds of millions of dollars per year cut from the education services for children, which would result in the massive layoffs that we saw of teachers, larger class sizes and less support.

The districts that I represent, district 79 in the Cowichan Valley and district 68 in Nanaimo, are still struggling with the effects of that bill. The justice gave the government one year to rectify the problems that bill has created.

Can the minister tell us: are the plans of the government to restore the funding and the services to the levels that were expected at that time, or will they simply be responding by adapting the legislation to the current needs of this budget?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member's question, but this is an area that we canvassed fully yesterday. I would refer him to the exchange that occurred between the Education critic and myself at some length yesterday. This precise question was asked and answered yesterday. The member should check Hansard from yesterday, because he'll see the answer to the question he's just posed.

D. Routley: In fact, I'm asking in relation to the struggles of district 68 and district 79, which have for years and years struggled with deficits as a result of that legislation. This year there was a $5.8 million shortfall

[ Page 7162 ]

in Cowichan that was reduced to $1.4 million after the funding protection grant. Still, the $1.4 million that was required to satisfy a balanced budget had to come from somewhere, and it came from services to children. As I said, the effects of Bill 27 and 28 are still being felt in that district.

Can the minister answer the question? Will they answer the demand of the justice? In fact, will the government act to restore these conditions by September? If they take the year to respond to the justice's decision, then the children in the districts that I serve will have to wait another budget year to see any effect of that. Really, we're talking more a two-year lag before there's any effect.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'd be delighted to respond to any question the member had with respect to school district 68, Nanaimo-Ladysmith, or school district 79, Cowichan Valley. But we canvassed fully the issue of the discussion and the negotiation between the B.C. Teachers Federation and the government and BCPSEA yesterday.

[1450]

D. Routley: It's unfortunate. I have referred to the deficit that has been created in Cowichan and how that deficit was created by this decision. I'm asking, for the constituents of the Cowichan Valley and Nanaimo: is the minister going to respond to their need?

They had a $1.4 million deficit this year. They had to cut their literacy and numeracy coordinators to satisfy that deficit. That was just one of the services they had to cut. So I'm asking: can they expect to be able to restore those services as a result of the government responding to the demands made by Justice Griffin?

Hon. G. Abbott: Let me begin by reviewing enrolment and operating funding and per-pupil funding at Nanaimo-Ladysmith. In 2000-2001 there was a full-time enrolment of 16,252 students at Nanaimo-Ladysmith school district. By a decade later that number had been reduced to just over 13,800, and it may have dropped, in fact, a little bit below that. That is a substantial decline in the enrolment that has occurred in that school district over a decade and is consistent with the demographic shift that has occurred in many school districts across the province.

For school district 68 — and this is important to note — the operating funding provided by the government to Nanaimo-Ladysmith school district in 2000-2001 was $99,158,939 — so over $99 million in 2000-2001. Today their funding is $117.7 million plus. It will be just over that, and per-pupil funding has grown from $6,101 per student to $8,622 per student in Nanaimo-Ladysmith.

We can talk all day long about that if the member wishes. Not to repeat old ground, but a couple of the members mentioned yesterday…. I thought it was interesting. They claimed underfunding, so to ground-proof the question of whether funding had been appropriate or inappropriate, I went back and looked at the NDP's education budget for 2009-2012, as set out in their education platform for the 2009 campaign.

Interestingly, when you put together the three-year plan of the NDP through those years, it totals $225 million. The government actual for those three years was $254 million. That is $29 million more than the plan that had been proposed by the NDP in the 2009 election.

You know, that's fascinating. I guess the easiest thing that any member can claim is: "Oh, the system is underfunded." I heard that for four years in the Ministry of Health. I hear it here, but I've just laid it out for school district 68.

[1455]

For school district 79…. I'll have a quick review of that, because I suspect the situation will be similar. For Cowichan Valley, school district 79, the full-time enrolment back in 2000-2001 was 10,384 students. It has now dropped to just over 8,100 students for Cowichan Valley. Notwithstanding that, we have seen their operating funding grow from $64,690,754 in 2000-2001 to $70,569,650 today. Per-student funding has grown from $6,230 in 2000-2001 to $8,526 today.

So the member can go ahead and try to make a political case here. We've got lots of time to debate the matter. I was quite pleased by the very constructive discussion that we had around a range of issues with a range of opposition members yesterday, but if we want to have a political go, I'm happy to have that in estimates as well.

D. Routley: Well, fewer students, more money, fewer services, cutbacks, deficits. So the minister has heard about underfunding, but he hasn't listened.

Each year I get to ask an Education Minister to manage my daughter's allowance. The Education Minister can double her allowance, and then he can download huge costs onto her. He can download my increased accounting costs. He can download the heating costs. He can download the teacher's salary increase of her teacher. When she comes to me at the end of the week, I'll just send her to the minister, and he can tell her that her per-child allowance has gone up higher than it's ever been. That will do her no good because he has created a deficit by imposing costs on her.

That's exactly what this government has done to school districts, from MSP premiums to now the property tax download.

In school district 79 this year there are only 38 fewer students, and yet they have had to make the cuts that I've mentioned. They've had to increase class size. They've cut back 3.4 full-time-equivalent teachers this year to gain $308,000 to address that deficit, and this is with only 38 fewer students.

[ Page 7163 ]

So the minister can twist all he likes, but those are the facts. I think the students, the parents, the teachers and the trustees of the Cowichan Valley would like to hear the minister address that problem — the deficits that have been created, the deficits that these districts have to deal with — and how he might address some of those particular needs. The employee benefit premium holiday, the municipal pension rate increase and MSP premiums are all unfunded increased costs that this government brought to districts — unfunded costs.

So is the minister prepared to address the deficits in Cowichan Valley by providing more funding and by honouring the decision of Justice Griffin and returning conditions to what our students and our schools experienced before the change in the legislation?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, just to reinforce the point, because this is vitally important, I think, for the member to understand. In 2009-10 there was an enrolment in Nanaimo-Ladysmith of 13,897 students, and the board of education was funded $116,434,560, or $8,257 per student.

[1500]

Between that and today we have seen that number drop by almost 300 students. But because of the funding protection that government has put in place, their funding, their budgetary allocation has grown despite that dropping number of students. Because of the funding protection, their budget has grown to $117,761,409 — an increase of well over $1 million, about $1.3 million. Per-student funding has grown to $8,510 from $8,257.

The member can talk about doom and gloom, and he is welcome to do that. These are estimates where the opposition can say what they will. But the fact of the matter is we have protected the funding to Nanaimo-Ladysmith.

Further, I would note that the member has talked about deficit. In the case of the Nanaimo-Ladysmith school district, they have been running an accumulating operating fund surplus consistently; 2001 was the last time they had an operating fund deficit. Since then, they have consistently run operating fund surpluses of about $1.2 million to a high of about $1.7 million on an annual basis and, most recently, a $746,000 operating fund surplus. Clearly, Nanaimo-Ladysmith appears to be doing a very good job in terms of shepherding the resources and managing what they are provided by the province.

Again, Cowichan Valley school district 79 — 8,378 students in '09-10, again a drop of just about 200 students to somewhere around 8,186, perhaps a little bit lower than that on the most recent estimates, but a drop of a couple hundred students. Nevertheless, a growing budget and a growing per-student application as well.

It is interesting to note that this school district, Cowichan Valley, is one that has been running in recent years small operating fund deficits. They are in the range of a low end of $364,000 to most recently $458,000 as deficits. But that is not characteristic, Member, of boards across the province. In 2001 we had 17 boards that were running on operating fund deficits. More recently, we've had four boards that have been in deficit situations — all, I think, very small deficit situations. The balance, 56, are running operating fund surpluses.

Again, the member, I'm sure, draws dramatically different conclusions from this data than I do. But that is the prerogative, I suppose, of the opposition.

D. Routley: According to the accounting requirements of the ministry, they're required to balance or run minuscule surpluses. In fact, they only achieve that balance by making deep cuts to services. We've heard from school trustees all over the province about that. So the minister chooses to ignore that.

In school district 68 in Nanaimo-Ladysmith there's a school called Ecole Davis Road, Davis Road Elementary. This ministry has rejected the facilities plan of the Nanaimo school district and told them to go back to the drawing board, so they're considering moving students around the district and out of community in order to satisfy the needs of the ministry.

Ecole Davis Road is a school where there are nine portables on site; 97 percent of the students are from in town in Ladysmith. Ladysmith has a high birth rate, a growing population. It's a separate geographic area from the rest of the district, so there should be some consideration of that. It's 12K to the nearest school where there's any room at all. Thirty-six percent of the students at Davis Road are understood to be vulnerable, and the median income is $24,000.

[1505]

Now the district is being forced to consider moving students to the adjacent communities, forcing parents to drive and putting students out of their local schools. This is a case where a school is full and over capacity, yet the school district doesn't have the funds to address that need. What can the minister offer to the parents of Ecole Davis Road?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's question was with respect to school district 68 and their capital plan for development of schools in school district 68. I'm advised by staff that in 2008-2009 school district 68 had put forward an $85 million capital plan. That capital plan had gone through all of the ministerial approvals and was ready for the approval of the minister. However, apparently, shortly after the school trustee election of that year, the capital plan was withdrawn by the board of education. It was not rejected by the ministry or the minister. It was withdrawn by the board of education.

We are looking forward to receipt of a new capital plan from school district 68. From what we know of the circumstances in school district 68, Ecole Davis Road

[ Page 7164 ]

might be totally appropriate as first choice for their new capital plan, but we have to see that capital plan before we can draw definitive conclusions about it.

D. Routley: This Friday the parents of Ecole Davis Road have arranged a walkathon. Over 500 kids from Ladysmith will be walking to support their Japanese school children counterparts. They also are aware that none of the schools in Ladysmith have been seismically upgraded. Does the minister have any plans to address the seismic upgrading in Nanaimo-Ladysmith district?

[1510]

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, to correct the record with respect to Cowichan Valley school district 79, the way in which it was framed up in this particular document was confusing — at least confusing to me, which is perhaps an easy thing to occur.

Just so the member perhaps feels better about his world, in fact, since 2005 Cowichan Valley school district 79 has been running operating surpluses: $682,416 in 2005, then consistently up to as high as $2,064,073 in 2008, and a surplus of $1.398 million in the most recent years. So that's important to note to avoid any confusion.

In terms of the member's questions about seismic, the Wellington School project has been approved and, we presume, will form part of the capital plan that will be coming forward from the school district. The capital plan involves not only renovation and replacement projects but also seismic projects. So Wellington has been approved, if and when the district wishes to proceed with that.

I should also note that across the province — and that would include the two school districts that have been raised here — some $25 million has been expended on non-structural safety work inside schools. That would be things like light fixtures or shelving or any other non-structural element in a school that might shake or fall when an earthquake occurs. So that's been valuable as well.

D. Routley: The Nanaimo board of education and the Nanaimo District Teachers Association have sought to negotiate continuity in posting so that there would be less disruption — teachers moving from school to school and subject to subject. They've been told by BCPSEA that they are not able to negotiate those conditions. It seems a non-cost item, and it seems something that might be appropriately left up to the Nanaimo district board of education and the Nanaimo District Teachers Association to sort out for themselves. Does the minister support that?

[1515]

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't believe that from a ministerial perspective, given that BCPSEA is the employer, we have any additions or constructive advice that we would add over and above what has been provided by BCPSEA.

D. Routley: Both of these districts, particularly school district 79, have significant busing challenges and have struggled to maintain their services. District 79 has made significant cuts to services in trying to meet the needs of students who are migrating from different parts of the district due to the removal of catchment area boundaries by the government's decisions in the past.

Recently UVic environmental law did a study on the effects of busing in terms of the carbon footprint. School districts are required to become carbon-neutral by this government's decisions. In judging carbon neutrality, cuts to school busing are seen as a reduction of the carbon footprint. In other words, if I cut a busing run for my school district, I'm credited for reducing its carbon footprint. But this UVic environmental law study found that for each bus that's taken off the road, there's a 23 times greater carbon footprint because of the number of parents who end up driving students to school and back.

So while this is an unintended consequence of a well-meaning piece of legislation that is attempting to drive our districts towards carbon neutrality, if we peel the onion another layer through the effects of this demand and the way it's being judged, we see that this particular element of that equation is actually increasing the carbon footprint of districts.

If the ministry is interested in reducing the carbon output of school districts, it will further fund school busing services, not put conditions that would reduce that funding. Does the minister agree with that, and if he does, will he advocate for greater funding for school busing services in rural districts?

[1520]

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for raising the issue. I guess there are a number of elements with respect to transportation or busing within school districts that are raised. Of course, again, with 60 school districts, the story might be a little bit different in each school district. So I'll try to make a few comments about the issue of busing. We do support districts in busing.

In terms of the Cowichan Valley school district, since 2001-2002 we have purchased, on average, probably three or four buses a year, by the look of it — a high of six in 2002-2003, another high of six in '06-07. Over the nine years some 26 buses have been purchased for the Cowichan Valley school district.

With those buses, particularly as the buses get newer, the technology continues to improve. And with clean diesel technology, they are very, very clean vehicles now in terms of emissions, so that's important to note.

We also would note — and again, this is a generalized comment, not directed at Cowichan Valley — that

[ Page 7165 ]

across the province, where it's appropriate, we see school districts attempting to integrate their busing with B.C. Transit or local busing that may be available. It makes all the sense in the world to have one full bus rather than two half-full buses, which is sometimes the case.

[1525]

I think we should also note that the issue around carbon tax is an important one. School district emissions for 2010 total about 180,000 tonnes, require about $4.5 million in offset purchases.

Also, I should note that in March 2011 the ministry reimbursed school districts almost $3 million for carbon taxes paid during 2010. During the past year boards also received an additional $7.7 million from the ministry under the energy-efficient mechanical upgrades capital program for upgrades to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, boards recently received almost $6.6 million from the government's public sector energy conservation agreement, or PSECA, to fund an upgrade to their energy infrastructure and further reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. During the past three years boards have received $11.1 million in total from the PSECA fund to upgrade their energy infrastructure and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

I hope that helps to answer the member's question. I think all of us — and I suspect particularly students — appreciate the importance of trying to address climate change in a responsible way. Certainly, schools and school districts have wanted to be a part of that, and we are always working with school districts to find ways to support their carbon neutrality.

D. Routley: The buses that the minister mentions are purchased in an effort to replace an aging fleet. They do increase the efficiency and reduce the carbon footprint, which is all the more reason to give more support to transportation services, which generally are coming out of the per-student grant and are very difficult for, at least, the busing that is imposed on the district by the lack of catchment area boundaries.

In the case of Cowichan there's a considerable demand, with students who are migrating from different programs and different high schools, so the issue of reducing carbon footprint is not resolved by what the minister has offered. The carbon footprint of the district is judged as more positive once they reduce their busing fleet. It just seems a backward piece. It's not an effort to make any political gain but maybe a suggestion to the minister that he could help the districts meet their goals more speedily by increasing the support for busing.

School district 79 has increased its spring break by one week. In order to accommodate that, they increased the school days following that by a few minutes per day. I would like to know whether the minister feels that this is a threat to the well-being of vulnerable students.

Many parents, many teachers and many people who serve these students feel that they are put at a particularly greater loss because of decisions that reduce their class time — at least reduce their number of school days by increasing the length of the other days they attend school by a very small amount. But giving them this longer break, they tend to lose more, and it takes longer for teachers to bring them back up to speed with the rest of the class.

Does the minister agree that this is an unfortunate step that this district has had to resort to?

Hon. G. Abbott: Let me begin by correcting a statement which the member made. He suggested that the cost of busing would come out of the per-student grant. It does not. There is a separate allocation for busing, for transportation for each school district. It is not an area where the busing has to come out of that per-student grant. That is not the case.

In terms of the issues around an extended spring break and the addition of, typically, some minutes to every school day to offset that, we are seeing, I guess, different experiences around the province.

[1530]

Some school districts have chosen to do what the member, I think, has suggested Cowichan Valley has done, but others have not. Of course, we look with interest at the experience of that, but what we do as a ministry is to mandate the number of instructional hours. We do not order or mandate the precise distribution of those hours across a term or over time. So that's an interesting question the member raises in that regard.

As they set out their calendar and make decisions about longer spring breaks or shorter summer breaks or longer days or shorter days, the boards consult the public. They make what we hope are appropriate and thoughtful decisions with respect to what is right for their school district and right for the students in their school district.

If the position of the member or of the opposition is that we should move away from that flexibility — and there are some arguments which the members may wish to offer up to indicate that we should take away that flexibility from boards of education — I certainly would welcome their thoughts. I'm certainly not going to challenge them on the point. I'm just curious as to whether the member is suggesting that from an instructional perspective or from a student achievement perspective that a two-week spring break is a wrong decision.

If that's his view or the opposition's view, I'm pleased to hear it, but at this point we have not seen evidence which would lead us to strip school districts of the flexibility with respect to the calendar.

D. Thorne: I'd like to ask a few questions around the high school completion rates for aboriginal students. I just wanted to read out some statistics first.

[ Page 7166 ]

In 2009 the high school completion rate for aboriginal students was 50.4 percent, which was slightly up from the year before. It was 48.8 percent. However, in the four-year service plan the completion rate targets were 58 percent up to 65 percent in 2011-2012. Then in the 2009 service plan the targets were downgraded by approximately 10 percent. The note under that said that forecasts and targets had been adjusted to ensure that they were achievable. This was in the service plan on page 11.

I find it a little concerning that we've lowered the rates, even though they may seem to be more achievable. There are other ways to achieve both those kinds of rates and higher rates. I think the current minister would agree with me, because I have a quote here from him from April. He feels the rates….

To read the quote: "Our rates of aboriginal achievement and success are unacceptably low in this province. I am somewhat between disappointed and ashamed, as an Education Minister, that we have not achieved the success that we should in relation to aboriginal learning."

I suspect that the minister agrees with what I'm saying, and I'm just wondering if he would answer one question around the level of success and graduation rates and his feeling that they're unacceptable. Could he advise the House what measures the ministry plans to take on improving aboriginal education and graduation rates?

[1535]

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. I feel very passionately with respect to this issue.

The achievement rate that to date we have seen for First Nations and aboriginal students in the province of British Columbia is, from my perspective, absolutely unacceptable. I think as British Columbians we should all feel somewhere between embarrassed and ashamed that we have failed aboriginal students as badly as we have, and it is a huge challenge.

The challenge is, in part, what we have done in the education system. In part, it is the other range of social and economic conditions which exist in the province and which I think we all need to improve on.

A lot of the challenge will go back to 1870 and the Indian Act of 1873 and a lot of the bad public policy — at least from today's perspective, what we would deem to be unconstructive or bad public policy — in relation to the exclusion of First Nations, creation of reserves, exclusion from socioeconomic opportunities in a whole range of ways which, as I've said in other forums, I think are very effectively set out in a book by a professor of history, UVic.

Dr. John Lutz has written a book called Makúk , which very dramatically lays out the history and the challenge we have in terms of remediating that history. But I think that what we do in this Education Ministry is among the most important things we must do if we're going to turn around the economic and social circumstances of First Nations in this province.

Again, it's not the only thing we have to do. I'm a big fan of Dr. Perry Kendall and the work he's done in relation to aboriginal people and their health outcomes, because that's important too. What we do in the area of criminal justice is important. What we do in the area of mental health and addictions is important. What we do in children and family development is enormously important. But what we do in education, I think, is fundamental in terms of hopefully, over the course of a generation or less, seeing the student achievement results for First Nations turned around.

There are some things we are doing which have been in some cases quickly and in some cases slowly embraced by boards of education. I'm thinking here of aboriginal enhancement agreements. I think those are good. They're an important step forward in terms of building greater achievement opportunities for aboriginal students.

I believe the much more knowledgable people around me would share this view. The very most important thing we can do for aboriginal learners is also the very most important thing we can do for every learner in British Columbia — that is, move to a model of personalized learning where very early in a child's life we try to understand any barriers to learning which may exist, any shortfalls in reading, writing and numeracy that may exist, and then have a focused remediation of those challenges.

In that early period, generally pre-K or K through to grade 4 when children are growing, their brains are remarkably receptive to new information and stimuli. The opportunity to remediate shortfalls in reading, writing and numeracy is unparalleled in the course of their lives. That, I think, is hugely important.

[1540]

I would be remiss if I did not talk a little bit about the Fort Nelson school district and the amazing things they are doing there. Fort Nelson is one of the three school districts in the province that have all of their children performing at optimal levels by grade 3 in reading, writing and numeracy.

Of course, Fort Nelson is a school district that's got a very significant percentage of aboriginal learners, a very high percentage. Notwithstanding that — and this, I think, goes to the central point — depending on how you manage the introduction of the elements of personalized learning in the classroom, it is possible to see aboriginal students excelling just as other British Columbia students are excelling when you provide them with that kind of support.

[ Page 7167 ]

There's a lot we've got to learn from that, and I hope there are some best practices we can learn from the Fort Nelson experience not only for aboriginal learners, where it may be particularly important, but for all learners.

I thank the member for raising that question. She may have got more of an answer than she ever really dreamed of from me. I hope that's the case. She asked a question where I have a passion, and I had to relay that to her.

D. Thorne: I could never have too much information when I ask a question — right? I miss having a few bird calls in there, though. I just couldn't resist that.

I've heard about Fort Nelson before, actually, and it's quite unbelievable what they've done up there. It's definitely a model, and I wonder if it has been some kind of a model in looking at the aboriginal choice school issue. I know that the government is looking at or is allowing publicly funded target schools designed to specifically address aboriginal education. I think the first one of these is the aboriginal choice school.

I'm wondering if Fort Nelson was any kind of a model for that, or in any way. That's the first question. I'm wondering if you could tell us, Minister, if there have been evaluations done on these types of programs. Is there a lot of evidence of them actually succeeding?

Hon. G. Abbott: There are no aboriginal choice schools in Fort Nelson school district. Fort Nelson school district integrates all the students in common schools, and it is really the educational strategy that they utilize which is, I think, working well, and the personalized learning elements that they bring to that are working well.

That having been said, aboriginal choice schools may be a part of the answer as well. I think it would be fair to say that it is too early in terms of our provincial experience with aboriginal choice schools to form conclusions about whether they should form part of the structure in the future.

There is a relatively new…. I think it is probably only a year or two now that we've had an aboriginal choice school at the secondary level in Prince George. We're following that experience with great interest. I've heard a couple of stories both ways about it, but we'll be following that with interest.

[1545]

To the knowledge of the folks who are with me, there are no aboriginal choice schools outside of the on-reserve schools in B.C. It certainly may be possible that in Prince George or elsewhere there may be one in the future, but we want to really have a very close look and a very clear understanding of how things work in Prince George and look at whether it can be part of the model for the future.

D. Thorne: Maybe it is the Prince George school. I thought there was one operating, because I thought that you'd talked about it on a TV program recently. That is the Prince George one that we're talking about. No evaluations could be done yet, I would imagine, because it's too soon. I'm also assuming, and I guess the question is, that if the evaluations are relatively positive and if there's some success there, we will continue.

I guess what I want to know is: will the Ministry of Education work with the school district that the ministry feels would benefit from it, or will we leave it totally up to school boards? They may not want to go in that direction, where the ministry may feel it would be really helpful to do that. Would you then continue to open these schools and maybe help or push the school boards? I don't know which word you would use.

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, our intervention is always of a remarkably benign and constructive nature, never forcing or prodding in any way undignified in attempting to move them forward.

What we would do in terms of the experience in Prince George with the aboriginal school…. It is very new, and we'll start to see results, probably quite early, in terms of student achievement. We will see whether it is a school that keeps aboriginal learners through to successful completion, a Dogwood or otherwise. We'll start to begin to build our body of data and results and our analysis of that as that experience base builds with the aboriginal choice school in Prince George.

What we will be doing is sharing those results on an ongoing basis with all of the other 59 school districts. Whether the results are encouraging or discouraging, it will be an opportunity for others, and I think Vancouver school board may be among these, that are contemplating the possibility of creating such a school. The results, as they grow over time, will help to inform good decision-making on the part of the school districts.

I don't think we would be in a position, at least not yet, to say: "Under these circumstances your best decision would be to create an aboriginal choice school." I don't think we have that body of data yet. That will emerge over time, and as it becomes stronger, we may be more strongly encouraging the creation of it, or not, based on the results.

D. Thorne: This is my last question on this topic. I'm wondering if the new minister is thinking at all about reconsidering the target goals for achievement and raising them back the 10 percent.

[1550]

Hon. G. Abbott: The question is a very fair one. In no way do I want to appear to disparage it, because it is an important question, and it's one that the ministry has to consider every year — what target they should put in their service plan.

[ Page 7168 ]

That having been said, our goal at this point is to see results and outcomes improve or, in short, student achievement improve and improve quickly in the years ahead. Really, our focus is not on, you know, what number we put in the service plan. Our focus is on 60 school districts and trying to improve what I think both the critic and I have agreed are absolutely unacceptable student achievement outcomes to this point for aboriginal students in the province.

That really will be our central focus in the months and years ahead. It is getting that framework of personalized learning that has been so successful in Fort Nelson, Revelstoke and southeast Kootenay and try to get that framework of best practices instilled in other school districts across the province.

There are children who will do well in almost any circumstance, but it is the vulnerable children, and I think particularly aboriginal children, who really could most benefit by the kind of personalized learning strategy that we see being successful in the three school districts I've mentioned. So that will be our focus rather than the targets. But that's not to suggest that we don't need to look at the targets at all, because we do have to do that on an annual basis.

H. Bains: I would like to ask a few questions about my city and school district 36. I think the two issues that I want to talk about are…. One is the capital funding, and the other one is the CommunityLINK program. I think those two issues have been exhausted — not during this time but by the ministers prior to this minister. The minister is making genuine efforts to go and meet with the school board trustees and meeting with the communities and listening to those concerns, but the fact still remains. They're still waiting for an announcement to see if there is any capital funding coming to expand the classroom capacity.

Just as a background on how dire that situation is, since 2005-06 there hasn't been any capital funding allocated to school district 36, excluding the seismic upgrades. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about expansion of the classrooms in order to accommodate the increasing population of students. During that period, the school district will tell you — and I'm sure this minister has heard from the school district trustees, and previous ministers have heard as well — that over 2,700 new students have entered our school district.

Last year alone 1,100 students entered our school district. As the trustees and the board put it, that is equivalent to having a secondary school or two to three elementary schools. That's just one year's growth in students. As we all know, that is the fastest-growing community in the province, and this is where the growth of the school population also corresponds with that fastest-growing community as well.

I think the question now is…. I'm sure that when the minister met with the school board, they advised the minister and brought him up to date as far as the need to accommodate all those students who are in portables today. In 2009 they were saying that there are 235 portables, and the situation probably is worse now than when they were talking about this letter that was sent to the minister.

[1555]

I guess the question to the minister is…. It's not about politics, and I want to make this clear, because it is a serious situation in Surrey. We get those calls every day from the parents that see their children going to the portables. They come back and say: "Look, they had to stand in a lineup to go to the washrooms because there are no washrooms attached to the portables."

I appreciate that the ministry did provide them with some money to purchase towards the portables. I believe it was last year. Otherwise, the money would come from the operating funds. But still, the situation is still there, and they are still waiting for some answers from the minister. Every minister has been saying: "Well, we are looking into the situation, and we are going to make some announcements." But nothing has happened.

I think, in all seriousness here, I would ask the minister: what is the plan in order to accommodate the growing population in Surrey so that we can eliminate those portables and students can go back to real classrooms to get the quality education that they deserve?

Hon. G. Abbott: In the non-partisan spirit that the member has asked the question, I'll respond similarly. I do appreciate the question. I have heard, and heard frequently, from members on both sides of the House about the challenges of Surrey school district in respect of capital, in respect of growth and so on. I respect the arguments that I've heard from both sides of the House with respect to that.

Surrey certainly has some unique challenges and has had the challenge of rapid growth over the past decade, which stands in stark contrast to most other school districts in the province, which have seen their numbers decline — Surrey not so. I'll read into the record a little bit about that here presently.

I did want to also say how much I appreciated the opportunity to sit down for a couple of hours with the Surrey board of education and their senior administration. The Surrey school district, I think, are an exceptional and responsible group. They are very good managers. They are very responsible in the way that they conduct their business.

[1600]

You know, I'm enormously appreciative of the patience that they have shown around some of the challenges that they face. I did want to say that. We know that when it comes to capital construction they are very professional and have great capacity in that school district, probably without equal — in fact, I'd say without a doubt unequalled

[ Page 7169 ]

elsewhere in the province. So I want to say that we have a very high opinion of Surrey school district and the way in which they have worked very hard to manage the unique challenges of growth that they have faced.

[D. Black in the chair.]

For those who are not as familiar as the member with Surrey school district 36, the enrolment has grown in Surrey from 2001 — 58,648. The current estimate for the school year '11-12 is 67,878. The interim figure was a little less than that, 66,788, but nevertheless, a very, very substantial growth, almost 10,000 more students today in Surrey than a decade ago. That is an important piece of context which I think helps us to understand the challenges that are faced by the district.

Of course, I do want to say at the outset that I am very much looking forward to working with the Surrey board of education and their senior administration to make appropriate investments in the future to help them deal with the challenges that they face in Surrey school district.

Also, I want to say this, because again, I know that the member was struggling mightily to be non-partisan in his comments. I'm certain that he came very close to achieving that lofty goal. I just want to fill in the small gap, perhaps, between the objective goal and where he landed, and that is to say that since 2001 there has been about $243 million in capital investment in schools in Surrey.

I have more detail, likely, than the member would ever dream of in respect of that here in front of me, but let me just briefly recap. We have seen ten new schools over the decade in Surrey. We have seen five replacements. We have seen 14 additions. We have seen two major renovations and 18 seismic projects, in addition to eight site acquisitions — again, totalling over $243 million in investments in Surrey. But I say that not to be quarrelsome, because I never am. The member knows that. I am the last member that anyone would look to in this House for a quarrel.

I observe that only to say that, unlike the member's characterization of no investment over the past decade, in fact, there has been close to a quarter-billion dollars in investment in Surrey.

That is not to say that we shouldn't make more investments, because again, with the projected growth and no indication of a flagging in that growth — and I think that's an important point that the member said — Surrey is going to continue to be a growth area probably for at least the next one or two, or maybe more, decades.

We know that further investments will need to be made. We respect that. But I did want to put on the record that there have been ten new schools. I mentioned earlier in the Legislature — I think it was in a question period response — that Adams Road Elementary was an example of a new school that was just about to open. I'm sure it will be a welcome addition to the fleet of schools that exist in Surrey.

I also want to just say a couple of things about portables and modulars and the investment for kindergarten as well.

[1605]

I know the member for Surrey-Fleetwood is anxious to engage in the debate as well. As I'm saying this, I am so pleased that in the greatest non-partisan fashion, he is smiling and nodding as I am laying out the investments that have been made over the past decade. He is clearly delighted by the magnitude — and, apparently, the surprising magnitude — of the investments. I know it's difficult for him to constrain himself, and I know he'll soon have an opportunity to leap into this to tell me more.

So in terms of the challenge around portables, I think we should talk a little bit about that too. It is an important point. As a student, I think, for a number of the years that I went to school, I was in a portable. A portable is not necessarily an optimal place to be receiving classroom instruction, but it's not a bad place either.

We should note that, in fact, when we are adding the modulars for all-day kindergarten or for other purposes, those modulars are of a construction standard that is pretty close to a permanent school. This is a structure that in terms of windows, interior fixtures, design, quality, expected life span — we're looking at about 40 years. These are excellent structures which are not portables. They can be moved, but they are not portables in the sense of the portables that many of us are accustomed to.

I should also note this. I think that the peak of portables in Surrey school district came about 1998 at 363 portables. Some say it was the tenth largest school district in the province at that time just with portables. But that's not an observation I'd make because that would strain, I think, the non-partisan spirit which I'm reflecting in my comments here today.

I would note, though, that today there are a total of about 250 portables in use in Surrey school district, and 40 of those are being used for construction. So in reality there are about 210 portables, and I think we will be seeing the replacement of a number of those in the years ahead as well.

I hope that rounds out the story a little bit in respect to the member's very important questions and observations. Again, I'll just conclude on this note. I've certainly heard very good arguments from this member, from members on the B.C. Liberal side of the House, from the Surrey school district and from the Ministry of Education that all point to additional investment in Surrey, which will recognize the very strong growth that Surrey school district has enjoyed and will continue to enjoy in the decade ahead.

[ Page 7170 ]

H. Bains: As much as anyone can try in this House, it never fails to have this minister always get involved in politics rather than the reality of the day. As much as I tried, I guess that's the place that they want to play the game. But I won't go there, Minister. I will not go there because it is a serious matter.

We can all play with numbers, and the Surrey school district knows about those numbers. The parents know about those numbers. They know that there hasn't been any capital investment to expand a single classroom — in a real classroom — since 2005-2006, other than the portables. The other capital funding has been the seismic upgrade, as we are advised.

The minister likes to talk about the 1990s. He would like to talk about this and always go back to since-2001 numbers. But no one argues with the minister that between 2001 and 2006, there was investment in the capital investment to expand the classroom capacity. But since 2005-2006 there hasn't been any.

[1610]

That's exactly what the Surrey board of education has said in their letter to the minister. This is exactly what they have said. "The Surrey school district has grown by more than 2,700 students since 2005-2006 and is expected to have continuous growth for several years." Then they continue on to say that the Surrey school district has not received government approval for additional space projects since the 2005-2006 capital plan. This is Laurae McNally's letter, which has been signed, dated the 26th of October 2009.

This is the resolution that the school district and the board of education have passed. Those are their numbers. The minister continues to play with those numbers.

I have a chart here that was provided to me by them that shows that between 1999 and 2000 there was $516 million, plus one additional school, of capital investment to increase classroom capacity. Since 2001 to 2006 it's only $87 million to increase the classroom capacity. So I think that's what the difference is.

We can play with the numbers; we can move them around, but the fact still remains that there are students that are going to the portables. Some parents are worried that their children may never see a real classroom.

The minister talks about the standard of construction. These are the portables. They are hot in summertime because there's no air-conditioning in them. There are no washrooms attached to them. Many students will complain that they have to stand in a lineup for 15, 20 minutes in order it use the washrooms. I think that is not acceptable in this day and age in British Columbia.

The minister talked about or tried to justify, although all politically rather than through facts, what is happening in the Surrey school district. Earl Marriott School students had to walk out. That is a reality of today. They had to walk out of their classrooms to make a point that they don't have classrooms to go to.

They don't even have a physical space to put any more portables at that school. That's how bad the situation is. Now they have ended up doing shift work, where the parents have to juggle between their

schedule and the students' schedule. One student goes earlier; the other student goes later, so they have to make arrangements how to pick them up and drop them off at school.

The situation is serious. It's not political rhetoric. It's not a political statement for us to make here. I'd like the minister, if he could, to spend some time talking about whether the capital funding is coming and when it is coming to expand the classroom capacity so that those students — at least the new students coming in the new year, which I'm sure will not be any less than last year — don't end up going into portables, so that there is at least another school or two schools or three schools.

They're talking about ten new schools that they need today. So if the minister doesn't start right now, it'll be years before these students will see a real classroom, because it does take three or four years to build a school, even if you start it today.

That's my take on this. I know the minister would like to continue to play around with the numbers, and I don't want to go there anymore. The minister knows, the school district knows, and everyone else knows.

I do want to talk about the other important issue. That is CommunityLINK.

The Chair: Member, could I interrupt you just for a moment for an introduction in the House? We'll come right back.

Introductions by Members

B. Simpson: I thank the member for giving me some space here.

I am pleased to introduce, although they can't see my big bald head from where they are, a school group from North Cariboo Christian School from Quesnel — about 40 students or so and a number of accompanying adults. I had a great opportunity to be outside with them and answer a series of questions.

One of the things I failed to mention is that one of the important works in this chamber is also debating the budget. You're here in a timely fashion. The Minister of Education is debating with the opposition the budget assigned to the school system, so you can watch with interest, because what happens in your classrooms is impacted by this debate, whether you understand that or not.

I ask the members of this House to please make the kids from North Cariboo Christian School feel welcome.

[1615]

Debate Continued

H. Bains: Another important issue, which is…. I guess there are only two districts, school district 36 and

[ Page 7171 ]

school district 43, that are in a similar situation as far as per-student funding is concerned on a CommunityLINK program.

I think that this issue, again, going back many ministers, has been brought to their attention. The closest that one minister came to it, with my debate in estimates, was about two years ago. She said that they understood the issue and would try to fix it before the next budget. It never happened. The minister got changed. Now there is a new minister. Hopefully, the new minister will also take this issue seriously and try to fix it.

This is a program that actually pays for those students whose parents cannot afford either lunch programs or the field trip fees that may be needed. The money goes towards those students for the lunch program and the field trips. These are the students that are actually in real need. I'm not saying: "Why are the other students getting more money?" I'm sure that those students are in just as dire need as our students in Surrey are.

The matter that I'm raising with the minister is that our students in Surrey also deserve at least equal treatment when it comes to those programs. Now, those programs…. We are so low that the school district is saying that they may have to take this out of their operating budget, which means again money comes out of their classroom learning. By comparison, Surrey school students on a per-capita basis when compared to some of the other districts, some of the other districts are getting four and a half times more than Surrey, and the same goes with Coquitlam.

Again, rather than being political…. But it is a real issue, and the issue is that it is affecting the classroom learning of our students because the money comes out of there in order to pay for the lunch program and the field trips.

My question to the minister is: what has he done in order to try to bring some equity back into this system so that the students in Surrey can also enjoy the same benefits as some of the other students do, so that the district doesn't have to take money out of their classroom learning, out of their operating funds, and the students don't stay hungry and go on to enjoy those services that they need?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member has raised very important questions about CommunityLINK, and I will attempt to give him a thoughtful and non-partisan answer to that important question that he has raised.

Regrettably though, I would say, Madam Chair, in terms of the member's analysis of investments in Surrey school district, it was anything other than non-partisan. Indeed, our joint non-partisan voyage was remarkably brief. He returned very quickly to forming some conclusions, among which was that the government had not made any investments in education in the Surrey school district since 2005.

That obliges me to point out to the member this. In 2006 we saw the completion of Cambridge Elementary, a new 400-capacity school, over $8 million invested; Panorama Ridge Secondary, a new 1,100-capacity school, total investment over $25 million; Pacific Heights Elementary, close to $8 million invested; Chimney Hill Elementary, close to 3 million invested; White Rock Elementary, over $10 million invested.

South Newton, east area elementary — a site acquisition. A site acquisition at Woodward Hill. Grandview Heights. Douglas area elementary. In 2008 the new Rosemary Heights Elementary, a 350-capacity school and almost $11 million invested. In 2009 Clayton village, Northeast Elementary — a site acquisition. In 2009 close to $13 million at Hazelgrove Elementary.

[1620]

I hope I'm not offending the member with all of these investments.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: No, still delighted. That's good. There's still a trace of non-partisanism that is circulating through the chamber, and I am delighted by that.

In 2010 Woodward Hill Elementary, over $14 million invested in a new 450-capacity elementary school. Of course, we've referenced Adams Road Elementary, and I'm sure the members will be joining me at the grand opening of Adams Road Elementary in just a few days — an investment of $11 million in Adams Road Elementary.

The last point. Again, this is very, very important to note. In terms of full-day kindergarten in Surrey alone, this year there's a $25.8 million investment. We'll see 36 classroom conversions, 26 new modular classrooms, and additions at Cambridge Elementary, Chimney Hill Elementary, Hillcrest Elementary, A.J. McLellen Elementary, Hazelgrove Elementary and T.E. Scott Elementary — the addition of many new classrooms in those schools, the total value of which is almost $26 million.

Those are significant. Again, I didn't lay out those to be provocative or to rub the opposition members' noses in it. I did it in the most open and honest and non-partisan spirit which one can muster. But it is important, when members make observations like: "The government has made no investment in Surrey since 2005," that I provide them with the detailed record of, in fact, what has been invested. It is huge and substantial — over the decade close to a quarter-billion dollars invested in schools.

I don't say that to diminish the member's argument that new investments are needed. I don't diminish or disparage that argument at all. There will be investments made, and I appreciate when this member and that member and members on my side of the House tell me how important it is to have investments in Surrey. I

[ Page 7172 ]

respect those arguments because of the growth that is occurring in the Surrey school district.

I can counsel patience to the members. We are working very hard with respect to the capital plan with the Surrey school district and other school districts that are experiencing growth and need, as a consequence of that growth. I can tell you that a very important part of what we do as a ministry is attempting to ensure that we do that capital program in the most thoughtful and comprehensive way possible.

The member has also raised, in his most recent question, the issue of CommunityLINK. CommunityLINK is, of course, some funding for school meals and other important purposes. About $51 million is distributed annually across the province through CommunityLINK to deal with some pressures on the vulnerable student population in our schools. It is an important program.

The member has rightly raised questions and concerns about the way in which the formula is structured and has questioned, in fact, whether the formula generates an appropriate division of that $51 million across the 60 school districts in the province. I actually share a number of the concerns that the member has in respect of CommunityLINK. It is an area that I am looking at and looking at very intensively right now. I hope that we can have a look at the formula and perhaps, in the best non-partisan fashion we can construct, come to a better program or a better formula around CommunityLINK.

But in terms of Surrey itself, it is important to note that in 2004-2005, Surrey CommunityLINK funding was $2.7 million. It grew by $800,000 in '07-08, grew to $3.8 million in '08-09 and grew to $3.825 million in 2010-11. We've advised Surrey school district that the funding would be the same in the coming year.

[1625]

As I told the school district, I am reviewing the CommunityLINK formula. I'm proud that our government has been able to maintain the $51 million funding despite severe economic pressures.

What we have here in CommunityLINK is a program that has been in place since 1996. The same so-called formula that has driven CommunityLINK has been in place since 1996. The challenge is that that formula is not as sensitive to shifts in student populations over time as it should be. As a consequence, the member rightly observes that Surrey is underserved by the formula in relation to what it should be.

I am looking forward to improving the formula. I'd make this offer. As we look at the formula, I'd be glad to come and sit down with the NDP caucus and get your ideas and get your advice on how we can improve the formula. I'm glad to do that. Or, if that's an uncomfortable situation — I can imagine that you'd feel quite threatened, potentially, by my presence in your caucus room — I would be delighted to hear all of the constructive thoughts that can be generated by the opposition.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: This is so exciting. It's so much like question period now — that I'm talking and other people are talking at the same time. The students are getting a sense of what a delightful chamber and constructive chamber this is.

I'd be delighted to hear the best ideas of the opposition, because one of the things that might occur as we take $51 million, and if we say Surrey should get more, then it's possible that in the reallocation others might get less. So I think it's important that we have the opposition be a part of the restructuring of the CommunityLINK program. In the finest non-partisan spirit of this chamber, we move to a program that is embraced across, as someone said earlier, the street of this House.

I do look forward to a submission from this member and from other members of the House with respect to CommunityLINK. It is an important program. It's a vital program. If we can improve the funding formula, I am keen to do that and I am keen to hear the ideas of the members with respect to how to do that.

J. Brar: One of the good skills this minister has is that he can speak forever without giving the answer to any question — right? But I will still try to ask questions to the minister.

The question here is a serious one. We're talking about the city of Surrey, and the city of Surrey is the fastest-growing community in the province and in the country. We welcome almost 1,000 new people every month. The member for Surrey-Newton has made that case as well, particularly around the schools. So 7,300 students right now are in portables, which is almost 10 percent of the total population. The minister is well aware of that. In 2010 over 5,800 babies were born in the city of Surrey, and I assume that that trend will continue, with minor adjustments, in the future.

Having said that, we also have about 10,000 new students since 2001. That's a massive growth. I understand the minister can stand up and list all these schools and everything, but the reality is, as the member for Surrey-Newton said, that the city of Surrey, the Surrey school district has not received any capital funding since 2005-2006.

This is not me saying it. This is not the member of the opposition saying it. This is a resolution passed by the Surrey school district and signed by the chairperson, Laurae McNally, of the board of education of Surrey school district.

[1630]

Now, this says: "Whereas the Surrey school district has not received government approval for additional space projects since the 2005-2006 capital plan." This is what this letter from the city of Surrey officials says. So I would like to put that on the record — that Surrey did

[ Page 7173 ]

not receive any capital funding. There may be projects which were approved earlier and finished after 2005. That's possible. I understand that. But in reality, it did not receive any capital funding.

So having said that…. I'm a little reluctant to ask this question again, because the minister will stand up and read the whole story again, but I would appreciate if the minister can commit — this is a serious issue — capital funding for building new classrooms, for building new schools, or at least commit the time frame of when he's going to commit new funding. I will appreciate that. I would enjoy, certainly, listening to the answer that the minister can provide.

Hon. G. Abbott: I always appreciate the constructive advice of this member. In this case, more than ever, do I appreciate his constructive advice.

Again, it is very important. I have said on more than one occasion now on the event of these estimates that Surrey, as the fastest-growing area of the province, with a fast-growing student population, needs to have supplemental investments made in schools in Surrey. We are making one of those investments this year in the $25.8 million list of expansion improvements, additions to elementary schools that are a part of full-day kindergarten.

Again, I know the member loves to say that we haven't done anything and somebody back in 1898 or 1998 or one of those times did everything, but of course, that is not an accurate reflection of reality.

We are making a big investment around full-day kindergarten in Surrey. We have made, over the decade…. We can debate about whether a funding approval came in the year 2000, 2001, 2002 or whatever. The fact is that those schools were constructed and completed in that time period, and the government of British Columbia invested a quarter-billion dollars in new schools in Surrey over that ten-year period from 2001 to 2011.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, that is not to be quarrelsome with the member. He always suspects, I think, that I'm attempting to be quarrelsome with him, and before I even complete my sentences, jumps to conclusions about what I'm saying. Again, I am trying to agree.

I'm desperately, furiously trying to agree with the member that incremental investment is needed in Surrey. I respect his argument, and I agree with him. I don't make those decisions on my feet in estimates.

We make those decisions based on capital plans, which are generated as a product of the collaborative partnership between the Surrey school district and the Ministry of Education. Those capital plans then move through processes of government, including Treasury Board. I can tell the member that we put great effort and great interest into the Surrey capital plan and the capital plan for other school districts in the province, because in some portions of the province, most acutely in Surrey, we are seeing those pressures of growth.

J. Brar: I would like to move on to a new question. The question is…. In the fall of 2011 two Surrey high schools are being forced to adopt a modified

schedule to address the issue of overcrowding. Students have to attend school beginning at 7:50 a.m. to 3:50 p.m.

[1635]

This

schedule will see students who would normally support their families with before- and after-school child care for young siblings no longer being able to provide that child care. So that's one I would like to