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)

MONDAY, APRIL 30, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Call for MLA action on climate

change

G. Coons

Relay for Life cancer fundraiser

Rustad

Seniors advocacy service at

Blanshard Community Centre

Fleming

B.C. economy and retail sector

R. Lee

Newton Community Festival

H. Bains

Steelhead protection on Capilano

River

Sultan

Oral Questions

Statements by Office of the

Premier on Ken Dobell contracts

C. James

Hon. M.

de Jong

J. Kwan

Gentner

Call for investigation into

government handling of Ken Dobell lobbying contracts

Farnworth

Hon. M.

de Jong

Attorney General knowledge of

Privacy Commissioner ability to investigate conflicts of interest

Ralston

Hon. M.

de Jong

Karagianis

Hon. W.

Oppal

Petitions

S. Fraser

C. Trevena

Second Reading of Bills

School (Student Achievement

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

Sather

Trevena

G. Coons

Simpson

Simpson

Simons

Routley

J. Kwan

Hon. S.

Bond

Teaching Profession (Teacher

Registration) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 21)

Hon. S.

Bond

Cubberley

Macdonald

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources (continued)

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Horgan

Hon. K.

Krueger

Puchmayr

Simons

Robertson

Simpson

[ Page 7277 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 30, 2007

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: We're joined in the gallery today by my ministerial assistant. Today will be her last day, actually, working in this government. I just want to take time to thank her for the tremendous work she has done over the years. She worked for the now Minister of Advanced Education and the now Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. She has served all members on both sides of this House extremely well over the years and has been a consistent performer for six years with this government.

I know that all of the House will want to join me in thanking Sharon McKinnon very much for her dedicated service.

D. Routley: I have four guests in the gallery today. First, Doug Morgan, executive member of Local-180 of the Steelworkers; a constituent of mine and a dear friend, Rick Doman; a CA from my office, Giles Villeneuve; and a lifetime member of the New Democratic Party and constituent, Don O'Dell. Could the House please help me make my guests welcome.

[1335]

S. Hawkins: On behalf of Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce new Legislative Assembly employees recently hired as part of our youth employment program — nine summer tour guide staff and six Parliamentary Players. They will be conducting tours seven days a week to tens of thousands of visitors between May long weekend and Labour Day. They are post-secondary students who will welcome tourists from around the world.

I would ask the House to please welcome Rhea Laube, Karoline Piercy, Jennifer Ives, Sara Tuppen, Whitney Punchak, Travis Paterson, Mary Karaplis, Jessica Chu, Nicole Bowden, Danielle Janess, Kaitlin Williams, Jason Moldowan, Joel Bernbaum, Will Weigler and Scott Hendrickson. Please make them welcome to our legislative precincts.

C. Puchmayr: I'd like to introduce a guest. One of my constituents is in the gallery. I'd like to introduce Lynn Beckhart. Please make her feel welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Today in the members' gallery we have a special delegation of visitors from the Portuguese Parliament. Visiting Victoria for first time is His Excellency Dr. Jaime José Matos da Gama, president of the Assembly of the Portuguese Republic. Accompanying him are four members of the Portuguese Parliament: Mr. Ricardo Rodrigues, Mr. Mota Amaral, Mr. Honório Novo and Ms. Teresa Caeiro.

Also accompanying the delegation are Ms. Maria Manuela Fischer, diplomatic adviser to the president; Mr. Fernando Anjos Lopes, lieutenant; His Excellency João Pedro da Silveira Carvalho, Ambassador of the Portuguese Republic to Canada; and Mr. João Luis Laranjeira de Abreu, Consul General of the Portuguese Republic in Vancouver.

I ask the House to please make our visitors very welcome to British Columbia.

S. Fraser: Today there's a delegation from the Steelworkers visiting to deal with occupational health and safety issues. Amongst them are Rita LaJeunesse, Jeff Bromley, Don Iwascow, Dale Johnson and Kim Pollock. Would you please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: This morning I had the pleasure of meeting two young men who are about to embark on quite an adventure. They are going to be cycling across Canada beginning tomorrow, starting at Mile Zero here in Victoria, and concluding about four months from now with a visit to the Atlantic.

They are David Watson and Justin McGee, and they are using this opportunity to cycle across Canada as a fundraising opportunity for the Kidney Foundation. Representing the Kidney Foundation here today to help them launch this is Mr. Ken Merkley, who does exceptional work with the Kidney Foundation.

For those who may be interested in this cycling adventure and this fundraising effort for the Kidney Foundation of Canada, you can have a look at the site www.bikecanadaforkidney.com and hopefully support this very, very worthwhile venture on the part of Messrs. Watson and McGee. Welcome to the House.

Hon. M. de Jong: In accordance with undertakings that I made to the Opposition House Leader, I can advise the House that the tabling of Bill 36 on Thursday of last week represents the culmination of the government's legislative agenda for the current spring 2007 legislative session.

[1340]

I can further advise the House that the Opposition House Leader and I will begin the process of sitting down to discuss the

schedule for the remaining month of the legislative session. I will happily provide a report in due course.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) CALL FOR MLA ACTION ON

CLIMATE CHANGE

G. Coons: I would like to take this opportunity to present to this Legislature, to my colleagues, a chance

[ Page 7278 ]

to make a difference. As elected officials responsible for shaping the future of this province, we must show our determination to lead on the issue of climate change.

For this reason I believe that we as a collective must take personal responsibility for the environment by going carbon-neutral. We can do this by pursuing greater energy efficiency in our offices and at the Legislature, while compensating for our remaining emissions by purchasing carbon offsets. Going carbon-neutral is one way to make ourselves accountable for the ecological impact we have every time we drive, fly or turn on the computers.

It's based on the principle that since climate change is a global problem, an emission reduction made elsewhere has the same positive effect as one made locally. If we add polluting emissions to the atmosphere, we can effectively subtract them by purchasing carbon offsets. These are simply credits for emission reductions achieved by projects elsewhere, such as wind farms, solar installations or energy-efficiency projects. Purchasing these credits will encourage us to stop externalizing the cost of personal decisions that impact the climate.

While reducing energy use must always be the first priority, purchasing carbon offsets will help us to transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy. It will show our resolve to take immediate action on climate change. No amount of effort can completely eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is our duty to do our best, and purchasing carbon offsets is a way to minimize emissions.

The Premier's throne speech indicated that the government-appointed climate action team would identify practical options and actions for making the government of B.C. carbon-neutral by 2010. Here is a practical option and action we can undertake immediately. Hon. Speaker and fellow colleagues, we need to lead by example, and this is our opportunity.

RELAY FOR LIFE CANCER FUNDRAISER

J. Rustad: Many people have said many things about cancer in this House, and for good reason. Cancer touches all of us, and just the mention of it can bring enormous anxiety and a feeling of dread. Yet there are many great strides over the years in our fight to find the cure.

Cancer outcomes in B.C. have never been better. This progress has not come easily. Many people have devoted a great deal of their energy and resources to help in this fight. It's through these efforts that we have a bright future.

One way to help with the fight is through the Canadian Cancer Society's Relay for Life. Prince George, as well as many other communities around the province, hosts these important events. It's a fabulous opportunity for people to get directly involved in the fight against cancer through participating in the relay by walking, volunteering or donating. People can really make a difference.

Prince George has always been a community that rallies together to solve problems, and on May 5 and 6 we're hosting our annual Relay for Life. Hundreds of people get involved and really make our relay a proud moment for our community. My colleagues and I in Prince George will be participating because we know the difference that individuals can make in the fight.

I'd like to encourage everyone to get involved by coming out and supporting the volunteers or donating to the individuals and teams. Donations can be made on line through the Canadian Cancer Society's website and looking up the Relay for Life in Prince George.

Mr. Speaker, my family was directly touched by cancer when my wife was diagnosed in 2000, but through modern advancements, she's won her battle with cancer. It's really up to all of us to help make a difference. Together we can reach the goal of eliminating this threat in our society.

SENIORS ADVOCACY SERVICE AT

BLANSHARD COMMUNITY CENTRE

R. Fleming: Earlier this month I had the privilege to attend the grand opening of the seniors' entitlement service office at the Blanshard Community Centre located in my constituency of Victoria-Hillside. In 2004 seniors in my community developed the concept to establish an advocacy service for senior citizens who need help and advice and who would otherwise fall through the cracks when they're dealing with various levels of government bureaucracy.

It was with the tenacity and the leadership of Ms. Clara Halber, who is the president of the Greater Victoria Seniors, branch 191 of the B.C. Old Age Pensioners Organization, that this concept finally became a reality this year.

[1345]

Doing advocacy work requires empathy and passion for the people being served. It also requires proper training on how to effectively represent people, to make one's case with the latest and most accurate information available.

Before the centre opened, five members of this organization embarked on a week-long advocacy course in Parksville offered by the Vancouver 411 Seniors Centre. This was followed by a successful application for funds through the federal government, which allowed them to purchase equipment and supplies and secure an office at the Blanshard Community Centre. I note that this seniors service office at the Blanshard Community Centre will join a teen centre, a licensed day care and a parent resource room, so it has truly become a centre for residents of all ages.

Even before officially opening, advocates have been flooded with phone calls from aging individuals who are seeking assistance with a variety of problems, including health, Pharmacare and housing issues. Of course, we all know that MLA offices do a tremendous job of advocating for our seniors in our communities. But on federal and municipal matters and where there are longstanding and complex cases at work, it's nice for MLA offices to have a partner to help seniors get the best advice and services possible.

[ Page 7279 ]

I invite all members of this House to join me in recognizing the grand opening of this important volunteer service and sending our thanks to the many individuals making the commitment to volunteer their time as advocates.

Lastly, I would like to extend a special recognition to my constituents Clara and Max Halber, who were instrumental in getting this vital new service established for seniors in Greater Victoria.

B.C. ECONOMY AND RETAIL SECTOR

R. Lee: This week we celebrate retail businesses in British Columbia. British Columbia is certainly the place to be. With word of our vibrant economy spreading, people are directing their attention to this beautiful province. B.C. has gained in interprovincial migration since 2003. Homes are constantly being built to meet the demand of the flow of new residents.

Retailers in my riding of Burnaby North are enjoying our strong economy. Stores in the Brentwood and Gilmore areas are expanding rapidly with corresponding housing developments.

Newcomers are realizing that Burnaby, centrally located in the Greater Vancouver regional district, offers them everything they need for themselves and their families.

This province has posted another stellar year in retail sales in 2006, let us not forget. Because people are finding work when they come to this province, it affords them the opportunity to purchase what they want on top of what they need. Department, clothing and shoe stores all recorded brisk business. Sales by computer software retailers were up significantly. What goes around comes around.

People are finding work and boosting the economy, which is creating even more jobs. B.C. and Alberta are the only two provinces to report an increase in sales at double-digit rates for a third straight year. We are also the only two provinces in Canada that reported sales growth that exceeded the national average of 6.4 percent.

B.C. is leading the country in so many areas. We're the best place on earth to live, work, play, visit and invest. We have also become the best place to do business.

NEWTON COMMUNITY FESTIVAL

H. Bains: I would like to talk about a very special day in our community called Newton Community Festival. I have attended this festival for the past several years. It is organized by a group of very dedicated volunteers. Their objective is to celebrate the cultural diversity and pride in the Newton community.

This festival is celebrating its 12th year and is usually the second Saturday of June. This year it's June 9. This festival runs from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. and is open to the public. It is held at the Newton community centre and wave pool.

There are many activities planned for people of all ages. One of the aspects of this festival is the Friends of Newton. This is an award that recognizes people in three categories: students, residents and business people in Newton. The recipients are honoured at the festival with a certificate and a brief description of their accomplishments.

There's plenty of local entertainment — games, prizes, silent auction. In the past there was even a dunk tank to dunk local politicians. There is face painting and clowns, two stages filled with entertainment for the whole family and a petting zoo. The Newton fire department is there with their fire truck. There's something for the whole family.

[1350]

There are many opportunities for the people to become involved with the Newton Community Festival. By volunteering, people can develop social, interpersonal and communication skills. There are new and innovative opportunities for growth and use of volunteers' time to ensure interesting and meaningful volunteer experiences.

Last year an estimated 5,000 people attended the festival. I would like to encourage everyone to come and enjoy the Newton festival this year. This is a remarkable event, and I would like to ask this House to join me in thanking the many volunteers that worked tirelessly on promoting cultural diversity and community spirit in Newton.

STEELHEAD PROTECTION ON

CAPILANO RIVER

R. Sultan: My riding receives its name from the wild river which bisects it — the Capilano, only 100 metres from my office door. Today the Globe and Mail labelled the Capilano the assembly line of death because each year 65,000 young steelhead smolts plunge about 100 metres over the spillway of the Cleveland Dam, with fewer than 20 percent surviving their encounter with the rocks far below.

That's only the beginning. Survivors find themselves freezing in unusually cold water taken from the bottom of the reservoir. When they come back to spawn, they find themselves with nowhere to spawn, since all of the sand and gravel, which normally replenishes the river bottom, has been trapped behind the dam. When they're captured and placed for breeding in the Capilano fish hatchery, they can become a tasty meal for the otter and mink, which recently ate all but one of them.

The public is becoming aware of these issues, thanks to the efforts of BCIT biologist Mark Angelo and journalist Mark Hume, helped by concerned individuals such as my constituent Al Lill, concerned anglers on the river and our own steelhead caucus.

Steelhead are icons of British Columbia — strong, wild and unique. They need our help. There are clear, commonsense solutions to the problems of the Capilano. Compared with the $1½ billion — that's billion with a "b" — that the GVRD is spending to enhance the drinking water capacity of the Capilano, the costs are not large.

Our Minister of Environment is interested in these issues. What is needed now is action from the Greater

[ Page 7280 ]

Vancouver regional district to implement the solutions which have been studied for years, backed up by pressure from the public and from our own minister.

Oral Questions

STATEMENTS BY

OFFICE OF THE PREMIER ON

KEN DOBELL CONTRACTS

C. James: In a statement today, Ken Dobell says that he advises the Premier on three issues only: softwood, coastal forestry and ports. But it's clear that that's not the whole story. The opposition obtained a copy of the August 8 letter, referenced by the Premier's deputy in her weekend investigation.

In that letter the Premier says that Ken Dobell reports directly to him and provides the following services: acts as chair of the convention centre project, serves on the VANOC board of directors, leads negotiations on softwood, acts as a liaison to the province on the RAV project, helps to develop the Port of Prince Rupert, helped to develop the Gateway project and, finally, any other projects as assigned by the Premier.

So my question to the Attorney General: who is telling the truth, and why was this never disclosed to the public?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, a weekend has passed — hardly a revelation. The documents, which the hon. opposition leader refers to, have been in the public domain for months and months. The issue that the opposition leader brings to the floor of this chamber — as if it's some new revelation — has been canvassed in detail, perhaps even by her in the Premier's estimates in the past.

Here's the opposition leader: "A weekend has passed, and I'm going to come in here, and I'm going to try and perpetuate this conspiracy theory around this issue."

[1355]

But there's nothing new here. Mr. Dobell has abided by the guidelines. He has scrupulously abided by the requirements of a senior public servant in the days after his retirement.

If the member has an allegation she wants to make, then she should make it in here. We'll answer it. And she should make it out there, where others can.

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

C. James: There's only one thing that's clear. The government has had months and months, and they still can't get their story straight. Not one of them can get their story straight.

Here's what the Premier told the House last week. He said: "Mr. Dobell was put on retainer by the city of Vancouver. If the city of Vancouver decided to have Mr. Dobell on retainer, that was their choice."

In his statement today, Ken Dobell said that Judy Rogers called him to say both the mayor and the Premier had talked, and that both the mayor and the Premier would like him to work on this project.

My question to the Attorney General: again, who is telling the truth — Ken Dobell or the Premier?

Hon. M. de Jong: News flash, Mr. Speaker. The mayor of Vancouver and the Premier of British Columbia want to work cooperatively on projects that matter to British Columbia. Is…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I'm going to be quiet while they're asking the questions, because if there are any more revelations on that scale, I want to make sure I hear them.

Mr. Dobell — 37 years a respected public servant, conduct beyond any question. He leaves the public sector. He abides by the guidelines. He signs a contract, which is in the public domain…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: …that actually enhances and amplifies the very protections that exist within the guidelines. These members and this opposition leader, in the absence of wanting to discuss any of the important issues that are confronting British Columbians today, can do nothing better than malign the character of a civil servant who has earned the respect of British Columbians.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: Well, the minister can bluster all he wants. But believe it or not, accountability is important, and we believe that on this side of the House, even if you don't. The more questions…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue.

C. James: …we ask, the muddier it gets. Different answers….

Interjection.

[ Page 7281 ]

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members on both sides.

Continue.

C. James: We've now had different answers on what Ken Dobell was advising on. We've had different answers on how and when Ken Dobell got his contract with the city of Vancouver. Another day, another series of questions. It gets muddier and muddier.

When will this government come clean and end this cover-up?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm inclined to send a few napkins across the way, because the mud is starting to stick over there. That's where the mud is.

[1400]

I'll take a moment, because this is also a document that's in the public domain. When members are playing fast and loose with the reputation of a respected individual and respected public servant, it's probably worth having all of the facts on the table. So far, the opposition leader has stayed away from the document that was released to the public around the conduct of Mr. Dobell and how it conforms.

Most importantly, the fact is that in coming to the conclusion that she did to ensure that the guidelines were met — have been met, continue to be met — the deputy to the Premier also consulted with the Deputy Attorney General and the deputy minister of the public service, who concur. The opposition leader should know….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: That apparently is of no consequence to many of the members opposite, so I can only surmise from that reaction that they also doubt the integrity and malign the integrity of those other three public servants who are doing their job on behalf of British Columbians.

J. Kwan: If the government is so confident that there are no conflict issues, all they have to do is call an independent investigation into the matter. That's all the government needs to do, and they refused to do so to date.

On August 8, 2005, the Premier wrote to Ken Dobell outlining his terms of contract. The letter clearly states that Ken Dobell will report to the Premier. When did Ken Dobell inform the Premier that he was taking on a job with the city, and why did the Premier clear Mr. Dobell of all conflict?

Hon. M. de Jong: It does provide me with an opportunity to highlight a portion of that correspondence that the member has chosen not to refer to. On page 2 of the document, of course, in his letter to Mr. Dobell, the Premier says: "Any other work you may take on for any other party must be free of conflict and approved by the deputy to the Premier and cabinet secretary."

Every step of the way, Mr. Dobell and the parties he contracted with turned their mind deliberately to ensuring that the highest possible standards were being met. Now, that doesn't fit with the web of intrigue that the opposition wants to weave, but it speaks volumes for the integrity of the people involved, including Mr. Dobell.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: It wasn't until October 3, 2006, that Ken Dobell wrote to Jessica McDonald regarding the issue of conflict. That is a six-month delay, given the timeline Mr. Ken Dobell himself outlined today in his statement. In his statement he actually says: "In late March, early April 2006, Ms. Judy Rogers called me to advise that the mayor and the Premier had talked, that the province was going to grant the city $5 million for planning of the cultural precinct, and that both the Premier and the mayor would like me to work on that project."

To the government: when was the Premier first made aware of Ken Dobell's potential conflict, and was it before Mr. Ken Dobell took the job or six months after?

Hon. M. de Jong: We slowly come to the crux of the mythical conspiracy that the opposition is trying to weave. This notion that somehow Mr. Dobell, in his capacity as deputy to the Premier, decided with stealth-like efficiency that he was going to arrange to liberate money that he could later tap into as a private consultant….

[1405]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: So two things follow from that. If that's the allegation, if that is the specific allegation, then I challenge any single one of those members to make it outside of this chamber. The problem is that they won't do it, because the facts don't support the allegation.

The problem with the theory is that the decision to provide the funding to the city of Vancouver…. My God, the province funded a project that the city of Vancouver wanted to proceed with. The decision was made almost a year after Mr. Dobell left the public service. The facts don't support the theory. The facts don't support the conspiracy.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 7282 ]

G. Gentner: We're somewhat buoyed by the fact that the Government House Leader is slowly starting to piece it all together.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

G. Gentner: Ms. McDonald says she waived the rule that senior civic servants can't take outside work lobbying the government for a year. Mr. Dobell signed up with the city less than a year after he left his job as a deputy.

Can the Attorney General or the House Leader or whoever explain, without resorting to the supernatural, how she could have waived the rule when Mr. Dobell only informed them that he may be in conflict six months after he took the work?

Hon. M. de Jong: Has the member read the guidelines?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I realize that to do so (

a) would be uncharacteristic of the member and (

b) would undermine the conspiracy theory that he and his colleagues are trying to perpetuate. But there is a set of guidelines that were abided by, which provide for circumstances when it is deemed to be in the public interest.

You know what? If the member wants to suggest that the cooperative working relationship that developed and continues around the project is a bad thing — that two governments shouldn't work together to the betterment of the citizens of this province — then he should say so. But before he says that, maybe he could take the time to read the guidelines. When you're maligning the reputation of a public servant who has worked hard crafting a positive reputation for 37 years, it probably behooves you to read the guidelines so you know what you're talking about.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Gentner: Well, it's obvious that the reputation of Mr. Dobell isn't the only thing in question. It's the Premier's office that is ultimately responsible here. The minister talks about the guidelines. Well, you know, we don't know if that was actually written on a napkin or what.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[1410]

G. Gentner: Ms. McDonald's letter is after-the-fact damage control, and it only tells part of the story.

Last October she cleared Mr. Dobell of conflict, after any investigation, six months after he took work with the city. She cleared him, despite the fact that he didn't consult with her before he took the work. Now it's been exposed, and the Premier's only defence is: "Trust us. We did the right thing." Well, that simply isn't good enough.

A question? Let's see here. Asking the person….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

G. Gentner: How about page 3 or 4…? We can go all night, hon. Speaker.

Asking the person who cleared him in the first place…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

G. Gentner: …to clear him again is not an investigation. It is a cover-up.

Now, will the Attorney General do what is right and undertake a full and complete independent investigation of the scandal? I hear there's a potential — who you can find, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the hon. member's unfamiliarity with the guidelines is probably…. Well, it is painfully obvious, but it's also due in part to two things: (

a) he hasn't taken the time to read them; and (

b) in the time that the party he represents in this chamber were in power, they never had any. Isn't that interesting? There were none. There are some now.

I should also say this, and the member or one of his colleagues can respond as is appropriate. You know, we come into this chamber today and are confronted by questions built around the assertion that this material is suddenly miraculously revealed in documents that the opposition has gotten hold of through some mysterious means.

I've consulted my notes. The two letters that have been quoted from today were sent by the government to the opposition in September 2006.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

CALL FOR INVESTIGATION INTO

GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF

KEN DOBELL LOBBYING CONTRACTS

M. Farnworth: The only thing that's being maligned is the reputation of this government by its refusal over the last two weeks to answer even the most basic of questions. We have had the Premier give one set of answers one week, the Attorney General give a different set of answers and Mr. Ken "I am not a lobby-

[ Page 7283 ]

ist" Dobell give another set of answers today. The public wants answers.

We have been stonewalled, and we will tear this stone wall down stone by stone, question by question until we get the truth.

My question is simple, and it's this. Given the facts that we have one set of answers from the Premier, another set of answers by Mr. Dobell, and we have Jessica McDonald reviewing her own work, would the government recognize that it's time to have someone independent of this file review this situation and ensure that the questions are answered and that everything is on the up and up?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, precisely that has happened.

I know that members opposite, desperate to try to create a story where one doesn't exist, choose to ignore the fact that a set of guidelines was in place, contrary to what was…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: …the situation prior to 2001. The guidelines were applied. At every step along the way, the parties deliberately turned their minds to addressing whether there was a conflict or a perceived conflict and did the responsible thing. In the aftermath, the deputy to the Premier has examined the matter and consulted with the Deputy Attorney General and the deputy to the Public Service Agency.

[1415]

Now, the members opposite may have an approach that says: "If we just keep making allegations, then perhaps something will happen, and that makes them so. That makes it true." That is not the case. Simply repeating the allegation over and over again in the face of the evidence and in the face of the facts does not alter the fact that the behaviour here was correct. It was scrupulously designed to abide by the guidelines that govern these matters.

ATTORNEY GENERAL KNOWLEDGE OF

PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ABILITY TO

INVESTIGATE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

B. Ralston: The Attorney General is supposed to be the ultimate guardian of public trust, but his answers to me last Thursday weren't even in the range of accurate. How can the public have confidence in the Attorney General when he didn't even know the basics — that the Information and Privacy Commissioner doesn't have the jurisdiction to investigate conflicts of interest?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: It is unfortunate that this member — who is a learned member of the bar, and who, I presume, understands the significance and gravity of purporting to malign the reputation of one who has dedicated 37 years of his life to public service in this province…. That is unfortunate.

But simply repeating allegations — simply throwing mud in the hopes that somehow, somewhere we will divert attention away from the fact that the opposition doesn't have a desire to debate the issues that are of real import to British Columbians, apparently doesn't have a position on things as fundamentally important as treaties in the province of British Columbia, doesn't want to discuss the fact that we are leading the country in job creation, that our economy is performing at the top of the list again…. Simply descending into the mud pit and throwing mud isn't going to hide the fact that they've got nothing to offer. They haven't, and they still don't.

B. Ralston: Well, the public can judge what question the minister was answering just now, but my question is to the Attorney General. These are important matters of public confidence. This is an important investigation. It's the topic of conversation across the province. How can the public have confidence in him when he doesn't know the basics — that the Information and Privacy Commissioner can't investigate a conflict of interest? That was his non-response to the House on Thursday.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member went home to his riding on the weekend, and I'm not going to purport to interpret what he did or didn't hear, but I'll tell you what British Columbians are talking about. What they actually want us to be talking about in this chamber is the extraordinary things that are happening economically in British Columbia. British Columbians….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: British Columbians are actually excited about the fact that their provincial government is working with local governments to develop Spirit Squares and LocalMotion. They're actually pleased about the fact that as we head into a spring freshet on the rivers in this province, governments are working together with $33 million to ensure that the flood protection is there when we need it. That's what they're thrilled about, and that's what they want us talking about in this chamber.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1420]

M. Karagianis: On Thursday the Attorney General reassured this House time after time that the Information and Privacy Commissioner had the authority to investigate conflict-of-interest issues regarding Mr. Dobell. Frankly, it seemed a little odd, given the fact

[ Page 7284 ]

that clearly we knew that Mr. Loukidelis was doing a fact-finding mission on Mr. Dobell's lobby registry violation.

Of course, it came as no surprise when, Thursday night, I received this statement from the Privacy Commissioner, where Mr. Loukidelis actually says: "The commissioner has not been empowered or requested by the Legislature or the government to investigate conflict-of-interest allegations against Mr. Dobell. These allegations form no part of the commissioner's review."

Given the fact that Mr. Loukidelis has flatly contradicted the Attorney General, I would like to know how we could have any faith in this House that the Attorney General will get to the bottom of this issue. I'd like that question put to him.

Hon. W. Oppal: I think the law is quite clear that there is no investigative power in that legislation at all. The Privacy Commissioner has agreed to do a fact-finding review of the circumstances that have given rise to these allegations. But implicit in and a part and a condition precedent of doing the review was that Mr. Dobell appear before and take

part in the process.

It may well be that conflict may arise from the evidence or the circumstances that he relates to the commissioner. That's where all of that ties together. I would have thought that was fairly clear.

It's obvious that if you look at the legislation, there is no power to investigate in that legislation. We know that. And if….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Attorney.

Member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, I do, because that actually made everything completely unclear to me in a worse way than we had anticipated up to this point from the Attorney General. At least the Attorney General has admitted that there are no teeth in the Lobbyists Registration Act to do any investigations. I think he has admitted, as well, that…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Karagianis: …the Privacy Commissioner is correct — that he has not been tasked in any way to look into allegations of conflict of interest. It's a bit disappointing, I must say, that the Attorney General does not seem to even understand the terms of his own investigation with Mr. Loukidelis.

On Friday the Attorney General was quoted on CBC radio as saying: "As the Attorney General, you have the ultimate authority and ultimate accountability." What we've heard here is the ultimate bafflegab out of the Attorney General up to this point.

I would like to ask the Attorney General to take the ultimate accountability for continually contradicting himself in this House and to tell us exactly what the terms of this investigation are.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: What is extraordinary and what is disappointing is that this opposition would come into this chamber with nothing new — the same tired, unsubstantiated allegations designed to smear and to malign — in the face of the evidence that makes it abundantly clear that the conduct here was appropriate. It conformed with the requirements. It purposely and scrupulously was designed to ensure that there were no difficulties, that any conflicts that might arise were properly identified.

What is disappointing is an opposition that is again demonstrating it is far more interested in character assassination than in talking about the extraordinary things that are happening in British Columbia — more work, more employment, more investment, more people coming to B.C. That's what this government stands for.

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[End of question period.]

S. Fraser: I seek leave to submit petitions.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

S. Fraser: I have petitions, again, from all over the province urging the government to bring forward the safe antifreeze bill.

C. Trevena: I have a petition with about 130 signatures from the tenants of Mercury Marine trailer park in Campbell River, who are asking that the mobile home tenancy act be reinstated so that they can get $10,000 moving expenses before they are evicted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber continued second reading debate of Bill 20, School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Second Reading of Bills

SCHOOL (STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

ENABLING) AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

M. Sather: I wanted to continue where I left off some days ago on Bill 20, with particular reference to

[ Page 7285 ]

the superintendents of achievement that the minister has created.

Call them czars of achievement, or über-superintendents as my colleague has called them. It's a problematic development and a concern. I think it's going to be a concern not only for educators, for the public and for us, but it's going to be a concern for the minister as well.

The language around this says that their role is to support the school board superintendents, but their powers are going to be considerable. They're going to be over the locally hired superintendents that are hired by the locally elected officials. They won't report to the elected school boards, and the school boards will have to report to these czars of achievement.

I think the minister is going to find this quite problematic, because the myriad of problems that happen day to day and week to week in schools and with parents and with students are handled by superintendents, if they come to that level. That's what their job is, and that's what they're hired to do.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

If the minister is now going to put in these super-achievement czars, then I submit that there's going to be a lot of work tied up for the ministry and these four individuals in doing that. I can't imagine why they would in fact want to do that.

This is the good work that's done at the local level, and it hardly seems fitting at all that people who are answering to the deputy minister would want to take on all the problems that come forward at the local school level. I certainly know there are some problems that repeat and can be quite trying and taxing on the time of the board, and now it's going to be at the deputy minister's behest through these superintendents of achievement.

[1430]

I can only imagine that either the public won't get service, because at that level I don't think it's going to happen with the four of them…. But if they do, it's going to be really problematic for the new bureaucracy that's created. The minister really ought to think over at least that part of the legislation carefully. I think she's gotten herself into quite a mess, and would be well advised to look at that and see if it really is the best model to go with.

It does fit with the overall control mechanisms that the minister is putting in to take away power from locally elected governments and to centralize it, basically, in her office. In that respect it's in keeping with the direction of this bill. But it's not healthy for democracy, and it's not good for the electorate, who depend on the people they elect locally to take care of these local kinds of problems.

Also, we're wondering about the money for these achievement czars. There's no money committed to them. So who knows? It could be $4 million. We don't know how much money it's going to take to run this mini-bureaucracy. I was calling it a mini-bureaucracy, but before we're done, it might be far more than a mini-bureaucracy. Show us the money here. Who's going to be paying for these achievement czars, these über-superintendents — and how is that going to be taken care of?

Superintendents are going to have to provide these achievement superintendents with any information they request. They will have considerable power, apparently, to extract that information should they want it, should they demand it. If they don't, if the local superintendents don't comply, then the deputy minister can appoint a special trustee to coerce them into compliance. So we certainly see the heavy hand of government. For a party and a government that supposedly pride themselves in less government, what we see here is less local government, all right, but more government in terms of the top-down kind of approach that this bill embodies.

Another thing that's of concern — it's been mentioned to me by my local board — is dismissals. If the superintendents and the boards who are responsible for their work miss the targets that are set for them, they can be dismissed. Again we're looking at an issue of where the democratic process is here and where the support for local government is.

I think that school boards — because they are there at the pleasure of the provincial government, if you will — are being careful in their response to it. But when I speak to them, they have quite a few concerns, and they have concerns about democracy. They've expressed to me that the model being proposed is contrary to what we've come to recognize as democracy practised in our province. They really do have considerable concerns about that part of the legislation.

Also, under the boards of education, I wanted to talk about the foundation skills assessment that this government and this minister are so fond of promoting. I had a chance to try to ask the minister about this before, since it's legislation. This is what my board is saying to me. The minister somewhat dismissed it in earlier comments, but they're saying: "These are going to be marked by classroom teachers, and there are going to be extra resources required." They're asking who is going to pay for it. The question of who's going to pay for it is becoming more pronounced in the province.

[1435]

We see the Vancouver school board having to look at laying off some 140 teachers or so because they say — it's not the opposition saying it — that the resources are not being provided by the provincial government to them, so they have to make these hard and difficult choices.

Achievement, again, is going to be measured — these are the achievement superintendents — through these standardized tests. The B.C. School Trustees Association has expressed concern about this, as I do — that achievements, as measured by these tests, do not embody the whole child and the education of the whole child. It's limited in its scope. I guess it conforms well to the Fraser Institute's method of measuring educational success, but it doesn't compare well and doesn't stand up to what educators experience and what parents, in fact, experience with their children —

[ Page 7286 ]

that the education of their children is not limited to and, frankly, not well defined by these tests.

What are all these standardized tests about anyway? You know, they set up restricted measures that lots of students don't achieve. It's a denigration of the public school system, and again it's that winners-and-losers kind of mentality that the government is encouraging in our system. As I said before, when I had the opportunity to speak earlier to this bill, it's another part of the privatization agenda of this government. You degrade the public school system, which provides an excellent excuse for bringing forth a privatization agenda.

I think people can see through this legislation and through the agenda of this government. They're concerned about that, because the minister will get up and say that she supports public education — I'm sure she will and has — but we don't see that. We see the undermining of public education through measures like this bill.

There are other issues that I could talk about, but I wanted to give some opportunity for other speakers to speak to this bill as well. Having said that, I'll take my seat.

C. Trevena: I rise to oppose Bill 20, School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act. I've spent quite a lot of time in my constituency talking to people about the content of this act — to individuals, parents, teachers, school trustees and school boards. There is a great deal of concern, and I hope I can reflect that concern fully. But I would like to concentrate on three areas of the act, because there are a number of people who want to talk about this.

The three areas that I'd like to really concentrate on are the changing role of school boards and trustees, which is encapsulated in this act; the shift to the academies and the potential segregation of students; and the early learning

section — the StrongStarts. The bill changed the names of the boards. This isn't such a huge issue — just a name change — but it's the changing role that comes with the changing name and, as other members have mentioned, this level of achievement and the superintendents of achievement that are being brought in with that and the burden that's being placed on that….

I've talked about education and education in my constituency in this House before and about the three school districts in my constituency — school districts 72, 84 and 85. Each has its own board of trustees and its own superintendents, and each really knows the local issues. The local issues are very varying. For instance, in school district 84 there's a huge effort placed on maintaining isolated schools.

For instance, in Tahsis you've got Captain Meares Elementary-Secondary School at the end of a 64-kilometre logging road where you now have, because of the closure of the mills several years ago, just 40 or so students rattling around the whole school. In Zeballos, students are isolated at the end of a logging road. Kyuquot, which is primarily a first nations school — again isolated in that community. The school board there is very determined to keep all those schools operating.

[1440]

We've got school district 85 with two high schools, one in Port Hardy and one in Port McNeill, with another three schools where one principal covers three elementary schools in three separate communities. That school district has two one-room schoolhouses. These are all maintained because the school board knows and the school trustees know that all these children need to have access to public education.

School district 72 has both urban and rural issues. It encapsulates Surge Narrows Elementary on Reid Island — which is accessible by boat only — to Cedar Elementary in Campbell River, which really provides children with a very nurturing environment and has many of the issues you could see in downtown Vancouver. At Cedar Elementary it's as important to make sure that the children there have a hot meal sometimes as it is to teach them the alphabet.

What concerns me in the School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007, and the whole concept of these levels of achievement is: how are we going to match achievement? How will these school districts and these children be able to match the achievement of those in, for instance, Point Grey or West Van — where there is a much wealthier background, to be frank?

So this is a real concern. Are we going to have an equal measure there? If we're not going to have an equal measure, how is that going to impact on our children's education? Are school boards going to be penalized if they don't meet these levels, these targets of achievement that have been set that are unrealistic and are not equal?

In that case, the next logical step, according to this bill, is that the trustees will be replaced with appointed people from the community rather than the elected people who know their communities, who are dedicated to education, who work exceedingly hard on behalf of their communities to ensure that there is the best possible public education system in their communities. The minister knows the hard work of trustees, having been one herself. I would hope that this would have been reflected in this act, rather than the trustees being left with so many questions.

The thing that trustees have been telling me is, very simply, that these changes, these levels of achievement or the changing mandate of the school boards isn't going to help education. This is not what our education system needs. Our education system needs a commitment to teaching, to class sizes, to making sure that we don't have many split grades — a real commitment to the basics of education, not measuring children up to a certain level of achievement and ranking schools and classes and doing everything through tests.

We've really got to make sure that we're looking at education — not a hit list of the best schools, the best classes and the best teachers to have. This should be a much more holistic view of education.

The other area that raises great concern for me is the major change that this takes — the shift from the School Act, which basically says that a board must provide schooling free of charge to every school-age resident in British Columbia and that educational

[ Page 7287 ]

resources and materials necessary to participate in the educational program should also be free.

We saw last year a Supreme Court decision which reinforced this and opposed the use of school fees. The Supreme Court decision basically said that anything that relates to a child's education should be free. There are, I think, two real issues on this. The Supreme Court decision basically said that whether it's musical instruments or textbooks or school calculators or whatever it was, these should be provided free. But what we're now seeing is that in certain instances, there will be a charge.

What's very troubling is the way that the government looks and packages this and talks about choice — that this is all a matter of choice, and this is going to give parents choice. It always comes down to: "This is great because we're going to have choice. Our children are going to have choice. Our parents are going to have choice." But to be frank, that's sort of a derogation of responsibility.

[1445]

We are legislators. Legislators make choices. This government is making a choice. By having drawn up the School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007, Bill 20, in this way, it has made a choice to say that we are now going to introduce — legislate — school fees into our public school system. It is choosing this….

Interjection.

C. Trevena: Whatever the minister says, this is a decision made by this government — choosing it at a time when there are record surpluses — to institute fees into our school system at a time when the province is flush, when we keep hearing from the members opposite how rich the province is.

We can't deny that the province has money. We know there's a $3 billion surplus, yet we're still seeing the possibility here for introducing school fees for some essential parts of education. The government frames this as choice and says that it's a choice — that it's giving parents choice, that it will give parents and students choice. In reality, what it's doing is choosing to download costs to parents. It's choosing to download costs to families.

Instead of providing a good, free public education system — as in the School Act, which says that the board must provide free of charge to every student or school-age resident in British Columbia free education — it is saying that we're going to start bringing in fees.

True choice would be to say that we believe in public education and believe in a free public education. True choice would be to say that we are going to make sure there is the money for that public education. Maybe we look at the way we finance other schools in our system. Maybe we look at our surplus. Maybe we look at our budget where we made a tax cut. Maybe we look at the whole financing and say: "We believe in public education, we believe in free public education, and we're going to make a commitment to that."

Maybe this government doesn't really believe in the equality of educational opportunity. I don't think the members opposite really believe in that sort of true choice. I think they believe in downloading the costs of education to parents.

The government says: "That's okay. We're going to have these fees, but it's going to be okay for everybody because we have hardship clauses." Well, there isn't a provincial hardship policy. Every school district has its own approach to hardship.

Talking to teachers and to parents, there's a concern about going and saying: "I'm sorry. I can't afford it. My child can't afford it." There is a stigma there. Any teacher I have talked to has said to me that this is a real problem when you start having hardship clauses. So we don't have a provincewide hardship policy, a provincewide hardship strategy. Even if we did, it still disadvantages the most disadvantaged in our school system. It isn't choice. It's really a sign of the true Liberal ideology and philosophy.

The other thing we hear is that it's okay because it is just music or it's a sports academy, but this is essentially a step to privatizing our public school education, our public school system. We are starting to instil and install fees for special studies. You can pay to go to your hockey academy; you can pay to go to your soccer academy; you can pay to participate in music classes. We are now saying that certain aspects of education are going to be fee-based.

Interjection.

C. Trevena: We are now saying, in this, because this Legislature…. The minister has raised the fact that we're now saying…. The bill actually legislates school fees, and that is what is so concerning to me.

We are also seeing that we have specialty academies. I know that specialty academies already exist, and I know they are very popular with some parents. But the next logical stage for the specialty academies is, "You want your child to play hockey better. Well, they're going to be pulled out of the school district where they are and go to these specialty academies," which is the first step in privatizing our public education system.

Public education should remain public. We shouldn't be installing fees. We should be, instead, removing fees from public education. This is hugely a retrograde step if we want to have, as this government keeps saying, a truly literate society, the most literate society in Canada.

[1450]

We're starting to say that we've got the specialty academy, so we've got hockey this year, and we've got soccer academies. Where do we start drawing the line? Is it going to be theatre arts? Is it going to be language? Are they going to be having to pay for band? When will we be having to pay for other subjects, which at present have been part of the accepted basic curriculum? When are we going to start saying that it's a bit expensive to be providing Japanese to these students, so we'll have a special school, and we can do Japanese there? Or it's a bit expensive to do theatre in each of our schools, so we will have a special academy. Yes,

[ Page 7288 ]

you're going to have to pay for it, but it's okay because a school planning council has decided that we're going to have these fees.

That's the other thing. We have these school planning councils intimately involved in deciding to go forward with fees, and school planning councils are not elected members. We've got elected people there who are the school trustees, yet now we're taking this out. We take it down to the parents, who are just involved in the school system while their children are at school. Again, it's a hugely retrograde step and a hugely antidemocratic step.

The other issue in the academies and the specialized let's-compartmentalize-our-education-system is the concept of segregation and the possibility of segregating children with special needs out of the school system. This is extremely worrying. We've seen the huge benefits that all our young people have by including special needs children in our school system. What we need to be seeing is more investment within our school system to support special needs children.

I know the minister has received a letter from the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities, whose advocacy organizations work very hard for people with disabilities across the province, who are asking the minister to suspend the bill because there hasn't been broad-based consultation. The coalition says they want to have respectful, inclusive consultation with the organizations that represent children with disabilities in their families. They're very concerned.

They say that children with disabilities are not commodities that can be warehoused away from the community and denied an appropriate, inclusive education. Not only will they pay dearly for this ill-thought-out legislation, their families — who are already under great stress — will feel abandoned.

B.C. is considered by many in Canada to be a leader in disability rights and services. The proposed changes in this sector will undo British Columbia's hard-won heritage. It's a very large organization representing many, many people. I would hope the minister will listen to their requests and make sure that this piece of legislation is taken back and wider consultation be held. As I say, Mr. Speaker, the people I've talked to are sincerely worried about all the aspects which bring in the potential segregated schools, special academies and fees into our school system.

I'd also like to talk about the StrongStart programs. I applaud the move to the StrongStart programs. I've talked to the minister about this in estimates. There have been pilot programs, and I know there are going to be StrongStart programs going across the province — a number in my own constituency. The school boards are very excited about them, and I think that there is a huge potential there.

These StrongStart programs have great components. I mean, they're universal; they're open to everyone; they're free. The staff are going to be well-paid. These are all the aspects, actually, of a good child care system, except that this isn't child care. It is school-based for three hours a day for parents or their caregivers who can come in with their children. It is, essentially, exceedingly narrow. The majority of parents can't go to a drop-in child care for three hours a day with their children. The majority of parents — single parents and working couples — are at work.

The StrongStart programs, while they may have a great basis there — you've got early childhood educators working on the StrongStart — are not the be-all and end-all of what our children need and what our society needs. Unlike child care, you're not going to necessarily have the snacks. It's going to have a different form of socialization, and it's simply not suitable for parents who are working. It is a drop-in centre rather than a care centre.

[1455]

I'd ask the minister why the StrongStart system is being built up and whether this is being built up at the cost of child care. We are not hearing much from her colleague the Minister of State for Childcare, and we're not seeing much going into the child care system at the moment. Yet we are seeing a huge commitment to the StrongStart programs and what these should be.

As I was saying, I think that what's going to be covered in StrongStarts is likely going to be very valuable. It's going to have the early childhood educators there. It would be very nice to see a lot of the support that the early childhood educators in the school districts could get in the child care systems too.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

My other concern about this, which is something I'm going to be raising during committee stage debate on the bill — because I don't get the answers here; I just get to posit the questions, but I would like some answers — is really on the financing of the StrongStarts. We talked a bit about this in the estimates process. It seems there's going to be only $30,000 a year to maintain these StrongStarts, which is supposed to cover staffing costs as well as all the other costs.

That's $30,000 a year for X number of children, X number of resources that need to be bought and supplied, and making sure that staffing cost is…. It's quite a limited budget for the expansion that we are looking at.

The aspect of the StrongStarts is interesting. I think it is somewhat limited as well. Early childhood education is very narrowly defined in this act. According to the act, it's "designed to improve readiness for and success in kindergarten." And it does say very significantly that it "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." It is clearly designed as part of the idea of making children literate and ready for success in kindergarten, but it doesn't deal with many of the other things that are necessary for young children who may be participating in a child care program.

It also concerns me that it comes under the need for an achievement contract when we've got such vagueness about what the whole achievement is — what the achievement means, essentially. Is this StrongStart going to include testing for toddlers? I think there is a….

[ Page 7289 ]

Hon. S. Bond: No.

C. Trevena: The minister may laugh, but there is not any definition here of what the achievement is and how the achievement is going to be measured, and it does come under the achievement contract. I would like to get some explanation on that when we get to that stage.

What I would like to conclude my remarks with are my concerns about this bill and the reason why I will be voting against it. It expects an equality of all our schools, and not every school is going to be equal. There's a huge disparity in our province through geography, through resources, through wealth. Our province is huge and varied, and that's one of the reasons why we love being here and why we're very proud to represent our constituents.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

What this bill does is take many steps backwards. It limits the great hope that I would see of a public education system where every child has the real opportunity, has an equal opportunity wherever they are in B.C., for the best possible education. This bill will not allow that. It will be very damaging for many, many children in our province.

G. Coons: I rise to give my comments and

interpretation of Bill 20, the School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007. Enabling or disenabling — I'm not too sure.

When we look at what it is to do, we see the narrowing definition of literacy, the increased focus on testing measurement and data collection. It's something that is going to be a real detriment in schools across the province.

[1500]

I remember the Education Minister highlighting that the proposed amendments to this would ensure greater accountability within the education system and would improve quality and choice for students. But as we all know — not only in this House, but throughout the province — choice, accountability and quality have often been cryptograms within this Liberal government for far more radical changes in public policy.

We've seen accountability used constantly to justify considerable undermining of our health system, of our education system. Looking at rural hospitals — beds cut and services contracted out. Rural schools closed throughout the province. Choice became the government's grounds for deregulating everything from land use and resource planning throughout the province to health and safety rules, putting workers at risk all across the province.

Quality. Quality was this government's rationale for many of their impulsive and dismal privatization schemes, whether it's the privatization of our marine highway, the selling off and privatization of Hydro, B.C. Rail — you know, a never-ending story.

A closer study of Bill 20 shows that accountability, choice and quality — the mantra words for this government — will be hard to recognize as this government will establish and impose a critical new layer of Liberal oversight.

I do want to relate back to my background and my experience in a rural riding. Right now I represent four school districts: Prince Rupert, Haida Gwaii–Queen Charlotte Islands, Central Coast and Nisga'a. I have the honour of being probably one of the few people that represent so many school districts. I was involved in education for many years — 25 or 28 years of teaching in this fine public education system.

One thing that a lot of us in the rural school districts held high, at one point in this Liberal regime, was the Task Force on Rural Education. I remember the words of the press release back on September 5, 2003, in Logan Lake and the minister of the day, Christy Clark, saying: "We have focused on improving achievement, increasing accountability of the system, enhancing choice for students…."

The same words ring out five years later, but it's the same ringing out of a dismal performance in our public education system — the selling-out of students, the attack on teachers and parents and embedding and enshrining in legislation only initiatives that are going to privatize the system and have major detrimental effects on our public system.

Again, from the press release: "'The B.C. government wants to ensure that this new era in education also addresses the unique needs of students and parents living in rural and remote communities. Rural communities,' said Clark, 'play a vital role in our economy, and students in these communities have the potential to make an enormous contribution to our province.'" That is something that I think we should all applaud and remember.

But we go back to the recommendations from the rural education task force. There are many fine recommendations — 19 of them. How many of these can we find enshrined, embedded in this Bill 20 that we're now discussing? Very few. As a matter of fact, none.

But let's go back to the recommendations that were followed. I'll look at the recommendations first and see what this government did on acting upon them for rural classrooms and those valuable, important students in the communities that have the potential to make an enormous contribution.

One of the recommendations was to recognize the contributions of rural schools — make the improvement of rural-urban equity a priority for the Ministry of Education. Create the provincial vision for rural education by focusing on fostering equitable student achievement. Invest in rural educators and professional development. Encourage partnerships and coordination across agencies. Review funding formulas. Seek models for alternate delivery of education to counteract school closures.

[1505]

From this, what happened? Well, there was the press release following the recommendations: "Heartland Schools to get Electronic Upgrade." That's all that came out of that task force for rural education. Why?

[ Page 7290 ]

Why is nothing in this bill — in Bill 20, 21 — dealing with the dismal performance of this government on how they're acting and responding to rural education — the closing of schools?

That was about it as far as recommendations from the rural task force. Many of us put some hope in the Minister of Education of the day. Again, it was a hopeless, hopeless task that this government has done as far as rural education.

The amendments before us enable the Minister of Education to appoint superintendents of achievement, who will report not to locally elected school boards — not to those people that are entrusted in communities — but directly to the deputy minister, controlled by the Minister of Education.

More significantly, these new superintendents will have the power to override school boards and impose reallocation of board resources. Finances in a school board can be willy-nillied around by these superintendents of achievement, whoever they may be — the appointees of the Minister of Education. If the appointed superintendent believes these allocations will improve achievement outcomes, they can do whatever they want with the finances of a school district. That's shameful — taking away the power and the responsibility of locally elected officials.

The plan to rationalize school districts and force them to comply more tightly with directives from the minister is what Bill 20 is all about. In the context of improving student achievement, these new superintendents have an enormous amount of power and are tight to this provincial cabinet. These powers will only dictate teaching practice and methods and undermine what's happening in our classrooms as we speak, and undermine professional judgment.

Four of the superintendents of achievement are to be appointed and are to report and make recommendations on improving student achievement in school districts, supporting boards in teaching specific goals for student achievement, literacy programs, early learning and aboriginal student results. They'll review student achievement. They report directly to the deputy minister. They administer the new achievement contracts. Again, it's a real focus on testing and a real focus on data. That's something that is not what we want in our public schools.

Parents dissatisfied with board rulings can appeal directly to the superintendents of achievement, who have the power to overrule the board and, potentially — we haven't gone through this — collective agreements. Superintendents have broad powers of inspection. They may enter schools, inspect records, interview employees and students, attend any board meeting and make recommendations to the board. They will have other responsibilities that the deputy minister wants to assign to them. It sort of sounds like the conversation in question period — somebody wearing many hats but with no real focus.

The superintendents of achievement have the power to undermine what is really happening in our classrooms. No funding commitment so far has been announced for the superintendents, and no potential appointees have been announced. But there would be a cost. We don't know what the cost is — salaries, benefits, office support staff, travel expenses. We've got to wait and find out.

We talk about student achievement as far as Bill 20 and how the superintendents of achievement administer the new achievement contracts. When we start looking at achievement, one of the things that just sort of shrills those in rural communities, in those schools that are looked upon by the Fraser Institute as not being successful, is the FSA test.

We must realize that teachers throughout this province…. Most of us realize that the joy in teaching comes from meeting the needs of every student and fostering the love of learning. The FSA test, which achievement is based on as far as this government is concerned, does not help teachers to do this important job. In fact, it may have negative effects on teaching and learning.

[1510]

I have concerns about the FSA. I'm not opposed to large-scale testing. They may help in some situations, and they can provide important information — but as long as they are inclusive and are not being divisive. Large-scale testing as used by this government and such institutes as the Fraser Institute is not very accurate for individual results and undermines classroom assessments.

What the ministry and some people may see as a simple collection of data for accountability purposes may have a negative affect on students and the learning environment in their classrooms, especially in rural areas of the province.

I come from a region where the EDI — the early development instrument done by Clyde Hertzman in the north coast, the central coast; I believe it was Haida Gwaii, the Queen Charlottes; Bulkley Valley–Stikine; Nass Valley — indicate that there's a vital need for resources, and there are very challenging issues in the school setting in these regions. Bill 20 has nothing at all for students in these situations. I'll relate, in my conclusion, about a teacher in Terrace who has major concerns about what's happening there.

The Deputy Minister of Education, in one of his updates last year, said that approximately 20 percent of all preschoolers need some form of intervention prior to entering kindergarten, and the EDI indicator suggests that many of our most vulnerable learners live in rural areas.

That's the reason why I brought up the rural task force. Nothing has been done. Nothing has been done for rural education, for rural schools, for rural students.

B.C. Teachers, in response to FSA, have experienced pressure to teach to the test, ignore important aspects of the curriculum, teach in less interesting ways and spend more time on test practice. Bill 20 will only lead to more of that in our classrooms.

Another concern I have is how the tests are being used. We have a ranking of schools and a reporting of results and improvements. Don't get me wrong. As I said, comparisons are not bad, but comparing schools with other schools, as the media does and especially as

[ Page 7291 ]

the Fraser Institute has done, does not help and can cause great harm.

A past press release from the Prince Rupert school district says: "Lies, damn lies and statistics." In my hometown of Prince Rupert they've been pummelled in the school district by the Fraser report because of such things as the FSA. The FSA may have a valuable concept as long as it's not used to rank students in schools and is not used inappropriately.

The concept of FSA, student achievement and what could be done lead me to the organizations that this minister does not communicate with, especially when drafting legislation such as Bill 20. We've heard in previous debate about some of the lack of communication that's been going on with stakeholders.

I'd like to refer to the Public Education Research Foundation. This was an initiative that came out a few years ago. It was launched by the Charter for Public Education Network with the support of Rob Tierney, dean of the faculty of education at UBC; Paul Shaker at SFU; and Budd Hall at UVic. They launched the new foundation, called the Public Education Research Foundation.

What do they do? They do research and dialogue, and they do it in many areas. They look at governance and how that could help public education. They look at alternatives to the Fraser Institute report and how to measure the performance of B.C. schools. They sponsor education materials, look at advertising in our schools and look at how corporations are just bombarding the classroom and seeing them as "virgin marketing territory." They look at aboriginal success and forums for dialogue. This is a group that this minister and this government has failed to communicate with.

[1515]

We start looking at what happened with the Charter of Public Education. The Charter of Public Education came into effect from October 2002 until February 2003. The panel members visited 42 communities, listened to over 620 formal presentations and held discussions with more than 1,500 participants. You would think that this government would jump on this opportunity to listen to what British Columbians out there think about for public education.

The Charter of Public Education came out with their basic charter, looking at public education as a sacred trust. I'd like to comment on that as it relates to Bill 20. This is what Bill 20 should be entrusting for our students.

This is a quote:

"As a community, we promise to prepare learners for a socially responsible life in a free and democratic society, to participate in a world which each generation will shape and build. We promise a public education system which provides learners with knowledge and wisdom; protects and nurtures their natural joy of learning; encourages them to become persons of character, strength and integrity; infuses them with hope and with spirit; and guides them to resolute and thoughtful action. Everyone has the right to a free, quality public education."

This is what our education system should be based on. This government, along with this Bill 20, fails in that.

Now, as far as the Charter of Public Education, which has many signatories on it, including myself…. These are some of the things that we promise. We promise to recognize that the learner is at the centre of public education. We promise to nurture and value critical thinking; to respect, encourage and foster the learner's role as a full participant; to create an environment in which each learner can reach their greatest potential. We promise to provide a safe and respectful environment for lifelong learning.

We expect government to be responsible for fully funding all aspects of a quality education and to communicate with support staff, teachers, early childhood educators, parents, learners and communities on the direction for public education.

Not only does this bill let down our public education system, it lets down the stakeholders. It lets down students. It lets down teachers, and it attacks school boards. Not only does Bill 20 create superintendents of achievement, who may inspect board records, enter schools and interview employees, it also establishes boards of education and mandates that these boards prepare an achievement contract with respect to student performance and plans for improving student achievement, early learning programs and literacy. There are no resources, no funding at all dedicated to this expanded measure.

Bill 20 reduces and narrows the definition of literacy, basically, to the detriment of what is happening in our classrooms. As far as literacy, which is mentioned throughout Bill 20, the definition this government has determined is that literacy "means the ability to understand and employ printed information in daily activities, at home, at work and in the community."

There are no universal

definitions of literacy. There are no standards for literacy. Unless it's specified, it's based on the most common, traditional, basic definition, and that's what we have. That's what we're working with. That's what this government and this Minister of Education are working with. Instead of relying on stakeholders throughout the province and coming up with a definition for public education that encompasses the whole concept, we're left with this base definition of literacy.

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. It's something important for individuals and for society. It stretches beyond the traditional and functional skills of reading, writing and arithmetic and speaking and listening and must include a wide range of literacies, including complex visual and information literacy and those that have multiple forums.

We must focus on an individual's capacity, their ability to analyze and make important decisions. We have our definition: "…understand and employ printed information and daily activities at home, at work and in the community." It's pretty disappointing for the minister to come up with a definition like this.

[1520]

This old-fashioned, traditional definition falls short — far short — and fails in our need for a progressive, dynamic definition that is needed in the 21st century.

[ Page 7292 ]

Bill 20 also provides for the appointment of a special trustee. If a board does not comply with an administrative directive to meet its obligations, then this special trustee is appointed. It just follows the political whims of the Minister of Education. This act centralizes power in the ministry and tears it away from locally elected school boards.

The act also adds on an appeal level. As I mentioned before, parents who are dissatisfied with the board ruling, such as the suspension of a student, can appeal to the superintendents of achievement. It's just another level of bureaucracy, and it infringes on the autonomy and the responsibility that should be given to locally elected school boards.

I see this Bill 20 smoothing the path for the creation of private public schools. It defines special academies and allows for students to be charged fees to attend the academy. The school planning council has the power to approve the fees, meaning that possibly as few as three parents and a principal can make the decision. It also allows for fees to be charged for some courses and materials. This not only infringes upon the autonomy and responsibility of school boards but paves the way for publicly funded schools to be operated as private schools with all sorts of fees.

There's a financial hardship clause as most in the system…. If the minister had gone out and talked to people, she would have found out that this is one that does not work. It's demeaning. It expects of those kids and their families that they make it public in a way that is inappropriate and uncomfortable — coming up to the principal, coming up to a teacher, saying: "I can't afford it. Can you cover me?" I've been in a situation in many schools where that's happened. Most kids go without. They do not like the demeaning, inappropriate situation that they're put in.

Recently, a week and a half or two weeks ago, the B.C. School Trustees Association passed a motion to oppose Bill 20 that was proposed by the Education Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: Where are they today?

G. Coons: Yeah, where are they today? We know where they were. They were slamming this minister for bringing forth this legislation.

The person who brought this forward happened to be somebody from Prince George, a school trustee, Bill Christie, who just happened to win the B.C. Community Achievement Award last week. As he walked up there….

Interjection.

G. Coons: And good for him. What did this minister do? Treats this trustee with disdain, doesn't listen to him and attacks locally elected school boards as they cheer.

They argued that the new legislation would steal power away from locally elected representatives — I'm not making this up; I'm hearing it from the minister's school board chairperson in Prince George, I believe her own town — and put it in the hands of unelected civil servants working for the government. The motion passed, and the trustees' official position is now clearly in opposition to this new set of regulations.

This bill introduces sweeping changes to public education and no funding. It does nothing to provide support for students with special needs, oversized classrooms, the composition problems that are just devastating teachers in classrooms throughout this province. It does not ensure adequate numbers of teacher-librarians, counsellors, ESL teachers, special ed teachers, learning assistance teachers and other specialist teachers.

How did we get into this chaos? The unfunded Bill 33. Is this going to be the unfunded Bill 20? It's hard to say. Among other things, Bill 33 set out specific instructions for the integration of students in special needs from K-to-grade-12, and they did not fund it. What do we see? Close to 100,000 students in classes over the limits.

[1525]

In 2001 and 2002 teacher collective agreements included guaranteed class sizes, which was stripped by this government. I remember those words ringing in our ears: "We will not strip contracts. We will not sell B.C. Rail. We will ensure quality education." Again we're seeing, with the stroke of a pen, this government attacking public education and going towards privatizing it.

If we look at non-enrolling teachers, in the past five years over 1,000 specialist teachers — librarians, ESL, counsellors — have been lost to the system. Specialist teachers today are often expected to fill multiple roles in a school besides having significant documentation and paperwork to do, and this government has failed students in this province again. There are over 3,100 classes with 31 or more students. Students are waiting for support. This government has a moral obligation to fund Bill 33, and they haven't.

Again, with Bill 20, where is the funding? This government must increase funding to school districts so that class sizes and compositions that were promised in legislation can be fully implemented. We must get our education system back on track despite this government.

Now, I'm going to be closing in a minute or two, but I have a comment….

Interjections.

G. Coons: I realize it's difficult for the hon. members on the other side to hear the results of what's happened in their unfunded Bill 33 and what they've done to public education, but in Terrace, on a four-day week, we've lost $4.5 million.

"This underfunding situation has reached a critical mass. I can't imagine how he's lost so much money, and what's happening in our schools? We should have an obligation to our own children and citizens first before we spend millions making B.C. look good for the Olympics, a two-week-long venue. I write out of frustration, a feeling of powerlessness and sadness that something I hold dear, public education, is deemed so low on a list of priorities for this government."

It's a shame, but that's how educators in this province are feeling as they go through teaching our most valuable resource.

[ Page 7293 ]

With Bill 20, this government is creating more and more bureaucracy while ignoring student learning. This legislation accelerates the privatization of public education, it significantly undermines democratic governance of public education, and it will lead to the destruction of the autonomy and authority of locally elected school boards. I'm opposed to Bill 20 in its current format. I look forward to clause-by-clause analysis, and I hope that this government will finally listen to stakeholders.

I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Coons: I'd like to introduce Jonathan Mears and Cameron Mears. They are the husband and son of Lucy Mears, our legislative assistant in the Legislature. I'd like to make them all welcome, wherever they are.

Debate Continued

B. Simpson: I'm pleased to stand today and put my oar in the water with respect to Bill 20. I stand opposed to the bill for a variety of reasons that I will illuminate over the next few minutes.

On a general matter of principle, one of the things that I find interesting about a lot of the legislation that comes forward from the government is the fact that, in many cases, it's where we should start in the public debate. This legislation, in many cases, should be what we should be taking to the public and engaging them in debate because, quite frankly, the government never does sufficient public consultation on any of the legislation that we see.

It doesn't matter what ministry it's in or what minister is leading. This government tables legislation that is merely, in my estimation, the beginning of substantive debate. Hence, we get into the dialogue around clause-by-clause, asking what the intent is and finding out that, in many cases, the intent is unclear. As a result, we end up getting bad legislation.

We have a number of amendments before us in this House, many of which either are fixing previous errors and omissions or are bringing back legislation that was taken away before. I think Bill 20 typifies that. I think Bill 20 is the beginning of a debate. It should be taken out for public debate. It shouldn't be in this House at this juncture.

[1530]

What should come to this House is the end of the public debate around whether or not this is the direction British Columbians want their education system to go in. I believe that the answer categorically is no.

I believe that the last thing that British Columbians want is another layer of bureaucracy. The last thing that British Columbians want is a change of name of their school boards. The last thing that British Columbians want is more bureaucracy put into the system so that our elected school boards have to be accountable to an appointee of the minister, through which all of their actions are going to be screened.

In the case of fees, as we see in this bill, we have a situation in which a small group — the principal, the teacher and some parents — get to make determinations that have substantive implications for school districts, and the board is simply a second player in that. They're not the primary player in that.

I want to speak first about the overall intent of the bill and some of the things that I think are issues in the bill that need further clarification before we could support it. It's "clarification" that I'm hearing, not just from teachers in my community but from parents who are paying attention to this, from parent advisory councils and from our trustees. They all have substantive questions and substantive concerns about the direction that this bill would take us in.

One major concern in here is the addition of mandates to the boards of education — the mandates they will have for district literacy, for early learning and for these new achievement contracts, which they have to put together and run through a bureaucratic process to get them signed off.

As the board of school trustees indicated, they believe that in the case of early learning programs, for example, it becomes an inefficient method of program implementation. It adds inefficiency to the system, not efficiency, at a time in which our school districts are struggling with the changes to the funding formula and with the rationalization they have to go through with respect to declining enrolment, school closures and the changes in what society's expectations are about achievement. So the change in mandates — the addition of district literacy and the addition of early learning — without any clarification on what the implications of that are on resources, is troublesome.

Undermining the authority of the board, as has been pointed out by members on this side, is particularly troublesome because these über-superintendents, or these superintendents of achievement, don't know what our communities' needs are. They don't know the demographics of the communities; they don't know the makeup; they don't know what, particularly in my case, our small communities are struggling with in order to keep their economic options open and available to them.

Schools are a fundamental aspect of the economic well-being of many small communities in this province. If they cannot meet these achievement targets — which, again, are not explicit in the act, still have to be determined and still have to be articulated — what does that mean? That's what the school boards are asking me: what does that mean? Does that mean that they're going to be held accountable to their worst-case scenarios and are going to be given direction on what they must do in order to fulfil their obligations under this new act to a superintendent and not to the people in the riding who duly elected them?

The other aspect of it, as I mentioned, is the role that the school planning councils have in fee determination and in the determination of whether or not we get academies. I have sports academies in my riding that are becoming an important part of our economic

[ Page 7294 ]

future. We have led the way in many cases with a hockey skills academy. We're looking at a soccer skills academy. They are part of our overall strategy as we look at the changes — particularly in the community of Quesnel — with respect to the mountain pine beetle.

I believe fundamentally that the board should be the one that makes the determinations of how resources are allocated, how fees are determined and which academies will or will not go forward. They are the ones that the people in my riding have elected, and they're the ones that should have that choice.

What I want to spend some time on is the idea that this bill…. The bill is entitled "Student Achievement Enabling," and I guess my question is whether or not this bill actually enables achievement.

[1535]

Does it get to the root of what achievement is? Does it address the issue of how we get achievement with respect to the full range of educational opportunities that our children have?

This is in particular with respect to the full range of needs that we have in our marketplace as our demographics shift — particularly as we need every child coming out of our school system to be equipped with a full range of learning capabilities, a full range of skill sets, so that they can be meaningful participants not only in our economy and in our workforce but in our society in general.

As we all know, our society is going to be undergoing a significant shift with respect to the implications of climate change; with respect to the shift in our economy around switching our energy systems; and, quite frankly, with respect to what will happen in the next few decades with local economies needing to be rebuilt, local food security and issues that need to be addressed by all individuals in our society collectively.

We need citizens who are well-rounded in their education, who go well beyond the minimalist definition of literacy and who can participate fully in an economy and an economic system that has to be significantly adaptable over the next little while.

It's a student achievement enabling amendment act, yet the reality is that what this act does, in my estimation, is to change some names, change out some words, give an additional mandate without additional sets of resources, and reorient the delegated authority of who makes the determinations on what's best for our children in this province.

We're adding "become literate" to the definition of what the boards of education must undertake, so they enable learners to become literate and to develop their individual potential. Enabling learners to become literate and to develop their individual potential is one of the definition changes.

We're repealing accountability contracts and replacing them with achievement contracts. I'll look at how that's defined in the act shortly. We're adding boards of education. We're adding district literacy plans, early learning program and, again, these superintendents of achievement.

Will any of this roll up to the enabling of achievement? I want to point out something that the government seems to fail to have taken into account with respect to education in the province. It's from their own group that the Premier put together; it's from the B.C. Progress Board. Just by way of definition, from their own executive

summary of the social condition in British Columbia: "The B.C. Progress Board, established by Premier Gordon Campbell…."

I withdraw that. I'm reading from here: "The B.C. Progress Board, established by the Premier in July 2001, is an independent panel of 18 senior business…and academic leaders." The board benchmarks B.C. economic innovation, education, environment, health and social performance over time and relative to other jurisdictions. The board also provides advice on ways to improve provincial performance.

This is the Premier's own select group of people who are supposed to monitor our performance over time and who have issued a special report on the social condition in British Columbia. Why did they issue that report? It states: "The B.C. Progress Board has been puzzled by evidence emerging from its benchmarking project which suggests that B.C. is lagging in a number of dimensions of the social condition."

This report digs down to understand what is happening: "The most troubling social indicator is the proportion of British Columbians living below the Statistics Canada low-income threshold. One in ten British Columbians lives on low income for extended periods."

It goes on to say that low income matters for two reasons: "All children, irrespective of their social background, should have an equal chance to succeed in the province, and there is compelling evidence that children from low-income families are at greater risk."

This is something that I think we have to take into consideration. Again, it's a concern being articulated to me by our school trustees, by teachers and by other educators and parents.

[1540]

What is it that government has in mind with these now so-called achievement contracts? If the benchmarking is merely standardized tests, then as the B.C. Progress Board report points out, there are many factors that need to be taken into consideration when looking at achievement.

The board goes on in a

section entitled "Investing in Human Capital."

One of the most persistent and pervasive findings of the research on human development is that children's educational attainment, health and long-term prospects are influenced by the social and economic context in which they grow up. Children and young people growing up in disadvantaged families tend to do less well in school, are less likely to graduate from secondary school and are less successful in entering the labour market. To ensure that an employment-oriented social policy is fair and effective, governments need to take strong action to enhance the education and skill development of disadvantaged people.

Now the Progress Board, of course, has an overall economic bent. We believe that needs to be metered with the idea of producing citizens and of having an educated citizenry that can participate in all aspects of our society.

[ Page 7295 ]

The Progress Board goes on to say: "B.C. has a distance to go here as well…. The provincial government has reduced its financial support in several key areas in recent years." Now this is not the opposition saying that there's been a reduction in supports in these areas; it's the Premier's own handpicked group of people who are benchmarking. They say the "responsibility for key programs in B.C. is fragmented across a variety of ministries whose priority attention is inevitably drawn elsewhere."

They make recommendations to the government, and I particularly want to point out two. "The B.C. government should give StrongStart itself a strong start, by rolling out a program that is based on evidence of what works, that is strongly funded and that has a strong evaluation component. The province should also reinvest in the Child Care Subsidy Program."

The second recommendation I want to highlight is that they recommend that related programs with respect to "the social gradient in education and development should be consolidated into an agency whose primary purpose is to enhance the development of children."

The Premier's handpicked group says that we have a problem in this province. The Premier's handpicked group says that socioeconomic indicators of achievement must be addressed. Yet what do we have in Bill 20? We have a change in name from accountability contracts to achievement contracts. We have an increased mandate for the school boards. We have no additional resources, and as this government does year after year, we have a continuation in cuts to the basic funding for our social system in this province.

There's a problem there. Unless we address, and the B.C. Progress Board is saying it, the socioeconomic indicators; unless we bring everybody up together above the low-income threshold; unless we give our children the ability to have a truly strong start — food in their stomachs, a home to go to, parental support, all the things that this government has chipped away at since they began their mandate in 2001 — this enabling legislation will amount to a hill of beans.

What's happening in our districts? I can tell you that in my school district the buzzword around town is that despite the fact that we seem to be enjoying somewhat of an economic boom as a result of the mountain pine beetle epidemic and that short-lived acceleration of our cut levels, people are understanding that something isn't right in our communities, in Williams Lake and in Quesnel and in the other centres in my riding.

The reason for that is that we are experiencing degrees of poverty. We're experiencing the retraction of government services to a degree that is troublesome for most of my constituents. We are asking teachers now to pick up the slack for a lot of the Ministry of Children and Family Development cuts. Our teachers now are not just classroom teachers; they're having to become social workers.

[1545]

They're not just classroom teachers; they're becoming counsellors — not just to the children, but also to the parents and to community members. While it's great that we have some of the caps in Bill 33, the lack of resources to Bill 33 has added an additional burden to teachers, who now may have a whole range of part-time resource assistants they now have to provide supervisory functions to, provide mentoring functions to, and they have to develop, on a child-by-child basis, clear plans for the development of those children, without additional resources for them to do that.

We have homelessness in my communities like we've never had before. How can we measure achievement of children that are coming from families that can barely keep a roof over their heads or who come into the classroom with no food in their stomach?

We do not have an adequate set of resources to engage with children — particularly first nations children — for whom school is a place that they would rather avoid. Many, many schools have to expend significant resources over issues of truancy and discipline and various other aspects of the fact that our schools and the way they're structured don't meet the needs of a significant portion of our first nations and our other children in our communities.

We talk about early intervention, and I find it interesting in the bill that they add the early learning program to the school district. I've said that we don't know what that means in terms of additional resources. The school districts certainly feel that it's going to be done without additional resources.

At the same time, as we've seen in this House this spring, we've had the cuts to all of the child care subsidies, their program dollars, the child care referral centres. So they're at cross-purposes. One ministry is cutting back on these services, and another ministry is giving responsibility to the school boards to pick up some of that vacuum.

I find it intriguing that in the definition of early learning program that the school boards are going to pick up, or these boards of education are going to pick up, is: "(

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."

One of the things that was raised for me on this issue is that we have more and more children who are at risk in this province under this government — more and more children who do not have that substantive parental or foster care or legal guardianship support. I'm curious as to what third reading will do on this, or the committee stage. But as I read this, we are going to say to a whole group of children who do not have parents who can show up with them, who do not have clear lines of guardianship, who do not have support in the foster care system, that they're not going to be participating in this early learning program.

I look forward to clarification of that, because I think that that would be a tragedy. The children that are most at risk, who have the least amount of support, appear to be excluded from what this government deems an early learning program.

The other thing that I want to address is the fact that unless we deal with the cuts to the Ministry of

[ Page 7296 ]

Children and Family Development, and unless we deal with the cuts to child care in this province, this little tiny bit of addition to the school boards for early learning programs will not enable achievement in any way, shape or form.

My challenge to this government is: where is the overarching plan? Where is the plan that tells us how the Ministry of Children and Family Development will be involved in this, how the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance will be involved in this, how the post-secondary education institutions — who up until recently have driven the desire for standardized exams and all of the issues associated with that — are going to be involved in it? Where is the overarching plan for our education system in this province? And where is the overarching plan to address the growing systemic poverty that the Progress Board and others have pointed out?

Without that plan, this so-called amendment act that's going to enable achievement again is worthless. It is simply shuffling the decks on the Titanic .

[1550]

The other aspect of this that I find interesting — and it was raised for me by some colleagues of mine this weekend up at home — is that we don't have the resources to handle literacy now. This government, through the funding cuts and the change in the formulas that they made to school districts, has basically eradicated teacher-librarians in this province. So here we are.

We have the school districts in this act now supposed to put a district literacy plan together. Oh, by the way, they're supposed to go through a consultation process on that district literacy plan, and again, we don't know what additional resources are associated with that. Will they be able to…? Through consultation, if they get a large response from the community saying, "We want robust library services in our schools," can they, under this change in legislation, come back to the minister and say: "This is what we want as a district literacy plan. This is what our people are telling us, and here's the budget for it"?

The critical piece that's missing in this so-called enabling legislation is that we need to also budget for that additional resource. So I'll be curious to see in committee stage whether or not that is a possibility — that that consultation process can, in fact, add additional resources, because the minister will look at it and say: "If that's what your community wants, we will resource it, because your community knows what they need in the way of achieving a district literacy plan."

How far does that district literacy plan go? Does it roll in literacy for all age groups? It says in the act that they're supposed to engage with anybody involved in literacy. Is that the school board's responsibility now? Will that be measured against this superintendent of achievement? All kinds of questions are begged by the wording in this.

I also want to talk about the fact that the closure of neighbourhood schools in my area because of the per-pupil funding means that many of our children are spending a lot more time on buses, travelling back and forth to schools. Now, fortunately, in school district 27 we were able to make sure that some of that busing was addressed, and some schools are being kept open. I give kudos to the school board for how they're doing their planning down there.

But how does that lead to improved achievement, when kids have to spend that much time, when their schools in their neighbourhood are closed down and no longer become centres of learning for the whole community, no longer become a place that people can gather together and learn together in all-age classes…? The closure of neighbourhood schools, I believe, is a fundamental issue in many of our communities from truly achieving achievement.

I want to talk about the nature of the achievement contracts. Many members on this side of the House have raised the issue of standardized tests. I have a real problem with standardized tests. In a previous life I actually went up to Quesnel, and I originally moved to Quesnel to teach senior biology and senior chemistry. One of the things I found, as the standardized tests were brought in, was that I could not teach science as it was at the time — as it's emerging and evolving and changing — because, of course, I have to prepare students for the test.

One thing you find, particularly with the foundation skills assessment — and we're already seeing that — is that when you introduce global standardized tests, you get all of the issues of gender bias, socioeconomic bias. Test-taking abilities is really what you're testing in many cases, not the range of knowledge and skill sets that the individuals actually have, innately.

What you get is an upswing on achievement, and then it begins to plateau. After the plateau you begin to see a decline in achievement. There's a fundamental reason for that. That is because on the upswing portion of it, teachers get better at preparing the students for the test. There's a filtering that goes on in order to not get beaten up by the Fraser Institute or others, where children who are not going to be good test-takers or are not prepared for the test do not engage in the test.

The plateau is when you reach your possible range of achievement on that test because you've basically done all of the streamlining and the filtering to prepare for the test that you can. Then it begins to flatline. Then, after a while, people start to walk away from the test as a meaningful measure of anything.

[1555]

What you get then is a rebellion against the test by the teachers, students and parents. I believe that we're in that phase now. We're beginning to see a significant push-back by parents against the foundation skills assessments — what it does to their children and the pressure it puts on them.

I have a fundamental problem with those kinds of standardized tests anyway, because all they do is measure a snapshot capability of test-taking on the day of the test. As someone who worked for the last 14 years in human resource development in industry and small business…. They're not looking for test-takers. They're not looking for people who can show up on a given day, take a test, regurgitate a bunch of informa-

[ Page 7297 ]

tion, walk away from it and either do well or not do well.

What we need are people who can think critically, who can take a whole range of ideas and issues and figure out collaborative solutions. We need people with good communication and collaboration skills. We need individuals who have a wide range of skill sets that they can bring into the workforce and into society as a whole. Tests never reflect that. What they do is simply take a snapshot at any given time.

The test-taking debate aside, one of the challenges that we have in this bill is that it's not clear what the measure of achievement will be — particularly, again, given that the achievement contracts have to be reported to the superintendent of achievement. I'm going to be curious in committee stage what that measure will be because, quite frankly, achievement for many of our children covers a wide range. For some of our children, achievement is simply showing up day to day and learning something each day. For some of our children, achievement is the ability to come into class with food in their stomach on a regular basis and participate in their class.

I struggle with this bill. I oppose it. I believe it should be withdrawn. What we should engage in is a fulsome public debate about whether or not this is the way to enable achievement or whether or not we need a grander plan that is more integrative of other ministries and is fully resourced so that every one of our children in British Columbia, regardless of socioeconomic status, regardless of their capabilities when they enter the school, has the ability to achieve to the highest standards.

S. Simpson: I'm happy to have an opportunity to add a few comments to this discussion around Bill 20, the School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act. I am particularly interested in discussing this in terms of how I've increasingly come to view the role of education, first and foremost as it affects my constituency of Vancouver-Hastings.

Certainly, it has impacts throughout Vancouver, as an urban area, and I know that there are impacts that would be felt in other constituencies and throughout school districts across British Columbia. What we know about our schools is that they face a range of challenges in addition to those that would be seen as purely academic. The kids in our schools face a whole range of issues that are more than just those that are academic.

I know when I look at my community, at my constituency and at the schools in my constituency, I see kids who have particular challenges. The comments of the previous speaker talked about kids who are vulnerable, and I certainly have an abundance of those children who live in Vancouver-Hastings.

We know that the most recent available statistics show that one in four children lives in poverty in this province, and what we know from that is that kids don't get poor by themselves. Poor kids are the result of poor families.

[1600]

The reality is that those are the kids that are in schools, and it's been suggested to me by academics that while we look at numbers that suggest that one in four children — certainly in the lower mainland area — is vulnerable in some way, shape or form, in my community the number apparently, experts tell me, looks more like one in two kids is vulnerable. That's an incredibly high number, and it's an incredibly serious situation. I know it's very serious for me, and I believe it's also serious for the minister and for people on all sides of this House.

All of these are issues that add to the complexity of how our schools work, what their objectives are, what their challenges are. I know the minister understands this. I've had the opportunity to have this discussion with the minister in her estimates, and we had a good discussion about those challenges. I think we agree on a number of issues related to how difficult it is in every school district because every school district faces these challenges, some of us a little more than others. It's certainly not unique to my constituency or to Vancouver. It's a situation that is reflected across the province.

When we look at how we're going to meet those challenges and we look at legislation that gets put forward and at Bill 20, we have to ask ourselves: does this piece of legislation help us to meet the challenges that those kids and those families are facing in Vancouver-Hastings and in constituencies across the province? Does Bill 20 support the school board — the democratically elected school board — in its efforts to meet those challenges? Does it support parent advisory councils and those who are interested and committed to education who are working in those districts across the province, trying to meet those objectives?

I don't believe that this bill does advance those issues that are important. I don't believe it begins to address those issues in a way that we would all hopefully want them to be addressed. I'll talk about that a little bit more as we go on.

The second issue around Bill 20 that raises some concern for me, really, is the issue of accountability of our education system. We all know, and I certainly know, as the parent of a 15-year-old…. I've had an interest in education for a long time. My interest in education became somewhat more acute when my daughter went to school, and I got involved in the parent advisory council at my daughter's school and stayed involved in it until I came and got this job here. I know that my focus on education as a parent, obviously, was much more acute than it was when I was an observer outside of the system.

I know from that that I paid much more attention to my school board. I would look at the minutes of meetings when I was interested in issues that were in front

[ Page 7298 ]

of the board, when the board was talking about budget matters and funding for special needs, and inner-city or community school issues, and the funding debate would go on. I would be very interested in that, and I would go to PAC meetings. We would have those discussions at the PAC meetings.

There was a fairly large group of parents who wanted to be part of that discussion and were always p