2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 6

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Anniversary of Chinese

Immigration Act repeal

J. Yap

Victoria Sketch Club

C. James

100th anniversary of city of

North Vancouver

Whittred

Child care in B.C.

Trevena

Sports in Nanaimo

Cantelon

May Day celebrations in Port

Coquitlam

Farnworth

Tabling Documents

Independent Commission to Review

MLA Compensation, majority report

Oral Questions

Compliance with government

conflict-of-interest rules for former civil servants

C. James

Hon. M.

de Jong

Call for conflict-of-interest

legislation for former civil servants

Horgan

Hon. M.

de Jong

Authority of Privacy Commissioner

to investigate conflicts of interest

Karagianis

Hon. M.

de Jong

Call for independent

investigation into Ken Dobell contracts

Karagianis

Hon. M.

de Jong

Local government representation

to Premier

C. Wyse

Hon. M.

de Jong

Disclosure of documents on sale

of B.C. Rail

L. Krog

Hon. W.

Oppal

Attorney General response to

questions related to court proceedings

Ralston

Hon. W.

Oppal

Possible RCMP investigations into

sale of B.C. Rail

H. Lali

Hon. W.

Oppal

Government action on farmworker

safety

Puchmayr

Hon. O.

Ilich

Committee of the Whole House

School (Student Achievement

Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 20) (continued)

Cubberley

Hon. S.

Bond

Trevena

G. Coons

Chudnovsky

Second Reading of Bills

Teaching Profession (Teacher

Registration) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 21) (continued)

Farnworth

Sather

Ralston

L. Krog

Hon. S.

Bond

Education Statutes Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill 22)

Hon. S.

Bond

Parks and Protected Areas

Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 24)

Hon. B.

Penner

Simpson

Trevena

Thorne

Fraser

Hon. B.

Penner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public

Safety and Solicitor General (continued)

Farnworth

Hon. J.

Les

Puchmayr

Fleming

Karagianis

Sather

[ Page 7371 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

M. Karagianis: I have the privilege today of having some more students from one of my schools, Colwood Elementary School. I have 22 grades 2 and 3 students visiting in the precinct today with their teacher Mrs. Karen Leeson. Would the House please make them very welcome.

N. Simons: Today in the House I have a visitor from the Sunshine Coast and a friend. Joan Milina is here from Halfmoon Bay. Her friend Kate Evans — a board member of Theatre Terrific, which we all know and love — is also in the House. Would the House make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) ANNIVERSARY OF

CHINESE IMMIGRATION ACT REPEAL

J. Yap: I rise today regarding a very important anniversary in British Columbia's history. May 14, 2007, will mark 60 years since the repealing of the Chinese Immigration Act.

You know, British Columbians pride themselves on being part of a multicultural society. For us today it is a way of life, and for many, we do not know any different. It's hard to imagine a British Columbia without tolerance and acceptance, but that was not the case a century ago. Immigrants from China faced an expensive and unfair head tax upon entering Canada. Not only was this meant to discourage immigration, it was also blatant racism, as Chinese nationals were the only ones to face such discrimination.

[1335]

To add insult to injury, on July 1, 1923, Canada passed the Chinese Immigration Act, more commonly known as the Chinese exclusion act. This all but banned Chinese immigration to Canada, but those already in the country persevered.

The contributions of Chinese Canadian soldiers abroad, the establishment of vibrant communities and the general Canadian population becoming more enlightened on multiculturalism combined to make British Columbia a more open society for them. Eventually, on May 14, 1947, the act was repealed, giving full citizenship to a community who had deserved it for years.

The community is working hard to gain recognition for this very important anniversary, having already received proclamations from the cities of Vancouver, Richmond and Burnaby proclaiming the week of May 14 to May 21 as Chinese Canadian Citizenship Week. They are now petitioning the federal government for a similar acknowledgment. I am pleased that the province will be making such a proclamation.

I applaud all those who were able to stand up in the face of adversity and set the foundation for our wonderful, inclusive society that we are all so fortunate to live in today.

VICTORIA SKETCH CLUB

C. James: It's my pleasure today to recognize a talented group of our local artists. The Victoria Sketch Club is the oldest Canadian art group west of Ontario.

An outgrowth of the Island Arts and Crafts Society, the Victoria Sketch Club promotes creative expression as well as art appreciation in our community. Former members of the Victoria Sketch Club include Max Maynard, Jack Shadbolt and Emily Carr. Current members include Victoria–Beacon Hill resident Ted Harrison, whose vibrant depiction of Canada's north is internationally recognized for its distinctive style.

The Victoria Sketch Club meets regularly to hone their craft, working in a range of media, formats, subjects and styles. In the spring they share that work with the community. Every March the Sketch Club holds a week-long spring show at Glenlyon Norfolk in Oak Bay.

As MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill, I'm honoured to host a temporary exhibit of the Victoria Sketch Club in my community office. Our Art in the Office program showcases the work of local artists on a rotating basis. The Victoria Sketch Club will be on display until the end of May.

Art is an essential part of our community. It has the power to enrich our lives and promote greater connection and understanding between people. I'd like to thank the Victoria Sketch Club for their commitment to share their work with our community, making Victoria an even richer place to live.

100TH ANNIVERSARY OF

CITY OF NORTH VANCOUVER

K. Whittred: I rise today to bring congratulations from this House to the city of North Vancouver, celebrating its 100th anniversary. The city of North Vancouver was incorporated May 13, 1907, with official ceremonies following on July 1.

The city of North Vancouver was originally known as the ambitious city set to rival Vancouver as the economic hub at that time. North Vancouver began as Moodyville in the 1800s, when Sewell Prescott Moody purchased a local mill. This was followed by the North Vancouver Land and Improvement Co., which bought up most of the land which defines the current city. The North Vancouver Land and Improvement Co. planned a beautiful city of gracious boulevards, today being developed as the Green Necklace.

During World War I North Vancouver's shipbuilding industry, pioneered by the Wallace Shipyards, thrived. The famous St. Roch schooner was built at Burrard Drydock. The city commemorated this with the

[ Page 7372 ]

naming of the St. Roch Dock located at the former Burrard Dry Dock at the foot of Lonsdale.

During World War II the city of North Vancouver had an abundance of work. More than 100 ships were built on the North Vancouver waterfront. For the first time, women were a major factor in the workforce, with hundreds of women working in shipbuilding.

In 1925 North Vancouver and the lower mainland were linked with the Second Narrows Bridge. This was followed by the Lions Gate, opened in 1938. The first SeaBus came into existence in 1977, making the connection from the city of Vancouver to the city of North Vancouver much easier.

[1340]

I look forward to the many events taking place in my community this year, and to have this opportunity to look back through our history as the city continues to grow into its future.

CHILD CARE IN B.C.

C. Trevena: I'd like to talk to the House about Child Care Month. May is the start of Child Care Month, which is a month that should be a cause for celebration. Unfortunately, in B.C. there is really too little to celebrate. There are thousands of hard-working child care workers, and we should celebrate them. They're working for $10 to $15 an hour with a huge amount of responsibility and very long days.

There are many excellent child care centres in group settings and in family homes which give our infants and toddlers a great start in life, and we should celebrate those this month, but that is about it. We should be in a position to celebrate the availability of child care spaces for every family that needs one. We should be in a position to celebrate an affordable, accessible system, but sadly, at the moment that's not the case. Spaces are short, and trained professional staff are leaving the workforce.

I'd like to read to the House a letter to the editor from a parent published in the Nelson Daily News . It's about an early childhood educator who is leaving her job to work as a tree planter.

"She, like many other childhood educators, can no longer afford to work in child care. She is a young adult starting off her life, getting married and thinking about having her own children. How can she afford to live on what our government has deemed, through lack of funding, is an appropriate wage for such a demanding, important and needed job?

"She was willingly, passionately and expertly helping me raise my daughter. She has a gift. She is, unfortunately, also the fourth excellent staff that the child care centre has lost this year."

This is not an isolated case across the province. Early childhood educators are leaving the profession. I know of another ECE worker who is working in a clothing store. Another found she'd earn more looking after dogs than looking after children. Is it a wonder that there aren't enough spaces for the parents desperate to find a place for their children?

May is Child Care Month. Let's hope we can have more to celebrate next May.

SPORTS IN NANAIMO

R. Cantelon: Recently a third team from Nanaimo won a provincial championship. The Nanaimo Clippers, coached by Bill Bestwick, won the B.C. Junior Hockey League championship. This, on top of the Dover Bay Dolphins high school triple-A tournament championship recently and the Vancouver Island Raiders, brought to a total of three the number of teams that have won championships. All of these were last-second, heart-stopping victories. But I quickly add that those with heart conditions in this chamber need not reach for their nitro pills. I'm not going to do a play-by-play today.

However, I think that based on these victories, Nanaimo can legitimately lay claim to being the city of champions. The inspiration of these athletes, the young children, to dream the big dream to become champions, has had a real effect on our youth. But they're more than champions on the playing fields or on the ice rinks or on the hardwood. They're champions of all worthy causes in Nanaimo. Leading the cheers at every fundraising event, they'll be there. There are many more sports at which Nanaimoites have excelled, from baseball to soccer and volleyball.

Recently I attended a U-12 girls tournament where my daughter Abigail is competing, both at Gordon Head and Saltspring. In both cases, again, they emerged champions.

One of things at these events that I learned is how good the coaching is — the volunteer coaching and the professional coaching — to instil a sense of sportsmanship in all of the teams. Healthy eating is part of it, too, during the breaks. The minister of broccoli would be happy to learn that indeed during the breaks the U-12 soccer girls were eating broccoli — quite happily, it would seem.

I'd like to say, from the parents who get up at the crack of dawn or well before the crack of dawn to take their children to the rink, from the parents who stand in the rain at soccer games, from the fans who support their teams, to the coaches…. I think that all of our community has enthusiastically supported all of their athletes and are very worthy of the title of community of champions.

MAY DAY CELEBRATIONS IN

PORT COQUITLAM

M. Farnworth: Members of this House have commented that it is May, and that can mean only one thing in Port Coquitlam. That is our annual May Day, which will be taking place on the 13th of May, on the weekend.

[1345]

It's a celebration of our community that goes back to the very beginnings of our community back in 1913. It's a celebration that has all the best of what the history of our community has been about: celebrating the traditions of the original settlers. It's combined over the years the traditions of people who have moved into our community to make it the vibrant place that it is.

It has such traditional things as maypole dancing, which has young people from all the schools in our

[ Page 7373 ]

community participating in a much-attended event. As well, we have a traditional May Queen. The tradition goes back to 1923, and in keeping with the changes in times we also have the May Day ambassador. These two young people go out from the city of Port Coquitlam to other communities and let other communities know what a great community Port Coquitlam is.

On the weekend of the 13th of May, for those of you who are looking to see something unique and a little different, in Port Coquitlam we have the second-oldest continuing May Day parade and May Day celebration in the province. I can see my colleague from New Westminster looking at me. Yes, we know that New Westminster has the oldest, but Port Coquitlam has the second-oldest, and it is every bit as good.

It is great because it's a testament to the community, to the volunteers that make it such a unique occasion. To the volunteers, principals, teachers — such as Glen Macdonald, who kept the maypole tradition alive in Port Coquitlam during the '60s and has passed on that tradition to community volunteers…. They truly have made it the celebration of the year in Port Coquitlam.

I invite everybody to come to Port Coquitlam on the 13th of May and join us in our annual May Day celebration.

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 50 grade 5 students visiting here from Pacific Academy in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them are their teacher Rick Bath and Mrs. Nancy Bakken as well as 30 parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy

schedule to bring the students. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the majority report of the Independent Commission to Review MLA Compensation pursuant to the commission's terms of reference announced on January 30, 2007. Copies of the report are available now in my office, the Speaker's office, or the Clerk of Committees office.

Oral Questions

COMPLIANCE WITH

GOVERNMENT CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST

RULES FOR FORMER CIVIL SERVANTS

C. James: Under the Premier's own rules, officials like Mr. Dobell are supposed to wait one full year before accepting other contracts that could put them in a potential conflict. Last week Jessica McDonald, the Premier's deputy, defended that policy. She said it was necessary to "protect the integrity of confidential information." Despite those words, we know Mr. Dobell was excused from the rules, and now the Premier's office is covered in a cloud of potential conflict.

My question is to the Attorney General. We know Mr. Dobell was excused from these rules. How many other senior civil servants have been excused from this conflict rule?

Hon. M. de Jong: The opposition leader should choose her language a little more carefully. The guidelines were applied. They do apply, and they continue to apply. This individual, Mr. Dobell, has for almost 40 years been a respected public servant. He has abided by the guidelines that were in place for departing senior managers.

[1350]

In fact, those guidelines were specifically enhanced in the contracts that were signed. They were specifically enhanced. Mr. Dobell and the contracting parties specifically turned their minds to the possibility of potential conflicts. He got advice from a former chief justice. The matter was considered by three deputy ministers — the deputy to the Premier, the Deputy Attorney General and the deputy responsible for the public service.

The hon. opposition leader rejects that advice and rejects those opinions. We do not.

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

C. James: Well, I'd suggest that those on the other side actually listen to the question, because this wasn't about Mr. Dobell. This was about the Premier. This was about the Premier's own rules that state a one-year cooling-off period.

Mr. Dobell only waited ten months. Mike Marasco, a former vice-president of Partnerships B.C., only waited six months. He resigned from Partnerships B.C. and immediately took a position with the Plenary Group, a firm that regularly bids on Partnerships B.C. contracts.

He was barred from participating in Partnerships B.C. bids for only six months — half the time required by the Premier's own standards. The Premier's one-year policy was put in place to protect the integrity of information and protect conflict of interest. So my question, again to the Attorney General: why is no one in government following the Premier's own set of rules?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the opposition leader is right about one thing. There is a set of guidelines. I've got them here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I suspect the members opposite are as disinterested in them today as they were when

[ Page 7374 ]

they were in government, because they didn't have any guidelines.

How is it that, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition seeks to build a question and yet another assault on an individual around the guidelines, but she neglects to refer to the very

section that would have relevance to how those guidelines are applied in circumstances where there can be a reduction in the one-year limitation — part of the guidelines? On the one hand, she seeks to rely on these guidelines, but typical of this opposition, she gives us an incomplete, inaccurate and completely misleading notion of what is in the guidelines.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: Perhaps my question should have been: how many people have actually followed the one-year rule, since it appears to be nobody? Ken Dobell and Mike Marasco aren't the only ones who've been excused from this policy.

In 2006 Richard Turner became the director of Mobile Lottery systems, a company that promotes and develops high-tech gambling. Only seven months earlier he was chair of B.C. Lottery Corporation. Mr. Turner went from a Crown corporation to a private firm in seven months.

Six months, seven months, ten months, one year. Again to the Attorney General: is anyone in government following the Premier's own rules?

Hon. M. de Jong: So this is what it's come to.

[1355]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: A desperate leader making desperate and unsubstantiated allegations in a desperate attempt to direct attention away from the problems she's having internally within her organization. That's what….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat.

Members will not refer to other members by their personal name, please.

Hon. M. de Jong: Remember that lofty idealism we heard not so long ago from this Leader of the Opposition, who said: "I want to conduct politics differently"? Well, that lofty idealism has yet again given way to desperate attacks by a desperate leader more interested in character assassination than she is in legitimate debate in this chamber.

CALL FOR CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST

LEGISLATION FOR

FORMER CIVIL SERVANTS

J. Horgan: You know, when the minister of defence is on his feet day after day, that they've got some serious trouble over there in motor city.

My question is to the Attorney General. I appreciate that the facts pattern seems to be inconsistent with the reality over on that side, but last time I looked at a calendar, 12 months was one year — not ten months for Mr. Dobell, not six months for Mr. Marasco, not seven months for Mr. Turner, but 12 full months.

My question to the Attorney General is: can we get a commitment from him that this elastic ethics code will be turned into a legislative covenant with the people of B.C. to protect the public interest, in this session before we rise?

Hon. M. de Jong: What a remarkable assertion. What a remarkable statement from the representative of a party that never had any guidelines. Can you imagine that? They never had any guidelines. What a remarkable assertion from the representative of a party who has demonstrated time and time again in this chamber that they're not interested in the facts.

When a respected public servant actually abides by them, actually takes the time to consult with a former chief justice of the province, what do we hear from over there? "It doesn't matter. That doesn't fit with our notion of the conspiracy. We much prefer to make things up." That's what they're doing. There are guidelines. They're in place, they're being followed, and we're proud of that on this side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Again, I'll pose my question…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: …to the Attorney General. Citizens of British Columbia have seen how effective the guidelines that are currently in place have been with respect to B.C. Liberals and insiders. We want to know on this side of the House and British Columbians around this province want to know that there's a legislative prohibition to using your inside influence after you leave the public service.

My question to the minister: will he table legislation before this House rises to ensure that happens? If he doesn't have any, I've got a piece right over here. You're welcome to it.

[ Page 7375 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, we've seen it here yet again, Mr. Speaker. Take a few names, pull out a few names, disregard the facts, disregard the years of dedicated service, make some assertions in this chamber that no one is prepared to back up out in the hallway, make some allegations and spin this web of conspiracy.

[1400]

There are guidelines, and they are being followed. That's what distinguishes this side of the House from that side of the House. We said there would be guidelines. The guidelines are in place. They're being followed, they're being enforced, and that's the way it should be.

AUTHORITY OF PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

TO INVESTIGATE

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

M. Karagianis: Last Thursday in the House the Attorney General told us: "If there is a conflict of interest and if there is a violation of the Lobbyists Registration Act, that is surely something that the fact-finding review will tell us."

By Friday morning, Mr. Loukidelis sent out a statement from his office that said that his office has not been empowered or requested by the Legislature or the government to investigate conflict-of-interest allegations against Mr. Dobell.

So my question to the Attorney General is quite simple. Is he wrong, or is Mr. Loukidelis wrong?

Hon. M. de Jong: I would have thought that the member, if she didn't hear the response clearly yesterday, would have taken the time to read Hansard . The member….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: Apparently, they don't want to hear the answer today either, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: If the member is having difficulty with the notion of understanding the jurisdiction that Mr. Loukidelis takes in his capacity as Privacy Commissioner and registrar pursuant to the Lobbyists Registration Act, we'll be happy to walk her through it.

I would have thought that she would have taken advantage of that very special legal resource that we've heard alluded to in the past. She has her own legal counsel that is advising her. Maybe she should ask it, if she doesn't want to accept the word of the members on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

CALL FOR INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION

INTO KEN DOBELL CONTRACTS

M. Karagianis: I would recommend….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Karagianis: I would certainly suggest to that member that perhaps he walk the Attorney General through those roles first.

The Finance Minister and the Premier categorized the independent investigation into Mr. Taylor's activities as the result of an abundance of caution. Surely the issues arising out of Mr. Dobell's many intertwined roles in contracts call for an equal abundance of caution.

To the Attorney General: out of an abundance of caution, will he today call for an independent investigation into the activities of Mr. Dobell?

Hon. M. de Jong: I appreciate, again, that the hon. member seems to be having some difficulty coming to grips with the roles played by various officials — statutory officers of this House.

In the case of Mr. Taylor, the issue involved an e-mail produced by a third party. While it was deemed to have no merit, it was also deemed wise and, because of the issues raised, worthy of further review.

In the case involving Mr. Dobell, the individual responsible for reviewing the matter is the deputy to the Premier. In addition, we know that that individual consulted with the Deputy Attorney General, the deputy responsible for the Public Service Agency. And Mr. Dobell himself had the benefit of advice from a former chief justice of British Columbia.

[1405]

Now, the member may take the view that none of that is satisfactory, and she may reject the benefit of all that advice. We do not. We believe that the people have acted responsibly and have conducted themselves in full accord.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATION TO PREMIER

C. Wyse: Vancouver has a paid lobbyist with a desk in the Premier's office to lobby government on its issues. Besides Vancouver, there are five other local governments that have registered lobbyists: Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, North Vancouver, Squamish and Whistler. None of these local governments has a desk for their lobbyists in the Premier's office.

My question: in the sense of fairness and equal opportunities for those local governments, will the Minister of Community Services ask the Premier whether there is enough space for five additional desks in his office?

[ Page 7376 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. Look, the member may be offended by the notion that a longtime, respected public servant is continuing to provide service to the province, is continuing to render service to the Premier of British Columbia. That does not offend me. The fact that it is being done in full compliance with the guidelines and the requirements….

You know what else, Mr. Speaker? We're actually proud of the fact, on this side of the House, that we have a strong relationship with communities right across the province. When we made a pledge — a promise — to return to those communities 50 percent of their fine revenues, you know what we did? We didn't just keep the promise; we doubled it and returned all of the fine revenues.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Cariboo South has a supplemental.

C. Wyse: I do, Mr. Speaker. There are dozens of local governments in B.C. that do not have lobbyists — or a content consultant, if you prefer. Also in a sense of fairness and equal opportunity, how will the Minister of Community Services ensure that these local governments get their desk into the Premier's office to ensure that they have the Premier's attention?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's only because I know that it was inadvertent and that the member didn't mean to mislead the House. But actually, all of those communities he referred to…. They've got the best lobbyists in town. They're government B.C. Liberal MLAs. That's who they are.

If the member wants to come over and join us, he can have a desk in my office.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1410]

DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS ON

SALE OF B.C. RAIL

L. Krog: Yesterday former Finance Minister Gary Collins asked the RCMP to release surveillance materials surrounding his meetings with Omnitrax officials. He wants the public to have all the information. The government still refuses to come clean on its

part in the B.C. Rail deal. We know that the B.C. Liberal caucus and cabinet members were on a committee charged with overseeing negotiations. What we don't know is what role that group had in the Omnitrax deal.

To the Attorney General: will the government follow the advice of the former Finance Minister and release any and all reports or minutes from that committee so British Columbians can finally know what role the government had in that scandal?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: We know one thing. That member reads the morning Province and knows all about the trial that's going on in Vancouver. Good to rely on the Province to do your research for you. The fact is that this arises….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, it would have been obvious to that member, who is a member of the bar, that it would be improper for us to comment on matters — that applications are made before the Supreme Court by Mr. Collins's counsel for release of that information. All of that arises out of the Supreme Court trial.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: With the greatest respect to the Attorney General, might I suggest that instead of giving legal advice to us, he take political advice from the predecessor Minister of Finance in this issue. The simple fact is…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: …that whether or not that trial continues or disappears tomorrow has no impact on the government's ability to release the information that's been asked for, which leads me to my next question. Why doesn't the government release the information? What does the government have to hide in this issue?

Hon. W. Oppal: Hon. Speaker, you know, when it comes to protecting the sanctity of the courts and understanding the role of the courts, I don't take anyone's advice.

ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONSE TO

QUESTIONS RELATED TO

COURT PROCEEDINGS

B. Ralston: The Attorney General has used the doctrine of sub judice — that is, a matter before the courts

[ Page 7377 ]

— to refrain from answering questions that have been raised in this House. But his standard, I would say, is more flexible than he's prepared to let on. On April 25, in response to a question from the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, he appeared to weigh the evidence and came up with the answer that the question was premised on what he called baseless allegations.

Now, that's a carefully considered pronouncement by the Attorney General of the province here in the Legislature. Perhaps he knows something more than he's been willing to share so far. Can the Attorney General explain how his review of the available evidence has led him to a conclusion that he so obviously has taken based on the evidence?

Hon. W. Oppal: At the time, I was giving some legal advice to the member. What I was saying was that…. I think that the member….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: I would have thought that the member, who has been in one or two courtrooms during his career, would know that often lawyers make allegations that are baseless until the trial judge makes them factual. I mean, that's the way the process works. I would have thought that he'd know that. I wasn't commenting on the evidence at all. I was commenting on the procedure that follows in our courtrooms.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney General dismissed the premise of the question based on his

interpretation of the facts. He knows more about the facts than he's prepared to let on, apparently.

My question is to the Attorney General. Why is this

interpretation of sub judice the one that he prefers, when in the British House of Commons the Speaker said that the presumption should be for discussion rather than against it?

[1415]

Hon. W. Oppal: I think the member well knows that we do not comment on those matters that are presently before the courts. I'm not going to comment on the allegations that are made before the courts.

POSSIBLE RCMP INVESTIGATIONS INTO

SALE OF B.C. RAIL

H. Lali: Will the Attorney General confirm today that there are no other present or former B.C. Liberal MLAs or present or former senior B.C. Liberal officials or former B.C. Liberal candidates who have been or are being investigated by the RCMP for giving or accepting bribes related to the Liberal government's B.C. Rail corruption scandal?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't know whether to laugh or take that question seriously. That is flawed in about 49 different ways.

We don't comment on investigations or potential investigations. We do not comment on investigations or potential investigations. That's fundamental rule number one.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FARMWORKER SAFETY

C. Puchmayr: On March 15 the Labour Minister said that action will be taken fairly soon to address farmworker safety. That was six weeks ago. It's now been almost two months since the horrific accident on Highway 1 that killed three women farmworkers and injured 13 others.

Will the minister commit today to implement the measures proposed to her and do so expeditiously?

Hon. O. Ilich: You know, the members opposite ask about the investigations that are ongoing and are trying to characterize us as not caring, and that's simply not true. We acted immediately. We took immediate action to deal with the issue. We know that the issues are very serious. We continue to work very hard on the proposals that we're looking at. We want to make sure that whatever we do, we get it right.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: It was almost four years ago when a similar accident killed a woman farmworker on Highway 1 as well — four years. The coroner's inquest made recommendations to this government. They did not act on those recommendations — four years ago, and the government did not act on those recommendations.

Will the minister commit now to proceed with urgency on this matter before more farmworkers are killed going to and from work?

Hon. O. Ilich: I have stated that we are working on this — that we want to make sure that we get it right. We do take the issue very seriously, and we continue to look at all of the things that we can do to make workers safe in the province.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 20, School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, and in Committee A, for the information of members, Committee of Supply — the continued estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

[1420-1425]

[ Page 7378 ]

Committee of the Whole House

SCHOOL (STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

ENABLING) AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 20; S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:27 p.m.

section 2 (continued) .

D. Cubberley: I appreciate the indulgence to get my scattered paper rescattered around me so that I know what I have to deal with.

Prior to the break, we were dealing with a matter of the early learning programs and had considerable discussion about the setup of this opening of early learning to school districts and then the closure of it via the clause (

b) under definition. This essentially restricts it to programs that would involve parental attendance.

We have, I believe, established through discussion — it wasn't contradicted by the minister — that the StrongStart program can be funded without language in the bill that would restrict early learning programs to parent-accompanied programs. In fact, our understanding is that without legislation, StrongStart is already in the field and is up and running at many schools. So this part of the bill, this part of the definition can't be claimed as a necessity in order to enable StrongStart programs, because they already exist.

In looking at it, we have tried to draw attention to the fact that this program, which is a valuable program…. No one on this side of the House would disagree with the fact that it is a valuable intervention. The language in definition needlessly restricts early learning programs to parent-accompanied or to programs that involve someone who is endorsed as a care provider to accompany a child in the stead of a parent.

We have also been concerned to make the point that this restricts early learning programs to programs which, by their very nature, can only address a very tiny minority of families. We are absolutely loath to believe that those families are the generators of the 11,000 kids who do not graduate from school or the unknown number of kids who are passed through with low literacy. Early learning programs are, in fact, a very valuable direction in trying to address that population.

We want to give the government a chance to reconsider on this matter, so I'm going to attempt again — I was unsuccessful in the past — to move an amendment to the bill that would strike clause (

b) from the definition of early learning programs.

Section 2 1 (1) is amended by deleting the following text:

Section 1 (1)

(

d) by adding the following

definitions:

"early learning program" means a program for children who are less than school age, or whose enrollment in an educational program has been deferred under

section 3 (2), that

(

a) is designed to improve readiness for and success in kindergarten, and

(

b) requires a child participating in the program

to be accompanied and supervised by the child's parent or other person designated in writing by the parent; ]

[1430]

The Chair: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

D. Cubberley: Just speaking to the amendment, I think we've laid out a case on this which is plausible for striking this

section of the bill. I think what this is doing in actual fact is needlessly trying to fetter school districts — to send a message to them that they cannot be directly involved in other forms of pre-K, other than the one endorsed form. I think there are substantive reasons why you would not try to restrict and fetter school districts in that manner.

I simply want to make a plea for the minister to consider this. She can do everything that she intends to do. In fact, she could do it under the existing legislative framework.

She is doing it already. StrongStart is up and running. Other programs could be. The power of control essentially lies in the willingness of the ministry to fund. School districts don't have bags of money that they could simply invest in elaborating other program areas. I have not heard an argument from the government side as to why this needs to be as prescriptive as it is.

Hon. S. Bond: Speaking to the amendment, which we do not support…. In fact, the reason that we're actually carrying on with StrongStart programs at the moment is that we started with them as pilots. There were 16 to begin with. They are underway with an agreement with the minister. Those were for a limited period of time.

We think it's a program that has been embraced across the province. It does not preclude school boards from continuing with partnerships and offering a wide variety of options within their school district.

We do not support the amendment.

C. Trevena: I would like to support the amendment. We are talking about the amendment on removing

section (b). I'd like to support that because many people are unable to take their children to child care. They're unable to spend those three hours with their children in a StrongStart position. They need to be out earning a living. They need to be working. Having that very fixed designation that early childhood education and these programs are linked to having parents in attendance for the three-hour drop-in is really a retrograde step that will exclude many parents and many children.

While some of the StrongStart elements are very good, this is a very damaging one. I would support the amendment that my colleague from Saanich South has put.

Amendment negatived.

[ Page 7379 ]

section 2.

D. Cubberley: The next piece in the definition

section that we want to ask a couple of questions about is the definition of literacy, which the bill says "means the ability to understand and employ printed information in daily activities, at home, at work and in the community."

We're interested in knowing why the minister settled upon this definition of literacy. This is a definition that appears typically in relation to assessment of literacy, and I would ask why this one was chosen as opposed to any of the other

definitions of literacy that might be out there.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, there are probably dozens if not hundreds of

definitions of literacy. What we believe on this side of the House is that being able to read is a fundamental principle of seeing improved student achievement. That's why we've focused on this.

[1435]

Our goal is to see student achievement improve, and we think one of the key ways of doing that is making sure that students can actually read well.

D. Cubberley: Typically, in using a definition of literacy of this kind — as we heard in the Education Committee — this form of definition of literacy is usually evaluated against four domains, one of which is problem-solving. In fact, the people who do this kind of assessment — and who spoke to us on the Education Committee about adult literacy — never put forward the definition without putting a comma at the end of it and saying "assessed in four domains," one of which is problem-solving.

The reason I raise this is because I believe it's important to retain some connection to cognitive activity that is not simply based on facts and that involves an ability, shall we say, to comprehend and to think. So the lack of a connection to that is something which…. I'm interested in hearing why that choice was made. It's been decoupled from the four domains.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, that's not accurate. When you read the definition, it says "means the ability to understand and employ printed information in daily activities…."

"Employ" means you can do that across four domains.

D. Cubberley: Well, thank you for that. It still suggests to me that it is a technical definition, as opposed to a definition that would relate, say, more directly to the

preamble's commitment to the whole person. It's not simply because it has no poetry to it, which it doesn't have. It isn't simply that.

The commitment in the

preamble is to enable people "to become personally fulfilled and publicly useful" and "to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy, democratic and pluralistic society and a prosperous and sustainable economy" — very, very good language. Why would we not have chosen something a little bit more along these lines, just out of interest: "Literacy is the ability to read, write, communicate and comprehend"?

Hon. S. Bond: As I indicated to the member opposite — the member opposite has read out another definition of literacy — there are multiple

definitions of literacy. What we wanted to do was clearly articulate the fact that the ability to read and understand is foundational for student success. That's why the definition is described the way it is.

D. Cubberley: I will pass on to others who will have their perspective on this, but I do want to reiterate that literacy, as it's defined in the bill, doesn't adequately capture the terms "communicate" or "problem-solve."

I believe that "problem-solve" is explicitly mentioned in the domains that are used to assess technical literacy. I have some concerns about that not being in there, because you could be evaluating people for literacy based on a technical definition and be missing these important domains in the way that they're evaluated.

Problem-solving is a more complex skill and a little less amenable to FSA-style testing than verbal ability or mathematical ability might be. I ask for a response on that.

Hon. S. Bond: We believe that learning to read, to understand, and then using that skills set and employing it through "printed information in daily activities" can absolutely encompass what the member opposite has stood up and asked about. But learning to read well and learning to understand is foundational and fundamental.

[1440]

G. Coons: Thank you for the opportunity to look at this definition. In the debate the other day, a lot of members had concerns that literacy is not just a functional ability to read and write. It's fundamentally about participation and being able to take an active

part in society, and it's important.

I understand that this government is the lead province in the pan-Canadian literacy strategy that's being developed by the Council of Ministers of Education. Is this definition that you have in this legislation the definition that the pan-Canadian literacy strategy adopted?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we are the lead province in terms of literacy in this country, and it's a record we're very proud of. We actually worked hard to bring this to the table, the federal-provincial-territorial table, and said that if there's one thing that ministers — no matter what political stripe they represent — should be able to agree on is that literacy is critical to the success of this country. We're very proud of our record at the federal-provincial-territorial table.

We have had two sessions working on adult literacy and on early literacy. To my knowledge we have not endorsed a particular definition, as provinces across this country are still grappling with that. Certainly, if that information is something that the member opposite has or would like to share, we're happy to

[ Page 7380 ]

look at that. We've done a lot of work as the lead province. It's a record, as I've said, that we're very proud of.

G. Coons: This is information the deputy minister brought out in some of his reports, which I get copies of, about being part of the pan-Canadian literacy strategy. I believe it was in some reports that went out. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

I believe that at this point in time the pan-Canadian literacy strategy encourages politicians to look at decisions though a literacy lens — that's a quote — and look at being an advocate for literacy. I think this definition falls short of this government's role in advocating for literacy throughout the province and ensuring that our public education system is on the right track.

I'm wondering: in this definition, did you do any first nations consultation as far as developing this definition of literacy?

Hon. S. Bond: We haven't had any specific discussion with our aboriginal partners on the definition of literacy.

For the member opposite to be asking what this government's role has been, this is the first government that has actually created a cross-ministry literacy strategy that has provided leadership nationally on this topic. Premiers, led by our Premier, actually created a literacy award that is given across the country, province by province by province. We've invested over $100 million in literacy initiatives in this government, and we intend to continue to work on that and continue to move that forward.

The bottom line is that this definition simply says this. Learning to read and being able to understand what you read is essential to being successful as a student.

G. Coons: As far as looking at learners throughout this province and looking at graduation rates and at the concerns with first nations aboriginal graduation rates, I would have thought that the minister or staff would have consulted and brought in and encompassed the communications with first nations. Again, we look at the importance of oral history, of storytelling; of traditional knowledge — whether it's historical, ecological, cultural, spiritual — and the holistic approach.

[1445]

It was brought to the minister's attention, I think last week, about a definition of literacy in Quebec where: "Literacy is a complex set of abilities needed to understand and use the dominant symbol systems of a culture…. However a culture defines it, literacy touches every aspect of individual and community life."

I'm just wondering: with this definition, is the minister prepared to go out and — I guess, after the fact — communicate with first nations and try to get some input into the importance of their cultural, historical and oral traditions as far as our definition of literacy?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, this is a government that has been working with first nations leaders across this province and country to actually try as desperately as we can to close the gap that's unacceptable for aboriginal students in this province.

The bill that we're debating today, where apparently learning to read and understand may not be foundational enough for the members opposite…. Let's be clear. The intent of trying to improve student achievement is to actually stand up and admit that 47 percent in terms of a completion rate for aboriginal students is not acceptable. We are saying in this House today that we need to look at change in the system, and that's what this bill incorporates.

D. Chudnovsky: I note that the minister has described the ability to read and write in the debate so far as foundational, essential and fundamental. She's also suggested that those on this side don't think that learning to read and write is fundamental, essential or foundational. That couldn't be further from the truth, and I don't know how the minister could have drawn that conclusion.

My question to the minister is: does the absence of arithmetic or mathematical computation in the definition of literacy indicate that it is the minister's view that arithmetic and mathematical calculation is somehow not foundational, essential or fundamental?

Hon. S. Bond: Absolutely not.

D. Chudnovsky: What reasoning was used by the minister and the ministry in excluding mathematical or arithmetic computation from the definition of literacy?

Hon. S. Bond: What we're attempting to do with Bill 20 is actually make sure that we improve student results in British Columbia. In the discussions that we've had across this province, we recognize that preliteracy skills are essential to success. We also know that there are 40 percent of British Columbians who have the inability to read a prescription or a bus schedule.

From our perspective, it's not about not doing other things. It's about articulating a specific course and strategy that says that one of the things that's essential to success for our students and, in fact, for our adults — for all British Columbians — is the ability to read and to understand. That's why we've chosen to focus this strategy.

It certainly does not mean that numeracy is not important, that communication skills are not important, that looking at technology and how we utilize that is not important. We're simply saying that we believe British Columbia's children need to be able to read well to understand and to employ printed information in every aspect of their lives.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister would agree with me, would she not, that in

an act promulgated in a province that has a responsibility for public education, the definition of literacy that's included in that act is foundational, essential and fundamental?

[1450]

Hon. S. Bond: I've answered the question, but I will answer it one more time. We believe that learning to

[ Page 7381 ]

read — and learning to read and understand — is foundational as are numerous other skills that children in this province learn every day. One of the fundamental building blocks is learning to read and learning to understand, and that's why we've chosen to use that definition in this bill.

D. Chudnovsky: Would the minister say that numeracy — or arithmetic and mathematical computation — is not one of the fundamental building blocks of literacy?

Hon. S. Bond: Of course there are numerous fundamental skills. The point of using the word "literacy" here is recognizing that preliteracy skills, in particular, make a significant difference in a child's readiness when they arrive at the kindergarten door. We have simply articulated that, in terms of our strategy and the expectations around school districts to improve student achievement, a primary focus will be on learning to read.

D. Chudnovsky: Like I said in the debate, who thinks up this stuff? What about speaking and listening skills? Are they less foundational or fundamental than reading and writing skills?

Hon. S. Bond: Learning to read and understand is essential, as are numerous other skills that take place when our children are taught in classrooms throughout our province. That will continue. We're simply saying that as we move forward to improve achievement results in British Columbia, learning to read and to understand is essential, along with numerous other skills that will take place as our teachers work in classrooms every day.

D. Chudnovsky: What about visual and media literacy skills? Are they less foundational and fundamental than reading and writing skills?

Hon. S. Bond: As answered in my previous question.

D. Chudnovsky: What about critical thinking skills and problem-solving skills? Are they less fundamental and foundational than reading and writing skills?

Hon. S. Bond: That's been asked and answered.

D. Cubberley: Just a couple of remarks in conclusion on this. I think the point we're trying to make is that it's a little thin as a definition. It doesn't link well to the commitments in the

preamble around public education. It probably lends itself relatively well to rolling over into testing of one kind or another. We would be happier if there was more emphasis both on communication and on either comprehension or problem-solving, given the importance of those in the working world and the fact that literacy skills are ultimately going to be assessed against those domains.

Part of the reason for this is that the commitment in the

preamble we take seriously, in that it is to the whole person and freeing the capacities that are within every individual to flourish, both within a democratic society and within the economy as an employable person who can become a self-responsible person. All of those are important, and it's important to keep our

definitions lined up with that commitment.

But there's another practical aspect, if I think about the questions asked about numeracy. British Columbia has somewhere in the order of a million adults who are low literate, but interestingly, if we look at the scale of rating for averages in terms of literacy and numeracy, we are actually more challenged in terms of numeracy. That is, we are further off the mark in our low-numeracy adults than we are even in our low-literacy adults. So there is some importance to trying to make visible things other than reading printed information.

I think we've canvassed that, and we may have to agree to differ on that section, but we'll move on from there.

[1455]

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

D. Cubberley: This

section begins the introduction of the substantive powers that are being granted to a superintendent of achievement, and this one has to do with the introduction of an appeal process which doesn't currently exist. This is one of the larger departures in the legislation from the existing system, so we're interested to hear what led to the decision to create an additional court of appeal from school district decisions.

Hon. S. Bond: I think what led to it was ongoing discussions with parents who have said…. They frequently contact the ministry and speak to me personally about extraordinary circumstances — not day-to-day decision-making, not about where a student is in a classroom or those kinds of decisions, although those are challenging as well. But certainly from time to time, there are parents who feel as if they have not had due process.

There may not have been the opportunity that they would have preferred to have, and when it impacts the life of their child, it's a pretty important circumstance. In my visits around the province to almost 50 school districts, visiting at parent meetings…. From that perspective, this respects a parent's right to make sure that they have due process.

D. Cubberley: So the minister's suggestion is that parents don't have due process with the existing

section 11 decision and appeal process.

Hon. S. Bond: No, I didn't say that. What I said was this. From time to time during the process that sees a significant result for a student in this province, there may be a situation where due process was not followed. It's not unthinkable or unreasonable to expect that despite the most perfect circumstances and perfect processes, occasionally there might be a circumstance worthy of just making sure that the parent — and more importantly, the student — has had due process. That's what this recognizes.

[ Page 7382 ]

D. Cubberley: Given the nature of the types of decisions that locally elected school districts have to make from time to time, we know that many of those are agonizing decisions. They're difficult choices, and we sometimes read about those in the newspaper — very difficult choices for boards to make.

There is, as I understand it, an appeal process from a decision made by the board. My question would be: is there some pattern of appeals that are faulty or flawed in the way that they're being handled in the current setup that provides a rationale — something more than what a parent may have said to you at a meeting that they would like to see?

For example, did trustees come forward and tell you that they see something wrong with the process and that they would prefer to have this opportunity created for someone who is unelected to decide to hear an appeal?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the concern we hear is expressed directly from parents to suggest that there are times that they believe they have not had every opportunity for due process in their child's circumstances.

Let's look at the parameters of this before we spend hours debating what this looks like. This is not about day-to-day decision-making, and it's not about every decision. It isn't even about overturning agonizing decisions that school boards have made. It's about when, occasionally, there may be an instance where a parent or a student feels that they haven't had due process.

This process will be set up so that a superintendent of achievement can sit down and listen to those concerns. In fact, if the parent has not gone through the appeal process created by the board of trustees, they would be advised to go back and follow the process that's in place. It gives us the opportunity to reaffirm processes that are in place and make sure that those processes have been followed.

[1500]

There may well be an extraordinary circumstance in this province where a parent has not had the opportunity or has not had — in their view and certainly after a review — due process. We're simply saying this is an avenue that would allow that to be considered.

D. Cubberley: I'm not the person most conversant with the School Act in the province. I'll readily admit that. But if the minister understood that somebody had been denied due process through an appeal process, probably the minister has an ability to intervene.

I mean, being denied due process is pretty strong. Not getting the decision that you hoped for might be a much more frequent occurrence because in every situation where a choice has to be made, there's going to be someone who is relatively satisfied with the choice and someone who is not. That's the nature of local decision-making. It's built into the situation.

I want to ask a couple of questions here. The minister said this is for use in very, very restricted circumstances, but nothing that I see in the legislation gives me any comfort that it would be used in restricted circumstances. What would restrict the circumstances, as this bill is written?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in the bill it actually says that appeals to the superintendent are subject to the regulations, so the member opposite is correct. In fact, the scope of the appeal process will be determined by regulation. That is exactly what we met with boards and superintendents about yesterday — to work through this process, to say: "Tell us the issues that concern you. Tell us where you think this may or may not be appropriate."

We have made a commitment to the B.C. School Trustees Association. I think one of the members opposite certainly was there when I spoke to the entire gathering of trustees to say exactly that. Before this moves forward, we will discuss the regulatory process and what the scope looks like. That's exactly what we've committed to discuss with trustees.

D. Cubberley: Well, I had the opportunity to attend sometime after the minister had spoken, so I did have an opportunity to speak with those trustees who cared to come up to me and talk about the issue. My leader happened to be there doing a presentation on the same day, and she referenced some of the aspects of the legislation that we are less comfortable with than the government side is.

I didn't get any sense at all from the trustees that they were particularly assuaged by anything that was said at that meeting. I also believe it's correct to say that a motion was passed requesting that the bill be withdrawn, after the minister had spoken to the audience. I know the minister is trying to reassure, but I fail to see that people are being reassured. I think they have very deep concern about this.

Once again, it's all well and good to say: "There will be regulations, and the regulations will hem things in." Essentially, to translate that out of bill language, that's to say: "Trust us. We'll put a fence around it."

The problem is that it's not the job of the House — I do not believe — to afford any minister at any time broad-ranging powers where someone is suggesting that later on we'll try and rein those in so they can't run amok. That's not a good argument. In fact, it's not a good process, and it's not something that I think we should be endorsing.

If there's to be a regulatory framework that's to constrain what superintendents of achievement are going to do — and these are not elected people, so there is really no way for anybody to get at them — that should either be embedded in some sense here or be running in tandem with the bill so that there's a clear message to people about what it will be. Even so, I think putting it in regulation doesn't mean that it can't be changed by the next person or later.

I have serious concerns with that, and I do not believe that the broad-ranging concern on the part of trustees…. These are trustees of every stamp. These are not in anybody's camp; they're in everybody's camp. They share a concern about establishing a new power without a rationale that stands up to anything they were aware of by way of a problem.

[1505]

[ Page 7383 ]

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, just to clarify, I saw one of the members opposite protesting about what I actually said. What I said when I was at the B.C. School Trustees Association was in fact not: "Trust us." I said: "Work with us." In fact, that's what took place yesterday.

The meeting that we held yesterday had been committed to prior to meeting with the B.C. School Trustees Association in a historic meeting, according to the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association — which means the first time ever, not simply with this government. We brought trustees and superintendents together and walked through every line of this bill and other legislation that's before the House and said: "Let's talk about how, together, we shape the regulations."

So we didn't say: "Trust me." We said: "Work with us." We on this side of the House are going to stand up every time and make sure that a student is protected in this province, to ensure that in that rare and perhaps significant occasion that does not have the opportunity for due process…. This simply allows for us to make sure that comes first.

D. Chudnovsky: I wonder if the minister could tell us how many

section 11 appeals are done now in a typical year by school boards.

Hon. S. Bond: I do not know that number.

D. Chudnovsky: That's perplexing, because it seems to me that that would drive one's expectation of the potential duties of the superintendents of achievement. That is to say, there are X number…. Let's say for the sake of argument that there are 100 School Act appeals under

section 11 in a typical school year. So one would expect that some number up to 100 would be the number of potential appeals that would go to the superintendents of achievement.

It strikes me that somebody in the ministry must have thought this through as they were proposing the creation of these positions. Somebody must have said to themselves: "Well, there are a hundred" — or whatever the number is — "School Act appeals that go to the school boards in a year."

Some of them, when and if this provision passes, will come forward to the superintendents of achievement. It will take them — I don't know — ten, 12 or 20 hours to deal with each one of those. That will be part of their duties.

Somebody must have estimated all of that so that the minister was able to, in a responsible way, put forward a position in the bill. So did that calculation take place? What was it based on? What expectation does the minister have of the time that the superintendents of achievement will spend dealing with this issue?

Hon. S. Bond: We didn't use a mathematical formula. What we actually did was say that the most important people in the system in the province are students. If there is one student that does not receive fair or due process for whatever extraordinary circumstances, we care about that one student.

It's not about formulas. It's not about math. It's about students. They're going to stay at the centre of our agenda. While there may be some discomfort with how we manage that, at the end of the day they are our priority.

D. Chudnovsky: Perhaps the minister didn't understand my question, and I'm sorry if it wasn't clear enough. We'll get to the issue of due process in a second.

Clearly, the minister believes that there is reason to create these new positions, superintendents of achievement. One would have to not have visual and auditory literacy to lack the understanding that the minister believes that one of the tasks of these superintendents of achievement will be to deal with these next-step-from-section-11 appeals.

Clearly, the minister believes that, and she's entitled to her belief. My question has to do with her expectation as to the duties of these newly created positions. It's a completely reasonable question. The minister, in the legislation, creates a new position. I'm asking what her expectation is of what those people will do.

[1510]

In the area, we have a lot of other duties that are laid out in the act, and we will get to them. I look forward to that. This question, which perhaps I didn't explain well enough, is: what's the expectation of the minister and the ministry as to how much time these superintendents of achievement might spend doing this part of their job?

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

I can't imagine that that's not a reasonable question, and I certainly can't imagine that somebody didn't talk about it at the ministry when they were creating the position.

Hon. S. Bond: I think the member opposite would know that we have an extraordinary staff in the Ministry of Education. I can only assume that the hard work they've done in contemplating this would have included all those kinds of things. But let's be clear. We are in the process of working with school boards to shape the process and determine the scope. I expect that the amount of time that superintendents of achievement would spend on this process would be minimal because for the vast, vast majority of decisions, they are appropriate. We have gone through that with school boards.

You know, from our perspective, we actually listen to parents when they come and say to us: "There is a concern…."

Interjections.

Hon. S. Bond: There is a concern that from time to time parents feel, first of all, intimidated by a system that is difficult for them to understand and work through. We hear that from the majority of parents. While the members opposite would like to suggest that maybe it's just a couple of people who have said that,

[ Page 7384 ]

I'm absolutely certain they would agree that the system is intimidating for parents no matter how carefully we design that process.

Occasionally, parent feels they need some place to go, someone to listen to them to make sure they've been treated fairly, and that is the point of this process.

D. Chudnovsky: It's interesting that the minister would suggest to us that parents are often intimidated by the system. That's true, absolutely true. We need to, all of us, look to finding ways to help parents not be intimidated by the system.

It's interesting, though, that the minister would suggest that creating a new level of bureaucracy at the ministry level is going to make people less intimidated by the system. That's an interesting notion.

On the issue of due process, does the minister have any other

examples? The use of the phrase "due process" is an interesting one. Can the minister give us other examples where due process is furthered by moving at the level of appeal from an elected and accountable arbiter to an unelected, unaccountable arbiter? Are there other examples she can point to?

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps the member opposite misses the point. The point is that parents face unbelievable, at times, intimidation and a feeling of: "Where do I go to have someone help me walk through this process to ensure that I've had every single possible opportunity to make sure that my child is served well and fairly?" That's what this allows.

D. Cubberley: Certainly, I think parents often do feel a significant sense of disappointment. One has only to think about the parents of special needs kids who wait far too long to have their children assessed or who find that they can't get the resources within the school system to support their children.

It's interesting that in all we hear in this House, we rarely hear any reference to that at all. In the view of this from the government side, there are more than enough resources in the system, so any problems in the system are the result of the failings of school districts in the appropriate allocation of those resources.

[1515]

I have to say, candidly, I've only been doing this as critic for a while, for sure. But in the nine months since I've been the critic, I haven't had anybody approach me expressing concern about school district decisions and appeals. But I've had hundreds and hundreds of parents approach me about inadequate resources for their children in the classroom.

It's interesting to me where the sense of priority lies. I would have to say that the sense of priority seems to be largely misplaced. The faith in unelected people to perform better than elected people seems to me entirely misplaced in a ministry with a mandate that references the importance of democracy and educating citizens for effective participation in democracy.

Oh, I feel so much better.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

I'd like to ask the minister. She mentioned that ex post facto she is beginning to engage in a dialogue with people about a regulatory framework that would put a fence around what the über-superintendents could do in this process. What would those regulations look like? How would you fashion a regulation that would begin to place a fence around them? What kinds of things would you say that you can look at or you can't look at?

Hon. S. Bond: What it means is that we would look at the scope and when that appeal process might actually be utilized. For example, would it be in serious disciplinary cases? That's exactly the discussion we would want to have and are having.

You know, hon. Chairperson, while I appreciate that there may be something with a catchphrase and using the word "über-superintendent," the fact of the matter is that the individuals we hope to have in those positions will be highly respected individuals who have years and years of experience in public education, who will work alongside school districts in this province. From my perspective these are people, we hope, that will have a great deal of credibility. It's unfortunate that it's characterized in that way.

As we've said, we are discussing with school boards the scope. In other words, when might this appeal process be applicable? We received some feedback yesterday. These are discussions that we have had in general conversations about making transformational change to education for over a year in this province. In every single school district that I have visited, we have talked about some of the changes that may be necessary in order to see student improvement. We certainly have been in discussion across the province.

D. Cubberley: Indeed, it is to be hoped that the superintendents of achievement, if and when they come into being, will work collaboratively with the school districts on the model that school districts themselves have established for how they work internally. That's to be hoped for.

The problems we have with it aren't so much with the existence of the position but with the number of things within the bill that elevate these superintendents of achievement above the elected level, the co-governors of the system. The

section that we're looking at right now is merely one of them.

I cast an eye over it. What kinds of things can they do? They can summarily dismiss or accept. They can establish practices and procedures. They have the power to suspend a board decision for the period and on the conditions they consider appropriate. The adjudicators they may refer things to are given broad powers to confirm, revoke or vary decisions; refer back to boards for reconsideration, with or without directions; or dismiss. They can mandate the time lines that boards will reconsider things on. The decision of the superintendent of achievement is final and binding.

There is a whole array of powers being provided to them, in addition to another power which we have yet

[ Page 7385 ]

to come to about the administrative directive, that significantly elevate these — not just in terms of what they will do inside the system to try to secure better achievement for students but by giving them abilities to direct things that school districts would normally be enabled to decide within the policy framework established by the minister, which is the current system, which is an appropriate system.

[1520]

When we use that term "über-superintendent," we're not demeaning individuals who may wish to take on the role. We're querying the design of the role, if the stated purpose is to achieve outcomes collaboratively. This appears to be arming them to involve themselves in many ways.

When we look at that, we can only see that we are, in effect, engaged in a process of elevating the unelected above the elected. The minister may care to comment on that. If not, I will move on to the next.

Hon. S. Bond: The primary focus of superintendents of achievement will be to work with school districts to create achievement contracts, which will set out strategies for student improvement. That will include looking at how we can perhaps link districts together who are seeing more success in particular areas. It will also look at how we can share best practices. Their focus is going to be on assisting school boards to make sure that students in British Columbia see improved results.

[1525]

Section 7 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 42

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Whittred

Horning

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Hawkins

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 32

Brar

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

B. Simpson

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Lali

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

Sections 8 to 15 inclusive approved.

N. Simons: I believe it would probably be appropriate to have the tumult that seems to follow the vote settle down before we go on with these further sections. I think we've probably roller-coasted past a few.

The Chair: Thank you.

[1530]

section 16.

D. Cubberley: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the assistance. I just want to clarify that we're outlining the components of an achievement contract. We canvassed a little bit of this before. There are some elements in here that are existing elements of things that boards do. Then there are things that boards are not currently involved in, or at least they're not spelled out in legislation that they will be, and they are moving into relatively uncharted waters.

Also, I would include literacy and early learning programs in that. There's also a

section (

e) which allows the minister to order other matters to be included in achievement contracts. I'm interested just to hear from the minister — in the areas of literacy, early learning programs and these other matters that may be ordered — what the process will be vis-à-vis the minister's staff and school districts for working through what will be in the first contracts. My assumption would be that if the bill takes effect, this will be a requirement on time lines for this coming September.

I want to get a sense of what's intended. Is it for September 2007? What are the time lines for contracts? And given the number of school districts and the fact that the minister had suggested this would be tailored to some extent to the composition of the school districts, how is that going to unfold?

Hon. S. Bond: The intent would be to have achievement contracts in place in July, which is the date noted here. Having said that, the school trustees did note in their meeting with us yesterday that that was a concern for them, and we've agreed to talk about how we might accommodate that, with the circumstances of this bill only being in the House in May. We have been made aware of the concerns, we respect that, and we want to work through that with school boards.

The member opposite, I think, also asked about how we will look after the context pieces of achievement contracts. Our superintendents of achievement

[ Page 7386 ]

will meet individually with boards across the province and sit down to better understand those districts and to work with them. What's interesting to note is that we've already had some school districts indicate how much they're looking forward to having an additional resource as part of their thinking, to help them with some of the plans that they might make.

D. Cubberley: I'd just like to ask whether the superintendents of achievement…. Are any of them are in place currently? Has anybody been retained?

Hon. S. Bond: We are not adding new positions to the ministry. We're in the process of transitioning people, so there are certainly people that will be in place once legislation permits that.

One of the questions that has been asked in estimates was: is this going to cost more money? In fact, it's not, because what we're doing is reorganizing our ministry, which is the right thing to do. If we expect school districts to change their process, we should also be doing that. So they are not additional positions. We are realigning our staff and having those positions as part of the team that we already have.

[1535]

D. Cubberley: I take the point about cost to the ministry for doing this, but there is also potential — and I've heard from trustees about this — for costs to multiply in school districts as well. It's interesting. We've got a number of bills in front of the House that are going to affect in some fashion the way that school districts operate.

In relation to two of those bills to this point, I've heard from people about the potential for increased costs, not least of which would be that in creating an appeal process from decisions made at the board level, there may be — as there may be in the disciplinary process for infractions of one kind or another to conduct at schools — the introduction of more and more legal fees into the process, both on the part of individuals being represented and on the part of employers or boards with responsibilities — not to mention a great deal of increased time. There are some costs, I would say, even with efficiencies of the kind that the minister is mentioning.

I just want to ask that question again, though. None of these superintendents are in position currently. What kinds of qualifications would you see these individuals needing to have, especially given things like the appeal process that they're going to be involved in?

Hon. S. Bond: That's not what I said to the member opposite. What I said was that we have staff within our ministry. We also second superintendents regularly to our staff. That is ongoing. We have seconded individuals, and we have staff members in place as we speak.

At the present time we are realigning their responsibilities with the statutory requirements that would put those positions in place with those requirements. But there are people that are on our staff, part of our team.

Yes, there are people in place. We're in the process of transitioning their responsibilities from their current liaison roles to those that would become superintendents of achievement.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister is right, it was the member for Vancouver-Kensington who asked in estimates what the additional costs would be, and the minister answered as she has today. I thank her for that.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what functions of the ministry won't be done when this transition takes place. When the new superintendents of achievement take up their new responsibilities, what will they not be doing?

Hon. S. Bond: It's hard to articulate because, as I have said to the House, we are realigning the work that individuals do in order to do this particular task. It probably requires reprioritization of their time more than it includes that we're not going to be doing these things.

There are some things that have come to a completion — things like the community consultation piece which our seconded liaison staff members participated in for months on end and which was with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. That, for example, was time-sensitive and will no longer be necessary.

It is the case that our ministry will realign our priorities. The focus will be on moving our staff out of the buildings into districts on a more regular basis to build up that relationship. In essence, it's not a significant dropping of responsibilities but just, I think, a different approach and some additional requirements in terms of setting up the achievement contracts with school districts.

D. Chudnovsky: Typically in organizations that I've worked with, together with the job description there's often a percentage breakout of the time that's spent by employees on individual tasks or bundles of tasks — not so much individual tasks.

[1540]

Perhaps the minister could tell us what percentage…. If I understand what she's saying correctly, there won't be an increase in the number of employees; there's a reorganization taking place; and as a result of that reorganization, the new superintendents of achievement will be doing some new tasks.

I wonder if the minister has a projection of how much of the job that the superintendents of achievement are going to be doing is new stuff that relates to the amendments that are before us in Bill 20 and how much is responsibilities that they have had up till now before the introduction of Bill 20?

Hon. S. Bond: What the individuals did previously and what they'll do now is spend 100 percent of their time on student achievement. That's what they did, and that's what they will do.

Having said that, we don't assign tasks in our ministry by percentage, or we don't articulate the jobs of our staff in that way. The complexity that's added to this position is that they are all potentially going to have different roles with school boards.

[ Page 7387 ]

For example, one of the things that I've discussed with school boards as I have visited across the province is around some of the unique challenges that very small rural and remote school districts are facing. We are doing some great things with the rural education network and a variety of things. But it may be that we would have a superintendent of achievement where a significant percentage of their work would be working with those small, rural and remote school districts to find things that they can do together, things they can help work on, best practice and those kinds of things.

There isn't a template. The job positions will not be the same. In fact, we think that it's really important that there be some flexibility, that there be the opportunity to work individually with groups of districts or with specific school districts. So we haven't allocated percentages.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister for that, but I do want to press it a little bit because it seems to me that it's a little on the vague side. There is a Bill 20. There are new positions. There are new responsibilities. So maybe the minister can give us a ballpark — a range, perhaps — of her best guess as to what percentage of these new jobs will be on the new stuff — on the new responsibilities arising from Bill 20 — and which from the elements of the old School Act.

I hasten to add that we're not asking the minister to sign a contract here. We're asking her for her best guess. What does she think the ratio of responsibilities will be?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said to the member previously, we haven't and don't want to assign percentages of time to specific superintendents of achievement. What we expect the majority of their time to be spent on…. We think it's pretty important.

They're actually going to help, to work alongside, school boards as they create their achievement contracts, to make sure that they're reasonable and that they have the appropriate context. That's been something the members opposite have brought up today. We want that to take up the majority of the time.

In addition to that, we want our superintendents of achievement to help build capacity in school districts to enable them to carry out the plans that they put in place.

D. Chudnovsky: I'll have to read that one again in Hansard and see if I can unpack it and parse it and figure out what it might mean. But I thank the minister nonetheless for the answer.

[1545]

She points to a question that I've been hoping to ask her since I heard the minister speak at the BCSTA convention a couple of weeks ago. In the context of answering a question from a skeptical school trustee…. The content of the question was similar to some of what's been asked here today.

The minister said — and I wrote it down; I was interested in the comment she made — that superintendents of achievement would have available to them resources to help school districts in the tasks that they had to carry out. I'm wondering what resources she was talking about.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I enjoyed having the opportunity to speak to the school trustees, despite how challenging that was, and I heard their concerns.

"Resources" doesn't only mean money, and I think that's probably what the member opposite would like to ascertain. We know that superintendents of achievement, first of all, will have vast experience and credibility in the system. They bring expertise. We also have the ability to realign some of the resources that we have within the ministry in terms of supporting capacity-building.

They're going to bring a ton of information as well. They have the ability to connect districts to one another. They have the ability of having understood and of understanding the differences in districts.

When I use the word "resources," I think that people are resources as well. Perhaps that's how I should have articulated the answer to that question. I think having a superintendent of achievement that's willing to and enabled by this legislation to come to a district — to work with them and provide additional advice and resource and perhaps look at something from a different perspective — is in and of itself a resource.

D. Chudnovsky: I couldn't agree more with that comment that the minister made that there are, for sure, human resources which are tremendously valuable to us in the system, but surely….

I'll just take a break for a second, Chair.

The Chair: Please continue, Member.

D. Chudnovsky: Human resources are obviously tremendously important, but surely the people who are now in the positions in the ministry — some of whom, as the minister told us a few minutes ago, will be the very same people who will take up the position of superintendent of achievement….

Surely they have the human resources that they have, so what's new? What's different? What resources will be brought to bear — human resources? I understand the minister to be talking about human resources. What human resources will be brought to bear and will be available to school districts that aren't available to them now?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, we intend to bring life to superintendents of achievement within the resource envelope that we have in the ministry. We're not adding anything, and we're not taking away from anything. I think what we're trying to do is reposition how we actually serve school districts. We want to be in a position to provide advice and commentary and support — physical support.

One of the things that's very remarkable to me, as a minister who has only been here a fairly short period of time, is that this is a ministry that's very fluid. We really have to have the ability to respond quickly to changes to direction, so we still will.

[ Page 7388 ]

As these positions evolve, we will look forward to the opportunity for realigning other support staff that may be necessary. We're committed to providing additional support to school districts.

That really is the intention of superintendents of achievement. It's to say: "We know that you work hard. We know that you have some big challenges. We know that together we need to make sure that we're helping students be supported in this province."

Really, it is evolutionary, and we don't have a template that says: "Here's where you're going to be, and here's how you're going to spend the time." We want to see that evolve as we work with school boards and have them say, as well: "Is there a way to utilize the expertise that's being provided in very innovative ways?"

[1550]

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister for the answer, although I must say with the greatest of respect that I'm really having trouble following the answer. It appears to me, at least, that what the minister is saying….

A part of what the minister is saying, the part that I understand, is that there's going to be more of a field-service model than a centralized model in terms of these folks, that they're going to be in the districts more than the current people in the positions are now. I think I hear her saying that, and I think I understand that, but frankly, the rest of what she's saying seems to me to not differ so much from what is at least the possibility now.

In what the minister said in her last answer, what isn't available to school districts today? There are innovative people in the ministry; that's for sure. They are trying to help develop and improve student achievement; that's for sure. They're available to school districts; that's for sure. So beyond the….

Interjection.

D. Chudnovsky: As always, I am thrilled and flattered when those opposite express their support for what I'm saying. It does nothing but help my frame of mind, so I invite them to continue the response.

Beyond the fact that there may be an increase in what I call field service, what else is different in the new dispensation with respect to superintendents of achievement and when it comes to resources?

Hon. S. Bond: We've canvassed the issue of resources. We think that, first of all, there are human resources, which boards are actually welcoming. And despite their concern about some sections of Bill 20 — I have heard those, and we are working on those — there are many boards, as I have suggested, who are looking forward to having extra expertise to come and help them with the creation of an achievement contract.

What's new? These superintendents of achievement will help boards create achievement contracts. That wasn't the case previously. Accountability contracts were created in school districts, and there was less of a field-service model. I'm not sure that I like what that says, but that is in essence what will happen here. We absolutely want to move expertise out into the field to be supportive of school districts.

In terms of what else is new, obviously there are literacy plans that boards need to work on, and there are a variety of new expectations of school boards. The general principle for superintendents of achievement is that they will work alongside school districts. They will help them monitor the results that school districts need to be looking at — whether or not they're making progress — and that's a fairly significant change.

Then again, if the member opposite sees this as not that significant a change, I'm not certain why the concern about passing this

section of the legislation.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

D. Cubberley: On the matter of administrative directives, we had canvassed this under the

definitions fairly extensively and registered our concern with the direction being proposed here. I don't want to dwell on it, but we are very concerned, once again, that these superintendents of achievement are, through this mechanism, being given another tool….

It relates to the achievement contract more directly. This is a power of intervention that the minister would have around the failure to meet obligations under an achievement contract.

[1555]

I think that almost all of what the minister has said in response to questions on this side has been by way of attempting to assuage people and assure them that it isn't the intent of this bill, the minister or the government to use a heavy hand in this regard. Moments ago the minister was characterizing the direction of the superintendents of achievement as being to provide advice, commentary and support; to share best practices; and to attempt to evolve and bring along, using the traditional tools of persuasion rather than using cudgels of any kind.

We have heard the same thing, and I appreciate it and wish to believe that it is in fact the intent that this would be a collaborative process and that there would not be a one-size-fits-all in terms of expectations or obligations flowing from achievement contracts. Indeed, the minister has indicated some willingness to be flexible around the implementation time lines, having heard from school trustees that it may not be possible to get this up and running quite as quickly as the legislation envisages.

All of that is good, but when one looks at this section, "Administrative directives," it is, in fact, the provision of a new cudgel to the minister to be used to help enforce obligations around an achievement contract.

I would have to say that we on this side do not see the need for this instrument. The minister has very broad powers to intervene. She has an ability to dispatch an emissary who can be used to try to persuade.

[ Page 7389 ]

If the tool of persuasion doesn't work, she has a hammer in her existing arsenal that can be used to ensure that her will is met.

We do not see the need for this. We do not support this. We think that it unnecessarily contributes to that sense of skepticism and concern that school trustees have that this legislation will be heavy-handed.

We would urge the minister simply to remove this from the bill. It isn't necessary to the positive intent that she has characterized the bill as having, and it can only be deemed, at one level or another, to be a threat to the authority of a school district duly elected.

I would urge looking beyond the discussion that we're having here and the intentions that the government side may have at this moment and that they ask themselves whether this doesn't arm a future minister — who may not have this minister's commitment or be as certain about her intention to be able to work collaboratively — with an ability to intervene in ways that could destabilize a system that works quite well and that I think the minister in most circumstances would characterize as being progressive and with a proud history.

I would simply urge withdrawal of it.

Hon. S. Bond: Hon. Chair, I am going to say it again, because it's this important. If after consultation, collaboration, achievement plans, extra effort, extra resources, aboriginal achievement rates that remain at 20 percent…. It's time, then, for there to be some direction.

I fully expect that we will, hopefully, not have to use this piece of the legislation, but at the end of the day, students come first. We need to make sure that we have in this province a strategy which ensures that we're going to see that equal opportunity for success for those students.

Twenty percent is not acceptable; 40 percent is not acceptable. We're going to do what it takes. I know this: the plan laid out in Bill 20 allows for an incredible strategy and plan before we get to this place, but at the end of the day, we're going to put student success at the top of our agenda.

D. Cubberley: Mr. Chair, I thought I was finished, but I have to respond to that. It's preposterous to hear her suggest in here that at some level the failing, in terms of aboriginal achievement, is the lack of an ability on the part of a minister to have a power of intervention to compel a particular change in a school district where aboriginal kids are not achieving. It's just preposterous. The minister already has powers to intervene if she believes that school districts are not doing an appropriate job. She has tools available to her to intervene.

[1600]

To suggest that this is required in order to improve achievement for aboriginal students…. It astounds me that that would be claimed, that this power would be claimed as being needed. I think in many cases it is a matter of directing that resources be used more effectively, that additional resources and skills be applied to the equation and, in particular, that aboriginal people be given greater measures of say over the ways in which they're schooled.

The last thing that is required is an additional cudgel that can be used to direct school districts arbitrarily to do this or that. In any case, we're going to have to agree to differ.

[1605]

Section 17 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 41

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Whittred

Horning

Cantelon

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Hawkins

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 31

Brar

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

B. Simpson

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I move the committee rise, report progress on Bill 20 and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:07 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 21, Teaching Profession (Teacher Registration) Amendment Act.

[ Page 7390 ]

Second Reading of Bills

TEACHING PROFESSION (TEACHER

REGISTRATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise and take my place in debate on Bill 21.

It's an important piece of legislation that deals with the protection of our children in schools — on how disciplinary action is reported, in terms of the college and in terms of giving more information to parents about the types of activity that take place within our school system.

[1610]

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

One of the challenges we face in today's world is that we are increasingly living in a world that has more and more restrictions and problems based on it in terms of how parents and individuals feel about the safety of children.

For example, ten to 15 years ago no one would have seen the role that the Internet plays in terms of society and its ability to influence and to provide opportunity for things that take place in our community. Issues such as child pornography, for example, were literally never heard of, or were only talked about in stories in newspapers but didn't receive high-profile attention. Now they do, because of the access of technology.

People with issues around that are caught more these days. We've seen some high-profile cases in the media around issues concerning those who work with children — educators. They're few and far between, but they do occur. They generate a lot of media sensation. The question has become: how do we deal with them?

The College of Teachers does an excellent job in disciplining, but parents and parental groups are always asking: "Is there more that we can do?" This issue is one that has been raised and discussed at PACs. It has been raised and discussed at school board meetings and school trustee conventions, and it's something that is top of mind for many parents. They've been asking for governments to deal with these particular issues.

We've done that in a number of ways. Bill 21, also, is one of those pieces of legislation. The question becomes: is it a good piece of legislation, or is it one that's going too far? We have this piece of legislation, and we're supportive of making our children safer in schools. We're in favour of ensuring that parents know what has taken place in terms of disciplinary action and issues such as that.

But one of the questions that we have on this piece of legislation is: how is it going to work? How does it work as regards the classroom, the principal and the college? We want to ensure the maximum amount of information is getting through. At the same time we want to ensure a minimum amount of disruption.

We want to ensure that this does not become a legal dispute where, for example, if a principal is sitting down with a teacher, both sides have to have a lawyer present. We want to make sure that that doesn't happen. What we want to ensure is that information that is necessary for people and parents to know is available to them.

This is an important piece of legislation, one which we will be supportive of, but it's also one on which, at committee stage, there will have to be a number of questions asked. I know that some of my colleagues such as the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows have questions and will be speaking on this particular piece of legislation in a few minutes, as will the member for Surrey-Whalley and other members of this House.

I think it's important for us to get on the record that this is an important piece of legislation and one that we think we will be supporting. At the same time, there are some important questions that need to be asked in terms of how and in what format the bill will be implemented, how it will impact on the classroom and on individual teachers, how it will impact on the ability of principals in terms of them doing their job, and also how it will impact on the College of Teachers itself.

We want to make sure that we're not bringing in unnecessary duplication or overregulation, and that we're not bringing in significant increases in costs that have not been anticipated.

[1615]

Anyway, those are some of the important issues that are in this particular bill. I just wanted to get up and have a few comments on the record. With that, I will take my place and allow colleagues from this side of the House to continue with remarks.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 21. It's an important piece of legislation in that it addresses an issue of paramount concern to parents and to all members of society, but parents in particular: the safety of children, and the safety of their children in particular. We certainly want to ensure that children are safe in school. Uncommon as it may be, if a teacher is abusing a child, we want to ensure that the child is safe and that we minimize the likelihood and the actuality of abusive situations happening. That's the intent, at least. Being charitable about it, I'm sure that that actually is the intent of this legislation.

The question comes around balance. Is the legislation well balanced against other needs in the education system — not necessarily needs that are competing in any respect but needs that are complementary to the protection of children? That's the proper and sound functioning of the relationship between teachers, parents, children, administrators and the College of Teachers.

The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke mentioned yesterday that when he became a school principal he got some good advice: his role and job was to look after the teachers, and the teachers would look after the children. That's the line of command, if you will, Madam Speaker, that is essential to the good functioning of any classroom. There has to be a level of trust, a level of respect among the students, the teachers and the parents, of course.

[ Page 7391 ]

We need to ensure that this legislation is going to maintain or, hopefully, increase safety for children at school but at the same time ensure that it doesn't disrupt or even move in a reverse direction in terms of the proper functioning and the proper relationships in the classroom. There are, in the school system now, a number of checks and balances. If a teacher is out of line in a serious way, the discipline administered at the board level, the superintendent's level and the college level is quite comprehensive.

I think some of the problems that have arisen…. When there are problems, we hear of some of the most serious ones that happen, such as a teacher that was abusing students sexually who was not caught by the checks and balances. All of us know, I'm sure, of some high-profile cases over the last number of years that have happened in that regard. What happened in that case, unfortunately, was that the reporting mechanisms weren't followed.

[1620]

I think when parents see this legislation, they need to be careful not to think that this legislation is going to be a cure-all and end-all for concerns about safety of children. When it comes down to it, parents must be — and certainly most parents, good parents are — watchful of their children. They have to ask the children when they go on a field trip: "What are the arrangements? What are the sleeping arrangements? What happens when you're on a field trip? What happens in the classroom?"

Unfortunately…. Well, actually, in fact, in some respects it is fortunate that a lot of the most serious offences are caught quite quickly, so justice is meted out, if you will. But it can go on. Children are, thankfully, more educated and informed about, you know, proper touching for elementary children and the like so they know more about what is proper and what isn't. But nothing will change the need for parents — as well as for educators and administrators, of course — to be vigilant and to ensure that the proper mechanisms are there to ensure the safety of children.

The other thing, however, that we have to be very careful about is that we must ensure the relationship between students and teachers is, as I said before, respectful but healthy. The members in the House that have been in the classroom — and as a teacher I spent a short time in the classroom myself — you know that that's true. You can't function without that kind of relationship.

The minister mentioned that this legislation is great, that parents can now go on line and check out and see what they can find out about their teacher, and then they'll know whether or not to agree to their child being in that classroom. But that's far too late, in effect. If that's what's happening…. That is where I have some concerns. We have to hope that as the legislation says, the disciplinary actions by the college will be for sexual, physical and emotional abuse, or for conduct or competence in breach of college standards.

So we have to ensure that if there is going to be an on-line registry…. According to this, there is going to be an on-line registry. When parents or anybody else…. And people will go on that registry, you know, that are not necessarily just parents. People will go on because they're curious. They know someone that's a teacher or have an acquaintance that's a teacher, and they'll go check it out and see what they can find.

We have to be sure that what they do find are serious offences, because if there is material on there, if it results in less-than-serious offences being on there, you can be sure that that teacher is pretty much finished. They cannot maintain the relationship with the parents and with the children when their name is on an on-line registry saying, essentially, that they're a bad teacher.

That's where my biggest concern comes in about this legislation. I am not convinced yet that the material that will make it onto that on-line registry will be of a significant and severe nature, and that harm might not be inadvertently caused by that. So we're going to be looking carefully at that.

[1625]

On this side, as I understand, we're going to be looking at ensuring that this legislation is in keeping with freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy concerns. The commissioner has been told, apparently, by the minister — and it may have been a previous minister; I'm not sure if it was the current minister — that in the ongoing development of this legislation and the subsequent carrying out of it, he will be fully informed of the process, because it's his job to make sure that privacy is protected. That's in the interest of all of us.

Teachers that I've talked to are the last people that want to have anyone that's abusing their privilege to be in the classroom. But they're fearful — some of them certainly are fearful — of what might happen with this registry, of what kind of material may end up on there, how careers may be snuffed unnecessarily. Let's face it. This is a registry that other professional bodies don't necessarily face at all. Lawyers don't face the same in their college.

The sad part of it is that this legislation…. There's a background to this legislation, and as I've said to the minister before, it does have to do with the relationship between this government and public teachers in this province, in the public school system. They feel that this government has vilified them in many respects. They feel that this government has disrespected them in many respects. Certainly, it started with the assault…. Well, it didn't start with it, perhaps, but one of the things certainly was the assault on their college, to begin with, where control of the college was taken away from them.

You can't blame them for having concern about what is going to happen to them as a result of this legislation, this bill.

There are no provisions in the bill for the removal of suspensions or cancellations. So if you're on there, you're on there for good. That, again, is potentially problematic. If you look at the system now, if a teacher is called on the carpet for improper behaviour, they of course will go to their union, as any worker will. The union, if they feel that the case is there — and normally they will take up the case of a teacher…. They will defend them. So there's a process that's gone through there. In the end, that grievance the teacher has will be resolved one way or the other.

[ Page 7392 ]

But if it's going to be the case that the complaint, the discipline, is put on the on-line registry before the grievance is heard, what happens then if, in the course of the grievance, the teacher is exonerated? It'd be too late. Like you say, once you're on line, once you're in cyberspace, you're there forever. So that's the kind of concern that teachers have expressed, and they are some of the concerns that I have too.

As our critic the member for Saanich South…. He brought up a case yesterday about a teacher who had done something that most of us would consider inappropriate, but it had nothing to do with schools or children or the protection of children, unless one were to interpret personal behaviour in the widest possible realm as having to do with children. Yet that could be on this system and result in that teacher losing their job and their profession.

[1630]

The climate out there that I experienced is of teachers being pretty depressed. My wife is a retired teacher. She retired about five years ago, and she said she is so glad that she is out of the system now. She still has friends that are teachers, and the stories they tell her and the morale they experience…. She tells me that she wouldn't want to be in the system now.

That doesn't make for good education. We need a partnership. Again, this is being seen by many teachers as another attack on them. Rightly or wrongly, that's something that the government should take into account. One of my colleagues tells me that notwithstanding what might be done at the political level, the people in the system, from the colleges on down to the individual classroom teacher, do work together pretty well to make the system work as well as possible. I hope that that continues, because we need them. We need all of the members of the education community to be working together to ensure the best possible education for our children.

Under the reporting provisions, it says that superintendents must enforce the college's code of professional conduct and must report perceived breeches to the college if it's in the public interest to do so. I know when I talked to my school board, the issue of the public interest is one that they flagged for me. They said: "Who will determine what is in the public interest?" Will they have input into that? Will they be able to determine that or is that going to be passed down from on high?

The concern there is that they are being put out of the loop, as we saw with Bill 20. Again, it's that top-down kind of approach to education that not only teachers but also school trustees are concerned about. They worry about the lack of cooperatives, because they build relationships and trust with teachers. They know they have to have that, and they know how important it is that they can't diss their teachers and expect to have a successful system. They have to work with their teachers.

They are hoping at the political level, at the level of this government, that they too are working on the side of teachers, education, parents and students so that all the people in the system are being supported. It is necessary for that to happen.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

As our House Leader said, we will be supporting this legislation. But we want to ensure that it is the best possible tool, that it's going to be really effective — and that's important. We want to ensure that there is benefit to the classroom teachers, that there is benefit to the children in the classroom.

Again, under this legislation, as under Bill 20, there are provisions for overruling of superintendents. That's the concern about the top-down approach that we're seeing more and more of. It's kind of ironic, in a way, because the government talks on the one hand about having less regulation, which makes it sound like things are a little more relaxed. But with the building of these silos with the-top down approach, in fact, it's a system that's tightening — and not, in many cases, to the benefit of the system itself or the people in it.

[1635]

I mentioned how for the teachers, the college, the rules that they have to operate under are different than others, such as the Law Society, where they can consider issues like harm to the member or any other person in determining whether to withhold the name of the person. The Privacy Commissioner has concerns, and we certainly hope that that is addressed.

We know, as I say, that unfortunately sometimes teachers do abuse children, whether it's physically, sexually or emotionally. We know that that happens more commonly, unfortunately, at home. Nonetheless, we have to be sure. I know, as a psychologist myself, that determining what emotional abuse is, for example, can be open to some

interpretation, and that gives rise to concerns. If a teacher unadvisedly and inappropriately yells at a student and it's a first-time occurrence, does that mean that they could end up on the on-line registry? By most accounts, probably a suspension of a period of time for the teacher would be far more appropriate and far more beneficial to the system at large.

We're going to be looking carefully at the legislation as it comes through and as we get into the committee stage, and the like. With that, I want to pass over to one of my colleagues who has some words to say about it.

B. Ralston: I want to add a couple of comments to the bill. The member for Saanich South has covered the bill in some detail, and I want to add to his perceptive and thorough remarks on the bill.

I suppose there are a couple of areas that I have some concern. Understandably, the public wishes, whether their students or children are in the public system or the private system, the best for their children. Obviously, that includes an assurance and the comfort that when their children are at school or involved in school activities, they are not going to be subject to the kind of unfortunate