2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2007

Morning Sitting

Volume 18, Number 8

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Second Reading of Bills

School (Student Achievement Enabling)

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 20) (continued)

D. Chudnovsky

Hon. R. Thorpe

N. Macdonald

I. Black

C. Wyse

M. Sather

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir

Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources

Hon. R.

Neufeld

J. Horgan

G. Robertson

[ Page 7055 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2007

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Abbott: I call debate on Bill 20, and in the little

House is estimates debate on Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Second Reading of Bills

SCHOOL (STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

ENABLING) AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

D. Chudnovsky: I'm pleased to continue my comments on Bill

20. When we were so rudely interrupted by the seventh game victory of the

Canucks yesterday, I was about to talk about….

Interjection.

D. Chudnovsky: It's good to know that somebody is

listening. I was talking about the call in Bill 20 for an early learning

program. I was saying that it strikes me as surprising and troubling that the

bill lays out in its definition

section the early learning program. It doesn't

say: "Here's an example of an early learning program." It doesn't say: "Here's a

good early learning program." It doesn't say: "Here's one of many early learning

programs that we want to support."

It says, "early learning program," and then there's a definition

which is extremely troubling. It says that the early learning program "requires

a child participating in the program to be accompanied and supervised by the

child's parent or other person designated in writing by the parent."

[1005]

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

It's troubling because, of course, early learning programs are

important. They're valuable for children and families.

It seems outrageous and discriminatory that the early learning

program that's laid out in the bill requires an adult to attend together with

the child. I don't know about you, Madam Chair, and I don't know about the

members opposite, but in my constituency, where tens of thousands of people

live, the requirement that an adult family member or designate attend the early

learning program together with the child precludes most of the people who live

in my constituency from even being able to take advantage of such a program.

So it may be that the early learning program, which has created so

much enthusiasm in this minister and this government, is a good idea. I think it

probably is. It probably does some good things, but it isn't the only early

learning program. Early learning takes place for tens of thousands of kids in

all kinds of preschools and day cares. They deserve the same kind of support as

the early learning program that is mentioned and defined in this legislation,

which discriminates against working people, poor people and single-parent

families across this province and shouldn't.

I want to make a brief comment about the notion of provincial

model schools. Again, to return to a theme that I talked about yesterday, I

don't know who thinks up this stuff. It makes you wonder; it makes you scratch

your head. There are so many elements of such a proposition that are

problematic, not the least of which is the governance question, and not the

least of which is the sense in which, once again, decision-making about public

education is being taken away from locally elected school trustees — the only

people in the province elected specifically to deal with education policy

questions. It's being given over and centralized.

But there's another insidious and problematic piece of this

provincial school business that I think we need to watch out for, and it's

consistent with some of the other problems in this bill. It has to do with the

potential segregation of students with special needs from the other students in

the system.

I want to put to the government side with every bit of my being

that if they have begun to move in that direction, they're making a terrible,

terrible mistake. The minister refers often to the need for parents to have

choice and flexibility in the system, and nobody agrees with that more than

people who actually work in the system with children. Choice and flexibility are

important. So are educational principles.

The educational principle that has been enunciated in this

province over the last number of years that says that students, whatever their

abilities and disabilities — and we all, every one of us, have abilities and

disabilities — will live and work and learn together in integrated classrooms is

a vital and important principle. Within that, there are of course choices to be

made and flexibility to be provided.

But the principle that every child, with her abilities and

disabilities, deserves to be in a classroom with the other children in their

community is a principle for which tens of thousands of parents, teachers,

school trustees and school administrators will struggle to the end in this

province. I ask and implore the government that it move away from the notion of

segregated….

We went through that when we went to school in the '50s. We went

through a situation where those kids with specific disabilities were put

somewhere else, and we're not going to do that again — certainly, if I have

anything to do about it or if the thousands and thousands of parents of kids

with special disabilities, abilities and disabilities, like we all have, have

anything to do with it. We're not going to send those kids somewhere else and

segregate them from the rest of the kids.

[ Page 7056 ]

The public education system is the most important institution in

our communities. Rich and poor, urban and rural, those who were born in Canada

and those who were born outside of Canada all come together, and we do the very

best we can for each and every one of them. Those elements of this bill that

take us away from that are to be resisted, and we will resist them.

[1010]

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's a pleasure for me to rise in the House

today to support Bill 20. You know, we hear a member on that side of the House,

and I'm troubled. How can someone who supposedly cares about children and their

education actually speak against the improvement of student achievement by

working together with school boards to improve student results, providing

students and parents with choice and increasing support to school districts? How

can someone over there speak against that?

This legislation delivers on our government's throne speech

commitments to introduce education reforms that focus on improving choice,

quality and accountability in British Columbia's education system. It also

supports something that, over the years, my wife and I have become increasingly

aware of, as we have our grandson and my wife — a writer, a mentor of young

students — learns and sees firsthand some of the challenges we have with

literacy. This bill supports the new literacy plan, ReadNow B.C.

I have become increasingly concerned in recent years as we look at

the results of our students. Secondary completion rates haven't changed for the

past four years, and last year's completion rates for our aboriginal and ESL

students have dropped. That is troubling. This bill supports work to improve

those completion rates. I'm not so sure that the previous speaker has a concern

for the 11,000 students that are not graduating each and every year from our

schools. Today in our society, that is simply not acceptable.

It's also my understanding that more and more of our children are

arriving at the doors of our kindergartens without the skills they need to be

successful and achieve the potential that they have. That is fundamentally

wrong. In fact, I understand that one in four students started kindergarten this

year without the development skills needed to succeed. That is nearly 9,000

British Columbia children. In my opinion, that is not acceptable.

These facts make it clear that we cannot continue to do things the

way we have always done them and expect different results. Let us put

partisanship aside in this House and focus on the 11,000 students that aren't

graduating and on the 9,000 students that aren't ready for kindergarten. Let's

all commit to pursuing new ways to improve student achievement.

You know, we've heard in this House, over the past few weeks,

members over there talk about accountability, but yet they're opposed to Bill

20, which asks for more school board accountability. You cannot, hon. Chair,

speak out of both sides of your mouth over there.

One of the cornerstones of this legislation is increased

accountability for student results. School boards in the province need to work

together to improve how our students are doing in their schools. Bill 20 will

focus on improving student achievement. To help boards do this, accountability

contracts will be replaced with achievement contracts. That's good. Who can

actually be opposed to striving to improve student achievement? Apparently, only

members over there.

[1015]

Boards will also be required to prepare achievement reports in

which superintendents will look back on the previous year and report how their

district did in reaching its achievement goals. That's what parents and students

in my riding tell me they want.

The role of the district superintendent of schools will be clearly

spelled out, and their responsibilities to school boards for student achievement

in the district…. This will assist and reinforce the fact that student

achievement is the superintendent's number one job. Now, who could possibly be

opposed to that? Who could possibly be opposed to educators' and

superintendents' number one job being student achievement?

Superintendents of achievement. Let me just talk about that for a

second. While increasing school board accountability for student achievement,

we're also increasing the support for school districts. They go hand in hand.

The superintendents of achievement will inform, advise and work with school

boards to help them develop school and district achievement contracts and find

new ways to use existing evidence in order to evaluate student achievement. Only

members on that side do not want to pursue new ways to improve student

achievements.

It will identify best practices in school districts and encourage

those school districts to share their successes with other districts, including

those who are struggling to meet their achievement goals. It is truly about our

students. It's time that everyone started to focus on the students.

The superintendents of achievement will also provide parents with

a new avenue of appealing board decisions. Parents in my riding,

Okanagan-Westside, want to have a larger voice in how the education system in

B.C. is being delivered. They don't want less. They want more. They want to be

involved. They want to help. They want to celebrate success. They want to see

achievement by all students. They want to see children coming to school,

starting kindergarten ready to learn.

Only last week I visited, once again, Peachland Elementary School.

Peachland Elementary School is an unbelievable school with great leadership,

with great teachers and fantastic students. We get to do a lot of things as

elected officials. I can tell you that whether it's going to Mount Boucherie

School on the west side, Peachland Elementary School in Peachland or Summerland

Middle School with principal Katie Hicks — one of the most exciting and positive

principals in all of British Columbia — or talking to Linda Beaven from

Summerland Secondary School and her excitement about enriching the lives of our

students or Mr. Bond, who is teaching

[ Page 7057 ]

young students the trades…. They're all so excited and so positive.

They want to share, but what are they all focused on? What are

they all united about? Student development and student achievements. In each of

those schools we have fantastic PAC organizations, fantastic groups of parents

supporting not only their own children but the children of the community.

[1020]

Let me just talk for a second about early learning. Early learning

is important, and one way boards can improve student achievement is by making

sure that children are developmentally ready when they start school. We know

that when young children get a good start in school, they get a good start in

life.

However, the reality today is that some 9,000 children are not as

prepared as others. Madam Chair, that is wrong. That is why it's important for

families with preschool children to get the tools they need to prepare their

children for kindergarten.

For example, the LEAP program is designed to promote literacy in

children up to age five by integrating reading and language skills with play.

Ready, Set, Learn is a kindergarten readiness program for three-year-olds and

their parents, and one that I can say my own grandson has participated in. Just

this fall the province of British Columbia embarked on an ambitious program to

open an additional 80 StrongStart centres in schools throughout all British

Columbia, giving promise of opportunity to learn for our students in British

Columbia.

How could you on that side of the House possibly be against that?

These StrongStart centres help young children grow linguistically, physically

and socially through age-appropriate activities like stories, music and art.

Madam Chair, if you'll just allow me to digress here for a second.

Literacy — what a wonderful thing.

I am blessed to have a wife, Yasmin John-Thorpe, who has worked

and works tirelessly on providing literacy and mentorship for students. In fact,

she's a volunteer going into schools through the entire Okanagan to assist in

writing skills for young people and having a writing competition for the

Okanagan Valley, supported by people in the Okanagan like the Summerland Asset

Development Initiative, the Central Okanagan regional district or the Okanagan-Similkameen

district. They help fund this, giving recognition and honour to our young

students, our young writers.

Literacy is the cornerstone of a student's education. It's a

cornerstone of us having the society that we all want. It's important in having

literacy and having those tools and developmental opportunities so that no child

gets left behind.

This legislation requires boards to develop district literacy

plans to improve reading skills within the school system by working with their

communities. Now, how could anyone vote against that? We know that reading is a

fundamental skill for every British Columbian to be successful, whether in

school or in life. How could anybody over there actually vote against that?

We know that one in three British Columbian adults struggles to

read something as basic as a restaurant menu or a bus schedule. That is shocking

and alarming, and yet members on that side of the House will vote against that.

It's essential that we work together to change that. We want to and need to

improve literacy rates for all British Columbians so that they, too, can achieve

their very best.

I just want to close by talking about and recognizing the

contributions that school district 23 — the educators, the teachers' assistants

— give to all of the students, and also school district 67, as I have two school

districts that I work with — Peachland, Summerland, the Westside and Westside

Road.

[1025]

Our government is working to make British Columbia the

best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent. I ask for members on

that side of the House to drop their partisanship, to stop worrying so much

about what their big supporters, the BCTF, tell them to do and start focusing in

on our students, moving forward, saying that 11,000 students not graduating is

not acceptable and that 9,000 students not ready for kindergarten is not

acceptable.

Let us work together to make sure that every student in British

Columbia has the skills and the opportunity to graduate from grade 12 and move

on to a job, to build, to go to a trade school or a university or a college.

This is all about new ways to improve student results.

You know, we see some new approaches. We see the British Columbia

home builders working in a way to educate in the schools, working with our great

teachers. We see Junior Achievement now going into schools across British

Columbia. It's all about providing tools and opportunities for our students.

These legislative amendments in Bill 20 give all of us the

opportunity to put our students first. Please, put your politics aside. Put your

politics aside and vote for students by supporting Bill 20.

N. Macdonald: First, it's always a pleasure to speak to

bills that pertain to education. Just as my colleague from Vancouver, I have a

passion for education. It's something that I have spent my life working in. I've

been a teacher and a principal for over 20 years. I've spent six years teaching

in Africa. It's something that I feel very strongly about.

Bill 20 has an interesting name. It talks about enabling students

to achieve. Obviously, to enable students to achieve is something that's highly

supportable, but this bill has a misnomer as a title because it does not in any

way, in my view, take the education system forward. In fact, it takes the

education system into a number of areas that should be of deep concern.

Teachers, trustees, people have raised these concerns, and many of

these will be familiar to the minister. I'm sure they were put very clearly to

her as issues that needed to be addressed. As I read through the bill, these are

the areas that struck me immediately.

The first one that I came to was with the

section 11 appeals.

Section 11 appeals have traditionally ended

[ Page 7058 ]

with the locally elected school boards. In this bill you have that changed.

Instead of

section 11 appeals finishing with the locally elected board, they are

going to go on to a ministry-appointed official. While that sounds like it's not

a big deal, there are two fundamental problems with that.

First, there is the principle of local governance. There is the

principle of electing locally centred school boards and having them be

responsible for making decisions and having them as the final point in many,

many issues, including

section 11 appeals. That is of particular importance when

you come from a rural area, an area that is well removed from the centre of

power here. It is a difficult place to get to, a place that has unique needs and

is different from other parts of the province. How we have always recognized

that is through locally elected school boards — people from our community that

we see in the grocery store, who understand the issues being talked about in

section 11 appeals. So there is that principle that this bill undermines.

[1030]

The second thing is the cost of introducing this sort of system.

You are now putting in a quasi-judicial system. You add an extra layer of

appeal. There is a cost that, hopefully, the ministry has thought through

because there will be a cost to them. There is a cost that will be imposed upon

the school boards. Neither of those, in my view, is a useful cost for the

taxpayers to absorb. It will add a bureaucratic next step.

So you would assume that there is some compelling argument that

has been made to explain why you would do this. But I have heard no compelling

argument. What is happening in the system now that compels the government to add

this step and to fundamentally undermine the principle of locally elected boards

being responsible for education in their area? I've heard no argument, and there

is no argument to be made, I would assume.

Let's talk, then, about the change in name to boards of education.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But with that change comes a change

in scope — a change in what is expected of these boards. There is a certain

logic at a very fundamental level about having early childhood literacy and

community literacy coordinated through a board of education. But if boards of

education are going to do that, they are going to need substantial resources,

and that is the question that needs to be answered by this minister. Are the

resources going to be there to allow this to be a success? If they are not, then

there is something poorly thought through about this initiative. There will need

to be substantial resources to make it work.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

There needs to be recognition as well that there are literacy

programs already going on. In my area you have the Columbia Basin Alliance for

Literacy. They're doing tremendous work. The reason they are doing tremendous

work is because they provide a basic framework to allow literacy groups to

organize themselves, and they allow each community to organize in a different

way. So they provide the resources, the framework, to allow this to happen. Then

they allow the flexibility of a localized system so that the needs of a local

community are met. Whenever the ministry tries with a top-down approach and

tells communities what they should be doing, they end up with a

half-thought-through program. That's my experience.

If the board of education is going to be responsible for all of

these programs, they need to recognize that with literacy, there are existing

programs that it has to mesh with. They need to respect the local knowledge that

is there — the local ability to make programs work for individuals within the

community. If they don't do that — if they try to do it from here in Victoria —

it is not going to work.

With literacy for children there are some good programs that

exist. There are some principles with literacy for children in making sure that

children have the opportunities that they need to succeed.

There needs to be a broader understanding of the support that we

give to families as a whole, and that raises…. You need to think about welfare.

You need to think about the income assistance programs. You need to think about

a host of issues. What the minister is proposing is a fairly limited program. It

recognizes a need to come in and assist children before they come into

kindergarten, but it is limited. There are other programs.

We need to get child care right. We do not have that figured out

here in the province. What almost everyone in the communities I represent will

tell you is that it's something we need to get sorted. That is an important part

of making sure we have children that are ready to step into the school system.

That has not been sorted. That's something that needs to be thought through as

we expand the scope of these boards and make them boards of education.

Next we come to the achievement contracts. All of the language

used here is language that is politically tested. It's carefully crafted in that

way. But the problem I have had with the achievement agenda of this government

from day one is that it's not really an achievement agenda. It is a

justification agenda. It is based upon the fact that they do not essentially

trust what is going on in schools, and they want to check up on it. There is a

cost to that. There is a need to really think through exactly what you're doing.

[1035]

With this achievement agenda and these achievement contracts…. If

school districts do not meet these achievement contracts, they can be replaced

at the whim of the minister. Now the problem with that is this that they are

based on data. If you're going to base your achievement contracts on data, then

you'd better be very, very clear in understanding what that data is and how

pertinent it is. That has been the consistent problem that I've had with the

achievement agenda of this government — that, in fact, the data they are using

is often misinterpreted.

I'll give you one example with the foundation skills assessment.

Foundation skills assessment, in my view,

[ Page 7059 ]

is what it is. It is a very narrow testing of certain grades of students. The

tests are very narrow. That is fine as long as everyone understands that it is a

narrow testing and it is a testing of a particular skill. The difficulty comes

when ministry staff — ministry staff are less likely to do it than politicians —

or politicians then extrapolate from it and say: "This particular result means

something."

I'll give you an example in my school. We were doing the…. When I

was principal at a beautiful school in the East Kootenay, Nicholson Elementary —

I'm very proud of that school — one of the tasks that I had was to put together

a document that included a great deal of data. Some of the data would have been

very useful — the testing that we did. Some of it was useful but needed to be

interpreted in a certain way. The FSA results were part of that data that really

needed to be explained, because you would have different-sized classes.

I'll give you an example. I would have one class that would have

20 students, and the grade 4s would do testing. Let's use the example of math.

They would do testing in math. Now these math questions are word problems. They

are not a wide range of math questions; they are word problems. Every year it is

the same thing. So in that particular skill it makes sense to measure, perhaps,

and see how you're doing.

The following year I had eight students. I knew that two of them

were very, very weak. The assumption with the achievement contract was that I

was going to improve each year and would work to make sure that staff had

training and would try to improve. But I had two weak students, and so I knew

that likely, even if I did a good job, I was going to go down in terms of

percentages of students that were passing or exceeding expectations. I knew

that.

But when you put it together, the question immediately became:

"Well, aren't you going to try to improve this year?" Well, yeah, I'm trying to

improve, but the reality is that with eight students coming through, this is

what I project to be the likely thing. If you want me to try to improve and then

explain later why I didn't, then what are the statistics for? What is the data

for?

So you get into this place of where you have data, but it doesn't

necessarily mean anything. I'll tell you that one day I was on the way to

school…. I was driving out to Nicholson and Christy Clark was on the radio. She

was talking about grade 4 literacy results. In the same sentence she said: "This

is just a snapshot. It doesn't really mean anything" — okay; yeah, that's true —

"but because we're down four or five percentage points, we're going to introduce

this program." I thought, is this madness? Is this crazy? Because you just said

what is true — that data didn't necessarily mean anything — and right away it

triggers an action. With data, you really need to know what you have.

[1040]

We also have a tendency to take things that are subjective, put a

number on it and then it looks like it's objective — like we have real,

objective data. That is the problem. It's not necessarily how it's used or what

you're doing with the tests. It's often exactly how you're going to use it. With

data, you can twist it to push your particular agenda.

Intangibles cannot be measured. When you have this achievement

contract, there are so many things that happen in a school that are important,

which are in fact critical to a child's development, that you will never be able

to measure. It's those intangibles.

If you've ever talked to a student ten years after they've

graduated about what was really meaningful about the education experience, very

often they are talking about things that you would never measure with data.

They're talking about a relationship they had with their friends and peers.

They're talking about advice they received from a teacher. They're talking about

a band trip they went on or the confidence they had in participating in a play.

All of those things are intangibles that are crucial to a school, but they will

never show up in these sorts of documents.

There is a cost to these achievement contracts. There is a cost in

terms of time; there is a cost in terms of real money to make this happen. The

idea that you would have these contracts and that it could lead to a firing of

boards — that's something that the minister has heard from trustees. She has

heard that they have tremendous problems with that, and that is something that

really needs to be thought about and worked through.

My experience with data-driven education systems includes

overseas. I worked with the IGCSE, which is essentially the British system, and

with the International Baccalaureate. These systems do produce data that schools

look at, but the data is predictable. To produce that data is expensive, and it

takes time to get proper data. With experience you learn how not to misinterpret

it.

But even with that, within Britain you have different views on how

well they use that data. You have systems there that are criticized for the

misuse of information.

I think the example that most teaching professionals and in fact

anybody knowledgable about the education system, about the misuse of data, would

point to is the Fraser Institute. Their ranking of schools is the most

ridiculous use of data that I can imagine.

What's destructive about things like that is that if I was a

principal of a secondary school and wanted to rise up that ranking, I could very

quickly do things that have nothing to do with good education but could quickly

push me up that ranking.

I think the minister even knows that the deputy minister would

tell her that that is an extremely poor use of data, but it's one that we need

to be concerned about. So that's a second concern.

A third one has to do with fees. I understand around band programs

and around hockey programs there's a general acceptance of fees. I know that

parents would have spoken to the minister about this. I've heard the same

concerns about making sure that the band programs continue, and I know how they

have traditionally worked. It's part of an issue that needs to be dealt with.

The idea that school planning councils would have a big say in

this — there's a concern around that.

[ Page 7060 ]

School planning councils are a useful element of a school, but they are not

elected. They are parents within the school. The idea that they would have more

power and that you would take power away from school boards, or boards of

education, is problematic.

School boards represent the public. The public is paying for the

school system. It is a public school system. Decisions should be sitting with

that board. That makes complete sense. School planning councils tend to rotate

through members. They do not have the same clarity about their goals and how

they choose members as you would have with a school board.

[1045]

The idea of fees — I just want to talk about it for a second. We

have to be really careful with this. When I was in Tanzania, the International

Monetary Fund insisted that Tanzania put in a system of school fees. We need

always to remember the principle of a free public education system and the

importance of a free public education system. I would say that you need to live

in a country where the population does not have access to free education to see

the difficulties that it can create.

There is a principle that we need to be mindful of here in Canada

as well — that every child should be given the opportunities that we would want

for our own children. We really need to push that as far as we can. With fees,

while I understand the limitations within this bill and I understand

historically what we've done with band programs and that, we need to be mindful

with the exclusion that comes when you introduce fees and watch that carefully.

The idea of provincial schools. I understand the minister was

talking with Christy Clark about a school that would limit the principle of

integration. I want to say this and again draw upon the experience in Africa.

The first school I taught at was a boys' Catholic school where all the students

were Basutu. They were all Basutu, so their experience was confined to that

group. When they interacted with their peers who were female, the interaction

was very unnatural. When you looked at it, you would see that it is not the way

we would interact. They were 17 and 18 and often acting in a way that you would

expect from grade 4s and grade 5s. Their interaction with other races was

strained and unnatural. Their interaction with other religions was strained and

unnatural.

In the second experience I had in Africa, we were at an

international school; 30 percent were Muslim, the rest Christian, 40 different

nationalities. Just watching my children in that setting, the interaction with

everyone was completely natural. You're exposed and you get used to a wide range

of how people work, how people see the world through their religion. All of that

was very natural and worked well.

I can tell you that there are challenges with integration. There

are challenges that we have to meet, because the way we do it now is definitely

the way we should be doing it. It is flexible enough so that we can meet the

children's need if they need, for certain portions of the time, to be in a

different setting, but we always strive to bring them into the classroom. To do

that, you need the educators to know how to provide support for these children,

you need the resources of special education assistants, and you need people in

the district that bring the knowledge that they have to share with teachers. If

you do all of that, it works well.

It works for the children that are in the class, the children that

learn to accept what the reality is for other people. I mean, this is

fundamentally important. I've taught children with a variety of different

challenges, and each one of them the class learns how to adjust to, the teacher

learns how to adjust to, and the student learns how to adjust to us. So it

works.

It works within society, and it works within a classroom, but you

have to have the supports to make it work. If there was going to be a focus for

this minister, it would be to make sure that those supports are there.

Certainly, the idea of provincial schools is really problematic and troubling,

and if there's any move to set up schools that take away from that principle of

integration, it would be a negative thing to do.

[1050]

Cost. Let's talk about the cost of some of these things. The

filter that I put this through is the filter of a school where I'm the principal

and responsible for the money that we have to spend on that school. Every time I

see a dollar in education that I think is misspent, I always look at my school

and see how it could be spent better. What irritates me about having an

Education Ministry that spends money on communications, on newspaper ads…. It

just bothers me because I think that I could have spent that money better.

We went through the first term in particular with substantial

cutbacks in education, and no matter how it's phrased on the ground, we were cut

back deeply. I'll give you some examples.

At Nicholson Elementary I needed new water fountains. I had to

wait a year to get the water fountains fixed. Now it seems like, okay, that's

not a big deal. You can't get the water fountains fixed, but there was a cost

issue. I could not get that through to get water fountains fixed. I had the

carpets that were cleaned twice a year that should have been out of there, but

that took time. They should have been cleaned twice a year. They were being

cleaned once a year.

As the principal I taught halftime, but part of my job too was

that if a kid gets sick, I go clean it up. We would have lunch in the same room.

I knew that the carpet needed to be cleaned, but there were financial

limitations on what we had, so it would be cleaned once a year. Now that seems

like…. Okay, that's a little thing, but it points to…. For me, that was a more

important thing than a lot of what we're talking about here. For the children in

that class it was a more important thing.

If we're going to spend money…. I could go through a long list

about needing to get the grass cut at the school, having to pay to…. I had to

raise the money with parents to get the play area repaved. There was a whole

list of areas where money should have been spent, but it wasn't there.

When I look and see that we're going to put another layer of

superintendents, that we're going to set up some

[ Page 7061 ]

quasi-judicial process, I see money wasted, money wasted. Instead, what we

should always be trying to do with the education system is putting it where

children are going to have their educational needs met. It should be put in the

classroom as close to the children as you can get. That doesn't mean that you

don't need professional development; you do. But our focus should be there.

Maybe that brings us to the next thing to talk about, which is the

superintendents of achievement. There are four of them that are proposed. There

could be more. The superintendents of achievement are put forward as

professionals who would support school boards.

Now, first off, that professional support is already there. In my

school district we had a superintendent that was committed to school

improvement. Bendina Miller was committed. She put resources towards making sure

that principals received professional development, that there was a solid plan

for educators, whether they were special ed assistants or teachers. Teachers

participated in that, and principals participated. We had that support.

We had somebody that was provincially recognized, Pat Dooley, who

would come in and make sure that we understood what was happening provincially.

Our superintendent did that too. She regularly attended meetings here.

That flow of information, that plan, is in place now. It was in

place when I was a principal. So to add a superintendent of achievement…. Are

they really going to add something that is needed?

The second part of their job is basically to be an inspector of

schools. Why does the minister think there needs to be an inspector of schools —

an inspector that is going to come in and go into classes and check their

records? First off, how effective is that going to be? What is the cost? Is that

actually where you want to be spending your money?

There are all sorts of existing checks, and if all you're putting

in place is a system for justification, you need to think that through. Is that

what you want your staff to be doing — to be filling in forms, to be working

with data that might not actually mean anything? Is that useful? Is that a wise

use of money? I would suggest to the minister that that needs to be thought

through.

[1055]

What I see with this bill in particular is a series of

half-thought-through measures, where language can be put around it so that it

sounds like we're working towards something noble: achievement. Everyone wants

achievement, but in this bill…. We need to ask ourselves: "Are we actually going

to make a difference in children's lives?" I put it to this House that, with my

experience, there are a great number of questions about that.

I know that the minister has had questions raised from the

teachers and the organization that represents them. They have difficulties with

it. She has probably heard from the trustees over the past weekend. They have

difficulties with it. There is a tremendous amount to be rethought in this bill.

It is my hope that the critic will be putting forward amendments

to improve this bill, and I would invite members to think this through and to

make sure that this critical part of what a provincial government does — to make

sure that we are educating our children for the future — we get right. If we

waste money, we do everyone a disservice. I would argue that a great deal of

this is half-thought-through and a waste.

With that, I thank you, as always, for the opportunity to speak

here. It's a pleasure. As I've said, this is something that is a passion of

mine. I think that we all have different experiences, but all of us share that

passion. If you ask people what are the most important things in their lives,

they talk about their kids and their grandchildren. I know that there's a

sincere effort to do what's best, but I'm telling you, with Bill 20 there's a

tremendous amount that needs to be reworked and rethought.

I. Black: I am very pleased this morning to stand up on

behalf of the constituents that I represent — the parents and students of my

community — and talk about Bill 20. This bill is about choice for students, it

is about preparing students, and it is about the achievement of students. This

bill is about the accountability within our school system, and it is about

achievement-driven outcomes.

It's about preserving non-core courses that have been threatened

recently by the scaling back or cancellation due to recent court rulings. It's

about giving parents a greater transparency and a greater voice as how the

educational system they fund is being delivered. This bill is also about

consistency of board performance and the board approach across British Columbia,

while still giving the latitude to address local issues.

Whenever we find ourselves at a crossroads of changing governance

models within the education system, there's spirited debate and discussion, as

there should be. We have seen examples of that in the debate we've had thus far

on Bill 20.

This bill includes elements such as the achievement contracts and

the creation of superintendents of achievement. From the various stakeholders

and partners in the education system, there has been support in some parts and

concern raised about others. I would specifically think of the B.C. School

Trustees Association, who have come out in writing and said they're very

supportive of various elements of Bill 20. They have voiced some of the

concerns, many of which have been shared by my friends opposite. The problem

that I have — and it echoes a little bit, or perhaps better phrased, is another

example of the concern raised by the Minister of Small Business — is that

there's a lot of contradiction, if you will, inherent within the arguments that

have been presented so far.

It's a bit of a two-prong message that rings a little hollow for

me. In one case, there has been a call for less quantitative measurements to be

put in place when we speak of things like achievement contracts and trying to

get some consistency within the school system. The problem is that there are no

suggestions given as to what those might be. On the one hand, you're being asked

for less quantitative measurements being put in place with respect to

performance of school districts

[ Page 7062 ]

and the students within them, but the questions that need to be asked are:

"Well, such as what?" and "What are they designed to achieve if they are to be

less quantitative?" and "If they are less quantitative, how will you know that

you've achieved them?"

The second part of the argument comes across that there are

funding requests for leadership skills and development of the leaders within the

school system that will enhance student achievement. Well, the problem that I

see on that one is…. This is not to say that the training is a bad thing; I

always believe in that. But in the context of the argument as it is presented,

the contradiction, phrased as follows, is: what skills would those be that you'd

like taught if you are not willing to define achievement and you've got no

desire to measure it?

[1100]

As was mentioned, actually, by the previous speaker and a few

before him, there has also been the call for more funding within the educational

system despite the fact that it is at a historical high but also in the same

sentence asking for no accountability that goes along with that additional

funding.

I think the previous speaker, whose thoughts I always enjoy

hearing because he has a great deal of experience and firsthand knowledge of the

school system through many, many years as a dedicated teacher and principal….

Even within his own remarks, you heard some of that as well — talking about how

money could be better spent, if that, say, was there, and if there was somebody

checking up to make sure money was being put in the right place. Well, that is

in many ways what Bill 20 is also designed to achieve — some of that consistency

in making sure that the standards are provincewide.

Whenever you think of chasing goals and objectives of any kind,

whether it's in the educational system or whether it's in a private sector

context or whether it's in a non-profit organization, there's one truism that

stands the test of time, which is that if you can't measure it, you can't manage

it. So the notion of moving away from quantitative measurements because it makes

people uncomfortable is not something I'd support, because we do have a reality

that we're dealing with in our school system, which is that the achievement of

our students, while it is at a historical high level, has been slipping, if not

stalled, in certain places and that we still have an enormous gap in the area of

aboriginal graduation rates.

The government's service plan for the Ministry of Education has

some specific performance measurements within it. They include things like this:

the province has set performance measures for achievement, such as 85 percent

overall school completion by 2015; 85 percent aboriginal school completion by

2015; first in Canada on the PISA test for 15-year-olds by 2015; 85 percent of

students transitioning to post-secondary education by 2015; 10,000 students in

SSA and ACE IT programs by 2015; and 87 percent of our school districts

improving on goals and their accountability contracts and achievement plans by

2008-2009.

Now, without a degree of continuity and consistency between the

various levels of educational governance, these stated goals — and they're goals

that are the right and the responsibility of the provincial government to

establish — will not be reached.

One of the tools for achieving them is the creation of the

proposed superintendents of achievement. It's a way to reach the goals of

consistency and continuity.

There was an irony in the comments of the member for

Vancouver-Kensington yesterday. He went on at some length and with an expected

amount of drama with respect to the experience he had in certain schools in the

Surrey school district. He was speaking specifically of the school fees issue,

which I'll come to in a moment. He was going on at length about the fact that

the hardship policies were not working in the schools — he went on to list the

schools — and that hardship policies weren't working in this school, and

hardship policies weren't working in that school and throwing into question the

importance of some of these programs indirectly.

It struck me as ironic that that's precisely the kind of thing

that a superintendent of achievement might want to have a look at to make sure

that hardship policies, which are standard in every school district in this

province, are consistently implemented to make sure that no student is left

behind. That's precisely the type of thing that a superintendent of achievement

won't go on to have a look at, and it concerns me a little bit that that irony

is lost on the member opposite.

I want to turn briefly to the area of school fees. On this front,

the B.C. School Trustees Association is very much in agreement with the

government. I should point out that my own school district — school district 43

— trustees are also in agreement with this. In fact, they asked me specifically

to take the message to the Minister of Education with respect to including band

instruments within the contemplation of this legislation. The minister will no

doubt back me on the notion that we had many long conversations on it, as I

impressed upon her the importance of this to my constituents and to the school

trustees in school district 43 and to me personally.

Now, I have to tell you, when surfing the channels on the TV the

other night, I happened to come across a movie that I hadn't seen for years. It

was one of my favourite ones. It was Mr. Holland's Opus . I have to admit,

I've got a soft spot for this. It's a film — for those of you who haven't taken

it in — about a band teacher that had a remarkable impact over 30 years at a

given school. It was a fantastic performance by Richard Dreyfuss.

[1105]

I've got a soft spot for this movie. I've got a soft spot for this

film for a couple of reasons. First, I had a profound impact in my own life with

respect to music programs at junior and senior high school. I had a Mr. Holland

of my own that had an enormous impact in my world as a young man.

I've seen some of the same experiences and some of the same magic

in some of the music programs in my area. I think specifically of, although it's

not limited to, the Port Moody Secondary band, who I've heard many times at

community events. The performance of some of these young adults is truly

amazing. That does not happen

[ Page 7063 ]

without inspired leadership. I know we have many Mr. Hollands, if you will,

throughout the school system.

There's a great line in this film. It's when the music program is

being threatened. In the words of the principal, who was cast as kind of the bad

guy in this particular film, it's being threatened because of the interests of

teaching reading and writing. There's a stinging comeback that went back to that

principal, where Mr. Holland turned to the principal and said: "If you have your

way, I've got bad news for you. Those students won't have anything to read or

write about." I thought that was a wonderful testament to the importance of arts

and culture within our school system.

A similar threat exists to many of those programs — and I'm

thinking specifically of music and band — by not passing this bill. The court

ruling with respect to band instrument rentals put many music programs in

jeopardy. The way I see it, you can debate the context of school fees — and

particularly, of band instruments, I suppose — in three ways.

You can debate it with respect to the practicality and the

pragmatics of it. You can debate it with respect to the philosophy, which truly

is what drove the court challenges, in my opinion. You can debate this matter

within the context of democracy itself.

Let me touch on it from a pragmatic standpoint. As mentioned,

there are hardship policies within every school district. I received the

assurances of my own school board that the hardship policies in school district

43 were such that this would not be a concern. School fees in these areas would

not be a concern.

The second element of the pragmatics is with respect to a bit of

balance that exists. If you take the scenario where the school was to provide a

complete orchestra's worth of instruments for all of the students throughout the

entire province, it's not pragmatic to do that for a few reasons, not least of

which is that there are hygiene issues with respect to sharing wind instruments.

But it's also almost impossible to have the right inventory for the right mix of

students and the blend of instruments they want to play.

There is a limited inventory in every school. Those serve a very

important purpose. I just want to touch on that, because I think it's part of

making the argument for why this is such a right step to take.

The limited inventory of instruments within a school band program

serves a very specific but limited purpose. It allows students, especially at

the earlier ages when they're getting into the band program, to try an

instrument they hadn't tried before, to try to figure out which one they may

wish to play. It's also in the very early stages of the band experience. It

allows the students and the teacher to assess whether the student wishes to

continue or not, if they have that fire and interest in music — a fire in their

belly or interest in music that wants them to continue.

It's also handy for those students who play multiple instruments,

because it allows them to change without having to have an inventory of their

own, if you will. There's also the reality that schools typically have to have

things like larger percussion instruments and the piano.

You can look at this from a democracy standpoint as well. I think

it's a context that begins to move away from the kind of bias I have in this

area to kind of the broader issue, and that is with respect to parental input.

I spoke earlier about the desire for parents to become more

engaged and have a stronger voice in the school system that affects their

children. The DPAC in school district 43 actually has produced a survey that has

now been taken by almost 600 parents in my community. It's a very long survey.

I'm not going to go through all the questions on it. There are dozens and dozens

of questions. It's a very detailed survey, and they're to be commended for the

effort.

The survey was across the entire district. For the benefit of

members and for those watching, school district 43 encompasses the communities

of Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and Coquitlam, in which there are four MLAs. It

goes across four ridings of this government. It has a reasonable distribution

across the grades — just for those interested — from kindergarten right through

to grade 12. It reflects the engagement, if not the pride and ownership, of many

parents with respect to the school system in which their children are currently

developing.

Of the many, many questions, I'm going to touch on a couple here.

One of the questions with respect to school fees asked: "As a parent, I am

willing to pay for some enhancements to my children's public education

experience." The answers are from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and 80

percent were in favour, in the strongly agree or agree category.

The next question was: "It's appropriate to collect school fees

for extracurricular activities that are not core education–related." The

response came back that 78 percent strongly agreed or agreed. In each of those,

by the way, there were 6 percent or 8 percent on top of that who had no firm

opinion.

[1110]

Another question worth reading into the record was in the area of

the survey that dealt with equity and opportunity. The question was, "A

prohibition on school fees may result in the loss of some valuable program

options or choices in our schools," and 76 percent agreed or strongly agreed

with that statement. Only 8 percent said no.

Similarly, the next question was: "While I agree that school fees

should be eliminated wherever possible, there may be some programs in the

curriculum where fees are appropriate." Again, only 8 percent said no, and 85

percent were in favour of this. And the one that kind of brings it home: "If a

prohibition on school fees would result in the loss of a school program, those

fees should be allowed to protect student choices." Here you had 75 percent

strongly agreed or agreed and only 7 percent in disagreement.

The member for Vancouver-Kensington made a very emphatic point and

asked the question rhetorically several times: "Who comes up with this stuff?"

And he asked the question again: "Who comes up with this stuff?" Well, in many

respects, the contents of Bill 20…. Who comes up with this stuff? The people who

elected us.

[ Page 7064 ]

The Minister of Education and the ministry at large have been

doing a lot of listening to parents through the various vehicles available to

that ministry, and that has formed a lot of the input on this bill. I think it's

important that we're mindful, for all the debate we have within the sometimes

vacuum nature of this House, that there is a community out there of parents who

have a very, very large say in how the education system should work, and their

views in large part are being reflected in this bill.

Let me conclude my remarks in the following fashion. When it came

to the issue of school fees, the courts ruled as to interpreting existing

legislation when it was pushed to do so. Most of that ruling came back as the

status quo. It didn't really tell us anything new that we didn't already know,

but where it differed, it created what I'll refer to as thankfully short-term

confusion and placed in jeopardy for cancellation non-core courses for thousands

of students and teachers across this province.

This bill in its entirety is a welcome opportunity for teachers

and for parents and, most importantly, for students to provide that consistency,

clarity and certainty and to put student achievement at its core, which is

precisely where it should be.

C. Wyse: I do wish to acknowledge all of the comments that

have been brought forward to the House around Bill 20.

It's an omnibus bill. An omnibus bill, as we have discovered

previously in this session, may have some good in it; it may have some bad in

it, when it's examined. The same applies here to Bill 20, clearly, in my view.

As a matter of fact, when I go through this particular bill, I find a very large

number of concerns that come to mind.

To begin with, there is an underlying principle about education

being free and available and that that education be provided in a public

education system funded by the province. That particular principle is one that

is proposed by the United Nations, that left-wing think tank. That's where one

particular organization brings forward that principle.

Today in my discussion as I go through the bill, I want to start

off with the possibility that one view here is that the government simply is

circumventing a decision by the Supreme Court. I don't have difficulty in

accepting an argument that the Legislature is where laws are to be made and that

the courts are where the laws are to be tried and tested. That is our system.

[1115]

However, when we reflect upon the large amount of resources that

are required to continually defend a basic principle, those resources equally

could have been applied to a variety of other services that the province of

British Columbia and its residents equally could use, rather than simply

supporting the court system. Government in Bill 20 has thrown down that

challenge again. In my opinion, almost assuredly, someone or some organization

will pick up that challenge and take that basic principle back to court. But so

be it. That happens to be outside of the decisions that remain directly within

our control here as legislators.

Given my role as a local government critic, I've chosen an

approach on Bill 20 of having a look at particular legislation — how that

legislation affects the locally elected people and their responsibilities

assigned by this Legislature, and the effect of how this legislation compromises

the ability of the locally elected people to do a variety of different things.

Now Bill 20, if it remains in this form, is going to pass on the

responsibility of being appealed not to the locally elected body but the appeal

will go here to Victoria. There is a centralizing theme of power and authority

contained in sections of this bill that I would like to examine with this House.

I wish to begin my discussion by looking at the proposed aspect of

Bill 20 dealing with fees. Specifically, it allows a board to charge fees for

specialty academics and sports, for costs beyond those of providing the standard

educational program. It allows fees for purchase or rental of a musical

instrument. It allows fees for purchase or rental of tools for trades-training

or apprenticeship programs.

As I've mentioned, we know where the need for this particular

amendment has come from. But let's examine how the legislation intends to

implement those fees. There are concerns. Rural districts have a different

aspect of concerns in meeting the rules contained within Bill 20. In order to

put fees into place, they are required to have approval from the school planning

council, and those fees are to be approved annually. Where I live, there are

programs that are offered over more than one school. Therefore, it requires more

than one school planning council to be in agreement.

In addition to that aspect of it, school planning councils don't

exist in many of the schools where I happen to represent, and I represent three

school districts. It raises in my mind: what happens to a program — a fee, if

you like — if a school planning council doesn't exist, and also, what happens if

there isn't unanimity amongst all the school planning councils that are involved

in a program?

[1120]

This bill takes away one of the fundamental aspects of what the

board of trustees provided. They looked after the districtwide programs. In

looking after those districtwide programs, the program then was able to be

implemented across the district regardless of where the actual program itself

was being offered. We lose that, as it now stands, in Bill 20. In doing such, it

sets up the situation in which we will have programs that may or may not be able

to be offered in a district simply because of a functioning aspect of Bill 20 —

surely, something that was not planned when this legislation was put together.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the example that I've just discussed with my

colleagues here in the Legislature shows a situation contained in this bill in

which the authority of the locally elected school trustees is weakened. It

applies a decision-making aspect to a non-elected group of individuals that are

not accountable across the area which they have been assigned to represent —

something that is contradictory, in my opinion, for a government

[ Page 7065 ]

that says that they support open and transparent ways of doing business.

Now, you might say that I'm making a situation where it doesn't

have significance. Let's take the situation of a music program, a band program.

Where I'm from, a band program may require the involvement of more than one

school, whether it be elementary or secondary. This is not an outlandish

situation, from my experience.

I should mention that I bring to this discussion 35 years of

experience in a classroom here within British Columbia's public school system,

so I bring some experience myself of the actual implementation difficulties that

will exist around Bill 20 as it is presently listed. I'm also aware of the

difficulties that it will cause in districts that are of a more rural nature,

including the districts that I represent.

The next point that I would like to address in my discussion here

with my colleagues is the hardship policy. The hardship policy provides the

opportunity for an individual to claim the inability to afford a fee — a noble

set of circumstances, for sure. However, there is no indication here in the

legislation of what the province means for a provincial hardship policy.

Therefore, in all likelihood there will be variations from district to district.

The lack of direction here from Victoria creates an unequal opportunity for

education and certain programs where the fees apply.

Further confusion also comes about here. In elementary schools

music is mandatory. It is mandatory. Will musical instruments be free of charge?

If they are not going to be free of charge in all school districts in all

elementary schools, then there becomes a division of opportunity to a particular

program. Mr. Speaker, you could take the same discussion to other areas — for

education system.

[1125]

We are now beginning to discover, when we look through this

omnibus bill of amendments, that it has built into it some aspects that will

British Columbia. A hardship policy also needs to be examined in the context of

actually being an individual in that situation that has to step forward and make

a request for the use of that particular policy. There are concerns around that

part of it. There is an argument to be made that it is better to have in place a

policy that allows a program to be available and, at the same time in allowing

it to be available, that it requires a direction from the province so that it

becomes available throughout all of British Columbia.

Having spoken about an example or two of where the authority of

the local government has been weakened, I now want to move to the other side and

to show that, in actual fact, Bill 20 puts increased responsibility on the local

board of trustees at the same time, with equally serious reservations being

applied to them. When you look at Bill 20, it contains in it the added

responsibility for both early learning and community literacy being assigned to

the local board of education, formerly the board of trustees. For clarity in the

discussion I will likely continue to use the expression "board of trustees"

simply because, at this moment in time, people in the province will be a little

bit more familiar with it.

These boards have voiced the concern about the inadequate funding,

the funding levels that have already stretched the ability to provide for the

service for grades K-to-12 throughout British Columbia. We do know that the

resources have been stretched to the limit throughout the various school

districts. To put into place additional responsibilities on those school boards

without increasing the funding in order to enact them puts the local board in a

very awkward situation, to say the least.

In addition with the early learning, those programs must be

approved by the minister. The authority remains centred here in Victoria, yet

Victoria is not indicating that the funding will be available for implementing

the programs that may be brought forward.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Likewise, when we look at the aspect of community literacy being

passed on to the board of trustees, there are many groups that are already

responsible for community literacy, including adult literacy. Now, the board of

trustees is left in a situation of being part of a multiplicity of organizations

that have that responsibility. Trustees, as I have mentioned, have additional

stretching being put upon their responsibility.

[1130]

A third aspect that this bill contains are aspects that actually

undermine, in my judgment, the locally elected school board. There are a couple

of areas of my concerns that I would like to draw to this House's attention. The

bill itself sets up superintendents of achievement. Having set up those

superintendents of achievement, it would make sense that there be some tasks,

some responsibilities that would be assigned to these particular individuals to

undertake.

One of the tasks assigned to them is to deal with achievement

contracts. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the House have spent a fair

bit of time talking about this aspect of Bill 20. One point that I want to

remind the House of is that when you centre your attention upon statistical,

numerical analyses for educational goals, it is impossible to measure all the

goals numerically and empirically in a school system. There is research that

shows it time and time again.

Now we are going to have a local school board that will be

responsible for what happens in a school district. If the district misses the

targets that have been established for that school district, it may lead to the

dismissal of that board. Remember, the only direct link that exists for the

local people to deal with anyone in charge of education is this board of

trustees.

Now, given that set of circumstances, the board has been made

responsible for issues beyond their control. One thing that research has shown

is that achievement in any education system is directly tied to the wealth that

is available within the family situation, time in and time out. There are

districts throughout British Columbia

[ Page 7066 ]

that vary greatly in the wealth found in their area. That having been set

aside, within districts there is also a wide range in the wealth that is

available to support an individual in the education system.

I would like to quote some concerns that have been raised by the

trustees in correspondence with the minister. The trustees say:

"We would argue that real advances in achievement will be gained

by improvements to capacity — such as increased training and resources for

classroom teachers, increased specialist staffing to provide direct support

for challenged students, and increased opportunities for collaboration among

educators to build capacity across the district. While some of these are

within the control of boards, their full implementation requires resources

beyond what current district budgets often allow."

There have been colleagues in the House that have also raised….

It's as though the concern that I brought forward on behalf of the trustees

might be listed very narrowly to only one group within the province of British

Columbia.

I would also like to put on record a very broad coalition of

organizations here in British Columbia, which have concerns that parallel what

the trustees have brought forward. That group includes the B.C. Coalition of

People with Disabilities, B.C. Paraplegic Association, B.C. Teachers Federation,

Lower Mainland Down Syndrome Society, Moms on the Move, Parent Advisory

Committee on Inclusive Education, STEPS Forward Inclusive Post-secondary

Education Society, Vancouver Autism Parent Group, Vancouver District Parents

Advisory Council and Vancouver Parents for Successful Inclusion..

[1135]

It's a very broad collection of people that likewise bring forward

similar concerns with Bill 20 that I've already put on the record on behalf of

another group. They point out:

"Students should have as much integration as benefits the

individual child. It does mean that every child has a right to have his or her

educational needs met in their community. It means that when a classroom setting

isn't working for a student, an appropriate learning environment is available.

Inclusive education provides for as much integration as benefits the student

throughout her or his schooling.

"Public schools provide a continuum of well-supported

services to meet a wide range of learning needs. Settings that are specifically

designed to meet particular needs should be an available option. These

placements must be child-centred and include the necessary supports to meet

students' intellectual, social, physical, emotional and career development

needs. Public schools are for all children, regardless of their learning needs.

Successful inclusion requires commitment, training and adequate support to

work."

That is also the point that I just made earlier.

"We are concerned years of school district funding

shortfalls have amounted to a decimation of support for students with special

needs and those who try to teach them."

Leaving that part of my discussion aside, I wish to move

on to another aspect of Bill 20 that in my judgment undermines the authority of

the local government — the administrative directive. This directive will

centralize power in the hands of the minister and the superintendent of

achievement. In these directives is the vehicle underneath the superintendent of

achievement by which the achievement records will be policed, if you like.

When we look at that concern from the trustees' point of view….

This is a concern that they raise, and I'm sure the minister has heard this.

"Boards have a distinctive democratic responsibility, and

the imposition of administrative directives changes the fundamental principle of

local accountability. Any unpopular decision of a board that is overridden by an

administrative direction would destabilize local decision-making and have no

direct accountability back to the local community. Furthermore, there could be

undue pressure exerted on MLAs and the minister to intervene in invariably

controversial decisions such as school closures."

I am long enough in the tooth that I remember the bad old

days in which a school closure required the permission and authority of the

Minister of Education. Therefore, if the locally elected people did not agree

with the decision of the board of trustees, they appealed to the Minister of

Education.

One of the very first things this government did upon being

elected was to remove that, remove the inconvenience of being lobbied and

petitioned by local people, and put it fully in the hands of the local trustees.

We are now returning to the same form of providing education and undermining

local accountability. The minister already has the authority to intervene in a

district if the board is failing to fulfil its responsibilities under the act.

Therefore, once more, local government and local accountability are being

undermined here.

Finally, Madam Speaker, not knowing how much time I have left, the

third point that I want to talk about, in how this bill undermines the authority

of local government, is parent and student appeals.

[1140]

I just gave one example where this government conveniently set

aside something that they found politically embarrassing — school closures. Now

they are taking the parent and student appeals. That erodes the local authority

for dealing with issues that the local government has made.

When difficult decisions are made by district staff or boards,

some are invariably not going to be well received by either individual students

or individual parents. It is the local board that must be able to adjudicate

those challenges. The existing provision of judicial review already provides an

adequate safety net to ensure procedural fairness. Adding another layer of

appeal takes away from the authority of local boards and, consequently, their

credibility as being locally accountable.

I wish to close by describing how I see Bill 20 has turned the

local board of trustees into the meat in the sandwich. The local board has now

had school planning councils assigned their responsibility for determining

whether fees are set. That has an effect upon programs that run across the

entire district, weakening the elected board.

[ Page 7067 ]

The other aspect. This bill also assigns responsibility to the

Minister of Education and the superintendent of achievement, reducing the effect

of local government by centralizing power here in Victoria underneath

achievement contracts, administrative directives, and parent and student

appeals.

Having spoken, Madam Speaker, as brilliantly as I know I have

spoken, I am sure that the minister will have taken all of this under advisement

and will be introducing the amendments that will make this bill have some type

of saliency across all of British Columbia and, in particular, will be looking

after the people of rural British Columbia where there are different types of

problems that result from here.

I thank all my colleagues for listening to me.

M. Sather: While I have a few minutes before the break, I

wanted to get started on my comments on Bill 20, which is really, really

concerning. This bill is of great concern to me and, I think, to many British

Columbians who, over this past number of years since this government was elected

in 2001, have watched the direction of this government with some concern. That

direction is reflected once again in this bill, which is primarily about

privatization of the public school system.

It's about the denigration of the public school system. It's once

again showing that this government does not support public education in any

meaningful way in this province and that it is always looking for ways to

denigrate the system, the people that oversee the system and, in fact, the

students in that system, because they're the ones that are supported by public

education.

The minister, in her opening remarks, talked about the wonderful

public education system that we have, and I agree with her on that. But despite

those remarks and despite the language about supporting school boards, about

supporting educators and about supporting students, we see just the opposite. We

see a continual move by this government into the area of more control of the

system from Victoria, less dependence on the locally elected and on what

everybody thinks are the democratically responsible group of people for the

administration of education at the local level.

[1145]

This is not new in terms of how this government operates. We've

seen the same thing in the health care system, where the Premier along with the

Minister of Health announced last year that the health care system was in

complete disarray — that they were on the rocks and that they had to have a

conversation with the people of British Columbia to determine how we are going

to fix this "broke" system.

We've seen the same thing in long-term care in terms of this

government and how they operate. The government is always looking for a modus

operandi — that the system is broken and we've got to fix it. We're seeing that

theme again here in this bill, notwithstanding the opening remarks of the

minister.

In long-term care — and I've seen it happen in my community — the

government says: "Oh, all these long-term care facilities are antiquated.

They're no good, so we've got to come in and fix it." The way that they come in

to fix it is by privatization. That's what happened in my community, that's

what's happening throughout the province, and that's what's happening here again

with this bill.

We have a lot of concerns about this bill, and people in British

Columbia have a lot of concerns about the direction of this government with

regard to education. The government is bringing in provincial schools now — or

model schools. Call them what you will. These are schools that will not be

responsible in the normal way, in the normal chain of events, to the locally

elected school board but will be responsible to some other body — a body that's

under more direct control of the minister.

Part of the way that privatization works so well for this

government is that it allows them a lot more control. We see that in the

contracts that they let out, where the public can't find out anything about

what's going on under these private contracts.

Here again the minister is exerting more control over the system

so that the system has to answer to the minister entirely through her agents and

not to the people that are elected in the school districts to listen to the

local people, to listen to the concerns they have and to do the good job of

adjudication that they've been doing all these many years. That's being

undermined by this legislation.

Now we have new terminology. New schools, provincial schools,

model schools — call them what you will, Madam Speaker. We have very similar

types of schools in other parts of the world, particularly in the United States

with charter schools. They have something in common, certainly, and that is

their lack of accountability to the elected officials, their lack of regulations

that control other schools. That's all out the window.

They get a new set of Wild West kinds of operations, where they

can then do not so much what they want but whatever the minister wants them to

do and what this government wants them to do. There's a lot of concern about

where the government is going in that direction.

It's not democratic; it's anti-democratic. We see this over and

over again. The minister talks about it like it's almost a minor thing. You have

to wonder: what's the problem here?

That's the other thing. Like I said before, the government sets up

these straw horses, and then they seek to destroy them. The minister says that

the education system is doing well; our targets are as well. We compare well

with other jurisdictions. Yet at the same time they want to make these massive

changes to the system.

The government, of course, is not going to come in and say: "We

want to increase privatization in the school system." They don't say that about

health either, but that's what they're doing. I think most people are not fooled

by the agenda of this government, and we're certainly not on this side of the

House. Let's call it what it is. It's a privatization — unaccountable.

We heard in this House — yesterday, I believe it was — how open

and transparent this government is.

[ Page 7068 ]

That's another thing that completely amazes me about this government.

Whatever they're doing, they say the exact opposite. They say that they're the

most open and transparent government. In fact, they're the most closed and

opaque government that I think we've ever seen in British Columbia. That's what

we're facing — a lot of talk that doesn't match the reality.

[1150]

The minister has come in with Bill 20. This government has come in

with Bill 20, and we see a lot of problems in it — answerable to the minister,

not accountable to school boards.

These provincial schools, of course, will be paid for by the

public. There again, the public gets to pay the freight, but they don't get to

know in any clear and real transparent way what's going on with their tax

dollars. The minister finds it's more to the liking of this government, I'm

sure, to work in an underhanded way, quite frankly, which isn't fair to the

people of this province.

I know the member for Saanich South addressed some needs for the

minister to really look at this legislation from a number of perspectives, even

notwithstanding their support for it. There are some real problems for it.

I mentioned the Wild West nature of the way the government is

construing things — no rules, or not the rules that other schools have to

follow, anyway. I guess they're rules that the minister will arbitrarily impose.

Non-union is another phrase that comes up often with these new

schools. The minister had a big discussion, apparently, with some stakeholders

about this issue. That was one of the things that apparently was rather front

and centre — that these schools can get around those nasty unions. We know

particularly what this government feels about unions like the B.C. Teachers

Federation.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I'm sure the government finds that handy, not having to deal with

those nasty unions. It's another part of the privatization agenda that we see

here and in other jurisdictions in North America — non-union, unregulated and at

the whim of the minister, the government or the stakeholders that support them

and that they support. There are a lot of issues that will be discussed as we go

along with this.

This whole agenda — part of the concern that others have expressed

in the public system about it is that it doesn't really address the needs of the

kids that need help the most. Again, that's part of a whole range of issues. It

relates to the degree of poverty that children face in this province — the

highest level of poverty in the province, which is a shame.

It would be nice if the government would work with school

trustees, school boards and administrators to address some of those issues in a

real way — the issues that these children have in coming to school from homes

where they're not supported. Instead, we're going to hear about programs, which

the expanded mandate of school boards is supposed to implement, that won't

really often target the needs of those families. I can say more about that

later.

Noting the hour, Mr. Speaker, I would ask to continue my comments

after the break and move adjournment of the debate.

M. Sather moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); A. Horning in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:07 a.m.

On Vote 27: ministry operations, $43,899,000 .

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm just going to give a few introductory

remarks. The people with me, obviously, are Greg Reimer, deputy minister for the

ministry; Doug Callbeck, ADM, management services, on my left; and Patrick

O'Rourke, the ADM, titles and offshore division.

I'm proud and happy to be able to be the Minister of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources. I've been able to retain that position, although

there's been lots of competition for this job since 2001. It's a great job to

have. I get to work with a great cross-section of people in the ministry. I want

to pay them tribute.

The ministry is small; there are 315 people. This year in the

ministry, the total budget is $77,500,000. A lot of that is transfers. So to

actually run the ministry, we have a budget of about $44 million.

For that, we're responsible for our biggest Crown, B.C. Hydro.

We're responsible for British Columbia Transmission Corp. We're responsible for

Columbia Power Corp. We're responsible for the Oil and Gas Commission, the

Mediation and Arbitration Board and a couple of other, smaller boards. We have

to actually

[ Page 7069 ]

administer and look after Oil and Gas especially, which is about a $4 billion

to $5 billion investment on a yearly basis in British Columbia — a huge

responsibility — and all of the investment that takes place at our large Crowns,

which is also huge.

To those people that work in the ministry, I want to send them

some kudos. Thank you very much from your minister for the hard work you do for

the people of British Columbia. Each and every one of you does a great job. I

enjoy working with you, and I look forward to working with you for a long time

into the future. Who knows what's going to happen in the future? That's in

someone else's hands. But it is a busy ministry. We have lots of things on the

go.

[1010]

I look forward to the estimates debate. This year we have a new

critic, and I know that the critic and I have had a number of discussions. In

fact, the critic is quite knowledgable about the ministry because of his past

association through the last government that was here in the 1990s. So I look

forward to the time that we can do this.

I have also with me the Minister of State for Mining, who is

responsible for the mining part of the ministry. That is also a huge

responsibility. Mining employs thousands of people in British Columbia, pays

some of the highest wages in the province to employees and is very

environmentally sound and sustainable. So I'm proud to have with me the Minister

of State for Mining, who will actually be taking the questions for the mining

division.

We have agreed to a rundown of how we will manage through the

process. I have most people here today so that, depending on how the critic

wants to do it, we're working together cooperatively.

As I understand, we'll start with the titles and offshore

division. We'll then go to electricity and alternative energy division. We'll go

to marketing. Then we'll go to marketing, aboriginal and community relations.

Number 5 is oil and gas division. Number 6 is Oil and Gas Commission. Number 7

is B.C. Hydro. Number 8 is B.C. Transmission Corporation. Number 9 is Columbia

Power Corporation. To wrap up will be mining and minerals division.

With those few short words, I think I'll leave it with the critic.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for his brief opening

remarks. I know my colleagues never associate me with brief, but I, too, will

try and be so during my introductory remarks.

It is my first opportunity, as critic for Energy and Mines, to

participate in the estimates process. As members would know, I was only elected

for a first time in 2005.

Although I have a soft spot in my heart for this ministry and this

sector of the economy, I was given other responsibilities initially, and I

deliberately avoided paying any attention to what went on between 2005 and my

appointment as critic. That's a bit of a leg up for the ministry and a bit of a

challenge for me, so I'm doing some extra catch-up, but I'm confident with the

minister, with his staff and the good people of the Ministry of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources.

It's interesting — I've said before, and I know the minister

agrees, and in fact I suppose I would have been following him rather than him

following me — that the wealth of British Columbia from this point forward is by

and large under the ground. We have a long history of forestry, fisheries and

agriculture as pillars of the economy, a resource-based economy.

But anyone who is paying any attention at all to public accounts

and to revenues coming through the province could not deny that energy is the

future of the province, and that creates a challenge. And that's where I will be

focusing most of my remarks this morning and throughout the next couple of days.

Those present and those watching will be aware that in the throne

speech the government laid out an ambitious plan to address climate change, and

of course shortly after that a budget came forward that had little or no

reference to that subject. Then the energy plan followed that a few weeks later

with some daring initiatives that I gave the minister full credit for.

He is aware of that. I haven't heard it thrown back at me, and I

appreciate that. I think as we go ahead as critic and minister over the next

year or many years — at least until 2009, when we may well change places if

things go well for me….

Hon. K. Krueger: Now you're dreaming.

J. Horgan: Now I'm dreaming — in Technicolor. I've been

doing a lot of that, and I'm colour-blind, so that's hard to do.

But the challenge for the minister and the ministry, and in fact

for government, is to try and square the circle, try and reconcile the challenge

we have to generate revenues so that those in urban areas of British Columbia

can continue to benefit from the social programs that we all enjoy and that we

have built up over many, many generations, at the same time that we try to live

in a carbon-constrained environment.

I know the minister takes this very seriously and his staff

grapple with this every day. It is a challenge. It's one that's not lost on most

people in the community, but contradictions exist in the world. That's why I'm

in favour of reducing gas prices at the pump, which many people think is

incongruent with addressing climate change. I don't believe that's the case.

[1015]

I think that if we can manage down corporate windfall profits, it

will provide more tax room so that we can fund the alternative energy sources

and technologies that the minister announced just yesterday with a piece of

legislation that I don't believe we can talk about today, but maybe around the

edges as we go forward.

There are a number of issues where we do disagree, however,

although the minister and I seem to be simpatico. Certainly, when we get to the

mines section, I think that the member for Kamloops–North Thompson will find

that beyond a few issues, there is very little that we will disagree on.

[ Page 7070 ]

Where we do disagree, it's significant. Also with the Minister of

Energy and Mines, a number of those…. I'll just inventory them now so that the

minister and his staff will have a better sense of where I'm going to be

focusing my energies throughout the next two or three days. I have significant

difficulty with the notion of self-sufficiency with respect to electricity

generation. I will outline those arguments over the course of, I guess, two

sections — both in the alternative energy portion as well as with B.C. Hydro.

Coalbed methane, or coalbed gas as it's being referred to by the

minister and the ministry, appears to have hit a rock wall when it arrives in

communities. I think it's important that we discuss that and the minister and

his staff have an opportunity to explain to the public why they believe this

source of energy — in communities that are not accustomed to that level of

activity — can be justified and how, if at all, it will be able to proceed in

places like Telkwa; certainly, on Vancouver Island; and in the Elk Valley, where

there seems to be significant community opposition. I'm going to want to canvass

with the minister on how he proposes to deal with that.

The other issue is, of course, water rentals. As we look at court

rulings with respect to Alcan, other large users like Cominco and some IPPs who

will become large users if contracts are fulfilled and IPPs are actually coming

on stream, the notion of capturing some of that rent for the Crown when there's

a huge discrepancy between costs of production as there is with Alcan and actual

cost to B.C. Hydro or end-users…. So I think water rentals is an area that

deserves some discussion. I think it will be a fun exercise — certainly, for me

— and I know that the members of the staff will want, with the minister, to try

and enlighten me and others as to how that's going to be in the best interests

of British Columbians.

The other issue is separate and distinct, I suppose, but I read

recently in…. I believe it was the Vancouver Sun . It might have been the

Calgary Herald . I read a whole range of papers. They are all printed by

the same people, but I don't know which one it was.

There is a discussion underway in Alberta with respect to the

royalty regimes in place there. As we move, again, into a climate-change

environment and a carbon-constrained economy, the cost of production in terms of

emissions is significant. As we see declines in natural gas, potentially, and

the notion of peak oil, I think that rent to the Crown is an important area of

discussion.

Another area…. I know that the minister is proud, and rightly so,

of some of the initiatives with respect to the new relationship with first

nations in many areas of British Columbia. There are also some areas that have

not been successful. I think it's important that we balance the discussion. I

will encourage and I'm looking forward to the minister speaking of the

successes. We can all rejoice in that, but there are some areas in the province

and some bands in particular that are not as excited about the new relationship

as the government would lead us to believe.

Climate change. The throne speech spoke of transition to a new

economy in the minds of many. It depends on the listener, I suppose. "You hear

what you want to hear and you see what you want to see," to quote the old

Nilsson song. Many people heard that the world was going to be a different place

with respect to fossil fuels based on the throne speech. Yet we still have a lot

of enthusiasm on the government side for offshore oil and gas development.

I want to pose my first question to the minister as critic in the

estimates process. I was wondering if he could outline for me the role and

function of the oil and gas division, what its business plan is for the next 12

months and how it differs from its business plan prior to the announcements in

the throne speech of the significant changes in the way we do business.

[1020]

Hon. R. Neufeld: I assume that you're asking about the

change in the offshore from last year until now. To that question, we've had an

identified offshore branch in the ministry since, I think, 2003. What we have

changed from last year to this year for the offshore branch is that we've

amalgamated the offshore branch and titles.

It's mostly because what we're doing in offshore right now is

working with communities along the coast, with groups and organizations. I

regularly, other than election year, take a trip either to the Gulf of Mexico or

to Alaska with people from along the coast — both first nations leaders and

non–first nations leaders — to have them see firsthand what offshore is about in

today's world.

Many times we hear how terrible it was a long time ago, but people

need to understand that technology changes in developing offshore resources.

There is huge new technology today compared to ten years ago in almost anything.

All you have to do is look at the BlackBerrys or the cell phones that are

around. Compared to ten years ago, it's a lot different.

We've amalgamated those two divisions. The offshore division is

still working on the science that some of the reports asked them to get. There

were a number of reports put forward over the years in regard to offshore, and

the first one was in 1986. There was a federal-provincial report on offshore in

1998 under the last administration. AGRA Earth and Environmental Ltd. filed a

report.

In 2001 we had Jacques Whitford actually take those previous

reports and bring forward a report. In 2002 we had another report by Dr. David

Strong. In 2004 the Royal Society of Canada put forward a report on their own in

regard to offshore. Most of the reports other than the 1986 one, which asks for

a number of things to be done, said there is some science to do. You need to

identify some things along the west coast of British Columbia.

Unfortunately, with the moratorium in place, in some ways — not in

all ways, but I think in some ways — it eliminated the ability to actually get

some of that science years ago that we should have today. What we need to do is

develop that along with the federal government. We continue to do that, and we

work with our universities in the province and within the ministry.

[ Page 7071 ]

J. Horgan: On the transfer: was it just an administrative

change to move the titles branch into the offshore division?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, it was.

J. Horgan: I know there would have been some administrative

savings from that. Was there a reduction in staff as a result? My understanding

of the FTE count is that we're up 42 or 44 staff. Was there any administrative

saving in terms of FTEs?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There was.

J. Horgan: Could the minister identify those savings for

me?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Last year the count for the offshore division

was 11; this year it's seven.

J. Horgan: Hon. Chair, I thank the minister for that.

In his articulation of the studies and reviews that have been

underway, could the minister give the Legislature any indication on the status

of discussions with the federal government with respect to the moratorium?

I know that public comment has been mixed from the federal

minister. Obviously, they're in a minority situation. It's a delicate political

issue certainly here on the west coast, and he is an Island member like me. So

he's cautious, as ministers tend to be.

But caution is not a word I usually use for the minister here in

the province, so I'm sure he'll be forthright in advising me of his views on the

federal government's role to this point in time.

[1025]

Hon. R. Neufeld: The member is right. Obviously, with a

minority government in Ottawa, as was the case with the previous Liberal

government, there's not a lot of appetite to actually say that yes, we would do

it or no, we wouldn't do it.

We're saying that we would only do it if we can do it

environmentally safe and scientifically sound. That's been our position since

2002 or 2001, when we achieved office.

The federal government has elected to say that right now, they've

got other things on their mind, and I appreciate that. In the interim what we're

doing is continuing to work internally within the ministry to do, as I said

earlier, the science — to actually work with our universities to do some of the

science that needs to be done.

If in fact at some point in time…. I'm certainly not here saying

that it's going to be lifted. I think I would agree with the previous minister

under the NDP, Dan Miller, a previous Premier of the province, who was very

vocal about: "Yes, let's lift it. The time has come."

There's an estimated $100 billion worth of resources under the

ocean that could be safely brought out, but we need to actually do it in a safe

manner with the correct information and the correct regulatory regime.

If in fact it ever happened, we wouldn't want to be in the same

position that they are on the east coast. It's interesting. We have offshore on

the east coast. They drill in the Beaufort Sea regularly. Last year there was

another well drilled in the Beaufort, and lots before that. They drill every

year in the Great Lakes, but we can't drill on the west coast. They drill in the

North Sea. They drill in the Gulf of Mexico.

A lot of people go on cruises. Obviously, a lot of them go through

Vancouver, and they go up the coast to Alaska. That's great. But thousands of

people on a yearly basis — many of them from British Columbia — travel to

Florida, get on a cruise ship and go through the Gulf of Mexico. I don't know

the exact number, but as I understand it, there are 4,000 platforms in the Gulf

of Mexico. People cruise around them. That's where they want to go. I've never

heard anybody come back and say: "That was terrible."

We need the resource. Natural gas is a resource that will be with

us as a fuel for decades and decades to come. We will just use it differently.

Right now I think we only produce about 11 million barrels of oil a year and

consume somewhere in the neighbourhood of 75 million barrels of oil in the

province. It would be nice if we could actually start producing some more of

that oil in British Columbia. The oil that is available onshore in the northeast

is a small amount. There's a possibility of some oil in the Nechako basin that

we would actually like to get at.

So we need the product. We use it in our everyday lives — every

day, each and every one of us, regardless of who we are or what we try to

represent. It's in our lives, and we use it. Will we need to continue to use it

50 or 60 years from now? That's something that may happen.

That's where we're at, and I know the federal minister's response

publicly. I appreciate that because of the position he's in.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that, and I agree. I

think it's important. Not all British Columbians listening today will appreciate

that we don't burn all of our oil. We use petroleum products for many, many

other things — I would say in a climate-neutral way or a carbon-neutral way.

That's quite often lost in this debate — not in the offshore debate

specifically, but on the importance of petroleum products to our economy, not

just to move our vehicles and power our industry but also in our daily lives.

I'd like to go back to the minister's comments about other

jurisdictions. If in fact the science has been conclusive in those

jurisdictions, what seems to be the challenge here on the west coast?

[1030]

Again, this is a politically charged issue, so it's not a surprise

that politics rears its head periodically. The minister referenced a former

associate of mine, a former Premier, and his views on the matter, and I don't

believe they've changed a whit. I can't imagine that they have. Again, caution

wouldn't be a word I would use to describe that former member of this place

either. But in British

[ Page 7072 ]

Columbia, certainly in some coastal communities, there is alarm and concern.

I think if one was watching….

I'm not sure that I would take much stock in this, knowing

government as I do — that divisions and branches change and shift depending on

needs at the time. You try and put your expertise where it can be put to best

use. But when you see the branch that was staffed up in 2003, it was a pretty

high-powered group of folks, based on my personal experience with them.

Certainly, their record in government was significant.

Now we see that the branch is down to seven people led by a very

capable ADM. Would that be a signal, Minister, to the public that the government

has lost interest in the file?

I don't mean that to be glib. I mean, you look at where the

government was in 2003 — their view on the matter. There was a majority

government in power in Ottawa at that time with a Minister of Environment from

here in Victoria who was clearly opposed to offshore oil and gas.

We now have a Minister of Natural Resources in Ottawa and, I would

think, also a Minister of Environment who is a Conservative who looks at these

issues with a different set of glasses from the previous minister under the

previous administration. So were it not for the minority situation, one would

think that you're almost having a perfect storm on this file. Yet we see in B.C.

the number of staff working on the issue being reduced.

Is that a result of a satisfaction that the work has been done,

and it's just a matter of waiting for the political opportunity? Or is there in

fact more work to do? If so, what would that science be that's missing on the

west coast?

Hon. R. Neufeld: First off, no, the intent is still to

continue with what we had laid out in our first term in office. It is to get the

information together, to get the scientific information together and to continue

to work with our federal counterparts. We can't do it in isolation. We need to

do it with them.

It's the reality that the federal government is in a minority

situation. It was during the last term of the Liberals, too, prior to the

Conservatives being there. We need to continue to do that work. Because we've

reduced to seven, it means that some of the work has been done.

We don't do all of the work in-house, because a lot of that

science is done in our universities — those kinds of things. What we would do

in-house is to continue to work on some basic regulations, taking into account

knowledge from around the world of what takes place. So that the member

understands, our commitment is still there, and the energy plan said that

clearly — that offshore was still something that we wanted to do.

The member brings this up, and I want to answer that a little bit.

Part of the problem when we talk about…. I'll qualify this with coalbed gas. I'm

not trying to move to coalbed gas but…. Part of the problem — which actually, I

think, was identified already — is that to try and get a new industry into an

area that has never experienced it before is difficult.

It's difficult if you go in there and tell the people the truth.

Where it gets more difficult is when people go in there with the intent — the

sole intent — to confuse, to lay out things that actually don't happen, to make

it sound as though it's terrible, to make it sound as though it's politically

wrong to do it, all of those kinds of things. When you get people going into

areas, saying things that aren't true about what the province does today, for

instance, that's what actually scares people.

You know what? I can understand that. I'm used to it. I live in

the northeast part of the province. I grew up with it, so I'm quite used to it.

I can understand why people in Telkwa and people on the coast would be saying:

"Whoa, just a minute." But I'll tell you, when we continue every year to take

people to those areas that have lots of that activity happen, and in much

tougher waters….

[1035]

I mean, we've not been to the North Sea because you need special

permits to get out to those well sites. But if you go out in the North Sea, they

have much rougher weather than we've experienced on the west coast. Now, that's

not because I've lived on the west coast and know it; that's because I'm

listening to people who actually have lived in both those areas and say it's

much tougher.

On the east coast of Canada, iceberg alley is what they call it.

There are icebergs coming through there, some of them probably half as large or

maybe as large as this building. They deal with those issues in a way that so

far has worked well. When we go out there and start telling people what actually

takes place, and you get another group coming in and telling them things that

sound kind of nice to scare people and talking about things that happened maybe

20, 30 years ago in the industry, offshore or onshore, I understand why it would

scare them. So we need to continually work with those people, and that's part of

why I take these people to those areas — both the gulf and the Gulf of Alaska.

Now, Alaska, just north of us, has been doing offshore for 50

years. Great. Alaska has huge resources. Offshore is not all of it, but most of

it, and it's certainly been a huge benefit to Alaska. They do it in a safe

manner, and they do it with ice too. They do it with sheet ice — which is

different than icebergs, but it's sheet ice — and have been able to do it

successfully.

When I do take those first nations leaders and other leaders to

both of those areas, wherever we go, they are amazed. They are amazed at what

takes place offshore. They are amazed at how all the fishermen head for the

offshore platforms to fish because that's where the fish are. It's kind of like

we sink old military ships off the west coast of British Columbia to create some

of that. That naturally happens with some of the platforms.

It's always good to actually have those community leaders in both

aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities go and view for themselves first hand

what takes place offshore. But it is difficult, Member, to actually get the

realistic process out so that people understand what we're trying to do.

[ Page 7073 ]

J. Horgan: The budget for the branch has been declining

year over year since 2004, and it spikes a bit this year. I'm assuming that's

because of the transfer of titles. The minister made reference to university

work and other work in terms of science and development, so I'm going to say

"outsource," and I don't mean that in a pejorative way.

I'm just saying that there are dollars flowing from the ministry

to various institutions. I'm wondering if the minister could outline for me and

the Legislature how much money is being invested in the science and to what

institutions.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm assuming you're meaning for last year.

Would that…?

J. Horgan: That would be fine.

Hon. R. Neufeld: That would be fine. So $200,000 last year

to UVic; $700,000 the year before. In fact, the total since 2003 — we'll give

you those numbers right up. It's $1.86 million to UVic and $2 million to UNBC.

J. Horgan: I'm interested in UNBC — a new, fledgling

university a distance from the coast. I'm wondering what work they were doing.

[1040]

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm sorry. I didn't qualify it. That would

have been around 2003, so the report that they produced with those dollars is

quite available from the university. It's all there.

J. Horgan: We have basins on the coast. There are tenures

in place for those basins. Again, I know that this information is readily

available. I know that it's not being hidden anywhere. But in general terms

perhaps the minister could speak briefly, if he might, to those companies that

are the large players and those that are actively involved with the branch, if

at all, in terms of seeking information, providing information and assisting the

public.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The deputy minister just handed me a note

on UNBC, so maybe I'll just….

J. Horgan: Sure.

Hon. R. Neufeld: There are four reports that were produced.

One was the state-of-knowledge review of high-valued marine and shoreline areas.

And so the member doesn't have to…. We'll send it over to you. Second, the

state-of-knowledge review of the condition of the health of the marine

ecosystems for the Queen Charlotte basin. Third, the state-of-knowledge review

of community and socioeconomic implications. Fourth was developing a strategy

and approach for offshore oil and gas information knowledge and learning

systems. There were seven other publications that came out. I'll pass this over

to the member.

To the question now of who owns some of the tenure on the coast.

Shell Canada, Petro-Canada, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Canadian Forest Oil Ltd. and

ConocoPhillips. There are two others: Haida Resources Ltd., which goes back, as

I understand, to the 1960s, and Offshore Oil and Gas Corporation Ltd.

J. Horgan: Haida Resources is an interesting one. It

doesn't jump out at me as one of the ten largest profitable corporations in the

world, which many of the others do. While we're on the Haida — not necessarily

as a resource company but as a people and a place, the Haida Gwaii, the basin

there — several years ago I can remember speaking with the leadership in that

community about the notion of directional drilling and how the Haida may work

with tenure holders and the government to access these basins without sticking

their foot in the water.

Has the minister advanced that at all in the time since I had that

discussion, which would have been in the late 1990s?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, some of the technology is getting

better and better all the time so that you can do a lot of directional drilling,

and they can actually directional drill a long ways with some of the large

offshore rigs, which would be actually offshore.

That's a possibility if, in fact, the seismic could be garnered to

identify more of where the resource is at. The seismic that identifies it now is

relatively old seismic, and the way they do seismic today has obviously changed

an awful lot. What we think would need to happen is that first you need to go

out there and do the seismic to identify better — in today's world with today's

technology — where that might be.

So, speaking with the Haida…. I mean, I've had numbers of

discussions with the Haida leadership. They've never said no to me. They've

always said that what we need to do is to continue to talk.

[1045]

J. Horgan: While we're on the tenure holders, we might as

well get this out and have a discussion about it. I'm sure the minister will

embrace the opportunity. It's with respect to meetings in the United States in

February of 2007.

We were provided with a freedom-of-information document that made

reference to the minister's discussions with ExxonMobil. There are notations

around discussions of offshore, and I'm wondering if the minister, rather than

us doing a dance here, maybe could just stand up and tell me what you think. You

met with ExxonMobil. They said: "How can we help?" It has been characterized as

an opportunity to help influence public opinion, so maybe the minister could

clear the air on that meeting and advise me just what happened and how long it

took.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yeah, it's been characterized by a lot of

people in the way they want to characterize it. As minister responsible for the

portfolio, I visit with people that invest in the province of British Columbia.

The oil and gas industry, for example, will invest, on average, from $4 billion

to $5 billion a year in British Columbia.

[ Page 7074 ]

I think it is incumbent on me to travel to Houston to talk to people about

what's happening in British Columbia, that we have some resources we would like

to develop.

I think it's entirely in line for me to go to Calgary. Some people

think I spend a lot of time there, but if I were to think about how many times I

was in Calgary last year, it wouldn't be that many. But I do go there to talk to

those people that regularly invest in British Columbia. In Canada, Calgary is

the headquarters for the oil and gas industry; in the United States and the

world it's Houston, Texas.

I was there at a NAPE conference, one that the ministry has been

attending for three years, I believe. This last year was the third year that

they've been there. I've been able to attend part of it in the last two times,

and this was one of them.

Just so everybody knows it wasn't secret, we actually put out a

press release and had a discussion with the media — callback — here in Victoria.

So they knew what was happening. I answered all their questions. In fact, the

media came from all across British Columbia. It wasn't just Victoria. I mean,

there were people on the radio from where I come from, asking questions from

northeastern British Columbia. So we certainly didn't do anything secret. We let

people know I was going there.

The ministry has always gone there. It's a good place to go, to

NAPE, to show what British Columbia has to offer. The staff do a great job of

that, not dissimilar to what they were doing when the NDP were in power,

attending those conferences. I think that it's some of the things that we should

do.

When I talked to ExxonMobil, I actually went there to talk to them

about onshore. Right now they do very little investment. In fact, I think it's

almost zero in the province. But Esso does a lot — an arm of Imperial Oil — and

so I asked them if they had thought about some of our interior basins, such as

the Nechako, where there is supposedly a lot of oil. I wanted to let them know

about that.

Interestingly enough, we might think we know about it, but not a

lot of people in the province know about it, and definitely Houston doesn't know

about it. So it's incumbent on me to go talk to them about that. As I said

earlier, we produce 11 million barrels of oil a year, and we consume about 75

million. There is a huge resource out there, especially onshore.

I think about the Bowser basin, and what's going to happen there

in the near future with the beetle-kill. We need to keep those communities

whole. What happens when all that beetle wood is gone — or not all of it but

lots of it? Those communities are going to face some real hard times unless a

government decides they want to do something to keep those communities as whole

as we possibly can.

Our seismic data from the Canadian geological science branch says

there are huge reserves in the Nechako basin and in the Bowser. That's one way

to keep those resource communities that now depend totally on forestry up and

going.

There is opportunity for mining. I'm sure the member is going to

want to talk to the Minister of State for Mining, but I'm going to say here that

geological formations in those areas demonstrate that there are huge

opportunities for mining, and thus jobs and investment in those areas. That was

my initial thrust.

[1050]

One of the staffers that was with me wrote in their notes that

Exxon had said that. I politely said: "No, thanks. This is an issue that we deal

with in British Columbia between the people that live in the province and

Ottawa." I've said that consistently to everyone.

It doesn't matter who holds tenure in that area, and Exxon is one

of them. I've never been different. I've always said that this is an issue that

we need to deal with as a province with the federal government, not the oil

industry.

J. Horgan: I realize that these aren't the mini