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)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 21, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Opposition caucus softball team

M. Farnworth

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Opposition caucus softball team

C. Evans

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Legislative Assembly (Members' Remuneration

and Pensions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 37)

Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Woodlots

C. Trevena

Lori Wikdahl

R. Hawes

HaidaLink wind power project

G. Coons

Steveston water park

J. Yap

Emma Peterson

G. Gentner

West Vancouver Shoreline Preservation Society

R. Sultan

Oral Questions

Role of Liberal officials in RCMP investigation

of government staff

C. James

Hon. G. Campbell

Government role in partisan media activities

B. Ralston

Hon. G. Campbell

D. Chudnovsky

Role of Liberal officials in RCMP investigation

of government staff

S. Simpson

Hon. G. Campbell

Government role in partisan media activities

L. Krog

Hon. G. Campbell

Role of Liberal officials in RCMP investigation

of government staff

R. Fleming

Hon. G. Campbell

J. Kwan

Government role in partisan media activities

M. Farnworth

Hon. G. Campbell

Reports from Committees

Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture,

final report

R. Austin

Committee of the Whole House

School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment

Act, 2007 (Bill 20) (continued)

D. Cubberley

Hon. S. Bond

N. Macdonald

C. Wyse

Report and Third Reading of Bills

School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment

Act, 2007 (Bill 20)

Committee of the Whole House

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.

2), 2007 (Bill 35)

Hon. W. Oppal

L. Krog

Hon. I. Chong

C. Wyse

C. Evans

Hon. P. Bell

Hon. J. Les

Reporting of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.

2), 2007 (Bill 35)

Third Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.

2), 2007 (Bill 35)

Committee of the Whole House

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill 33)

L. Krog

Hon. W. Oppal

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill 33)

Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Economic Development

and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics

(continued)

H. Bains

Hon. C. Hansen

J. Kwan

[ Page 8057 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2007

The House met at

1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in

the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

C. James: Visiting

us today in the House is a Rotary group exchange, which is a unique cultural and

vocational exchange opportunity for young business and professional people between

the ages of 25 and 40. The program provides travel grants for teams to exchange

visits between paired areas in different countries. For four to six weeks, team

members experience the host country's institutions and ways of life and observe

their own vocations as practised abroad.

Today in the House

we have seven individuals on this program, visiting us from Brazil. They include

a journalist, administrators and a physiotherapist. They're with their host, who

is a longtime community activist, a former city councillor and a longtime civil

servant, Pieta Van Dyke. Will the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott:

As I think all members would know, May has been proclaimed Multiple Sclerosis Awareness

Month in British Columbia. Today all Members of the Legislative Assembly are wearing

red carnations to help us raise awareness about this terrible disease of MS.

[1335]

Joining us in the

gallery today are two leaders from the MS Society of Canada. Mr. Todd Abercrombie

is the executive director of the MS Society's capital region chapter, and David

Shrive is a board member with the MS Society of Canada. I would ask all members

of the House to please make these gentlemen very welcome and to thank them for their

leadership in combatting the terrible disease of MS.

M. Karagianis:

We have many honoured guests today, but it's a particular thrill for me to be able

to introduce a strong activist for social justice and first nations, an inspiration,

a sister to me, a representative from the Gitxsan people: my friend Trudy Spiller.

Would you all please make her welcome.

Hon. P. Bell:

We're joined by a number of individuals today who are strong supporters of the aquaculture

community. Included in that group are, from the Aboriginal Aquaculture Association,

Richard Harry, Alvin Sewid, Harold Sewid, Tim Williams and Marguerite Parker; from

the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation, Chief Moses Martin; from the Ahousaht First Nation,

Keith Atleo, chief councillor, Harvey Robinson, councillor, and Sidney Sam; from

the Gitxaala First Nation, Vern Jackson, Matthew Hill and Tim Ennis. On a sad note,

Chief Clifford White had hoped to be here today but was unable to, due to a death

in his family.

They're all strong

supporters of aquaculture in the province. There are also 15 individuals representing

different organizations, companies, feed suppliers, and so on, joining us today,

who all support this industry that employs 3,000 people and represents $350 million.

I'd ask the House to make all these ladies and gentlemen very welcome.

C. Trevena:

I too would like to recognize some first nations guests in the House, and I hope

the House would make them very welcome.

In the gallery today

are Chief Darren Blaney of the Homalco First Nation and Chief Bob Chamberlin of

the Kwicksutaineuk-ah-kwa-ah-mish First Nation. Also in the gallery today is Claire

Backman from Marine Harvest.

I noticed, looking

up in the gallery…. I won't name everybody, but I notice that Mary Ellen Walling

of the Salmon Farmers Association is here, as is Stacy Stokes. Richard Harry has

already been mentioned. I also see that Don Millerd from Brown's Bay Packing, one

of the big employers in my constituency, is in the gallery. I hope the House would

make them all very welcome.

R. Cantelon:

Joining the member for Nanaimo and myself today are two guests of ours in the gallery,

Garth Johnstone and Greg Keeling, who paid an exorbitant amount to a charity of their

choice for the privilege of having lunch with us. Please make them welcome.

L. Krog:

I just want to add to the kind words of the member for Nanaimo-Parksville. He actually

picked up lunch, and I owe him for half of it right now. I declare that to the House.

I also want to mention

that Garth Johnstone is the grandson of Archie Johnstone. That firm was founded

in 1954 in Nanaimo and employs 45 union employees and is prospering. He's the grandson

of the founder and is running a fine operation. I add my words of welcome to him.

A. Horning:

Visiting us today from my riding of Kelowna–Lake Country is Gord Ivans, chairman

of Black Mountain Irrigation District. He is accompanied by Bob Hrasko and Don Dobson.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Tributes

OPPOSITION CAUCUS SOFTBALL TEAM

M. Farnworth:

It's my opportunity to inform the House that last night, in the spirit of healthful

exercise — I know the Minister of Health will be most interested in this — members

of the opposition engaged the media gallery in a game of baseball, which was energetic

and vigorous. The opposition won 15-13, which I think is great.

[1340]

Some notable media

stars were struck out on numerous occasions. But more importantly, we were able

to have that great game, Mr. Speaker, because of the unbiased umpiring by yourself.

[ Page 8058 ]

Introductions by Members

S. Hawkins:

I would like to take this opportunity to introduce 30 public servants seated in

the Speaker's gallery who are participating in a full-day parliamentary procedure

workshop offered by the Legislative Assembly. This workshop provides a firsthand

opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of how important

their work is to this Legislature. Could you please make them welcome.

S. Fraser:

There are a number of introductions that I would like to make today. I see Spencer

Evans in the gallery from Creative Salmon. Chief Moses Martin was mentioned already,

but he's one of my constituents. Chief Keith Atleo from Ahousat is also one of my

constituents.

I'd also like to

introduce seven chiefs down from the Wet'suwet'en First Nations. We have in the

gallery today Chief Goohlaht, Lucy Namox, from the Big Frog clan. We have Chief

Samooh, who is Herb Naziel, also from the Big Frog clan. We have Chief Woos, who

is Roy Morris, from the Bear Wolf clan; Chief Gisdaywa, who is Walter Joseph, from

the Bear Wolf clan; Chief Madeek, who is Jeffrey Brown, from the Bear Wolf clan;

Chief Mutt, who is Billy Naziel, from the Beaver clan; Chief Dzigdot, Ronald Austin,

from the Cariboo and Small Frog clan. Would you please join me in making them feel

very welcome.

J. Yap: It's

my pleasure to introduce to the House another group of Rotary group study exchange,

young professionals who are here from Taiwan. This is a group that includes Jason

Teng, Sophie Huang, Emerald Wu, Celesta Chen and Josh Feng. Accompanying them is

their host from the Tsawwassen Rotary club, Garry Shearer. Would the House please

make them welcome.

G. Coons:

I have a number of introductions to make. But before I start, I would like to recognize

that a friend of mine, a teacher who used to live in Prince Rupert, is down here

working for the ministry — Wael Afifi.

I'd also like to

acknowledge and recognize some of the visitors from the north first nations. We

have Chief Elmer Derrick from the Gitxsan nation and Gerald Amos from the Haisla

nation.

A number of my constituents.

We have Eugene Bryant from the Allied Tsimshian Tribes of Lax Kw'alaams, my good

friend Conrad Lewis from Kitkatla, Ed Gladstone, Reg Gladstone, Mildred Gladstone

and Betty Gladstone — all from Kitkatla. Can we please make them welcome.

D. Hayer:

I have two sets of introductions. First, I'm pleased to introduce to the House today

some very special guests. They are friends and community leaders. First, Del Dalminder

Singh Virk, who is a notary public and has served as a director on many organizations

in Surrey, and his son; Nev's father-in-law Prithipaul Singh Chhina, who was a past

president of the Kitimat Sikh temple, and his wife Kiranjit Kaur Chhina from Kitimat;

as well as Kiranjit's sister Harinder Kaul Chatha and her husband Satpal Singh Chatha,

who are visiting from Chandigarh, India. Would the House please make them very welcome.

The second set of

guests is a special guest who lives in Surrey–White Rock. He's also a good friend

of mine. He works in the community and in the Surrey Chamber of Commerce and the

B.C. Chamber of Commerce. His name is Ethan J. Huberman. He is the chief executive

officer of HI-PERformance Enterprise Inc. He has also helped in many ways in Surrey

and in White Rock. Will the House please make him very welcome too.

[1345]

S. Simpson:

I'd also like to make a few introductions of people who are here for the tabling

of a report today. Ivan Thompson, who is from Smithers and with Friends of Wild

Salmon, is here with his children — Laurel Thompson, who will be attending Camosun

College in the fall, and Jeff Thompson, who will be at the University of Victoria.

I'd also like to

welcome Pat Moss from Smithers, who's with Friends of Wild Salmon, and Catherine

Stewart of the Living Oceans Society. Please make them welcome.

J. Kwan:

Visiting the Legislature today are 40 grade 5 students from St. Francis Xavier School.

They're accompanied by ten adults and their teacher Aurita Joseph. They're here

to learn about the Legislature, about what MLAs do and the great history of the

contributions of the Parliament Buildings to British Columbia. Would the House please

make them welcome.

G. Gentner:

It's a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House today 30 of North Delta's

finest students from grades 4 and 5 from Richardson School, teacher Shelley MacDonald

and parents. It's a school where my daughter attended many years ago, and they're

here to learn.

I'm expecting that

all members will be on their best behaviour. I think they're in the gallery, and

their eyes are clearly on that side, by the way. Could the House please make them

very welcome.

Also, it gives me

real pleasure to introduce to the gallery for the first time my brother Brent Gentner

and my parents Clifford and Doreen Gentner, who had to bear the many eventful adolescent

years of yours truly and therefore deserve a round of applause.

R. Hawes:

In the gallery today is a friend of my daughter-in-law Nikki — Amy Bready. She is

a registered nurse who works in the emergency room in Chilliwack. She was here this

morning with the B.C. Nurses Union and told our caucus some pretty compelling stories

about violence in her workplace. Could the House please make her welcome.

Tributes

OPPOSITION CAUCUS SOFTBALL TEAM

C. Evans:

The comments of my House Leader notwithstanding…. Of course, the House Leader is

always right, but in this case he missed a little bit of the point. The rule amongst

elected people has always

[ Page 8059 ]

been to never pick a fight with those who buy their ink by the barrel.

Based on the common

understanding amongst all of us of the wisdom of this rule, both government and

opposition members know that regardless of skill or morality or truth, the press

must always be allowed to win.

Last night that

unbroken record — stretching right back, I would bet, to the Magna Carta — was broken.

When members and staff and friends and children of the opposition caucus.…

Interjections.

C. Evans:

Even children of the opposition caucus cleaned the clocks of the press in public

at softball. We did this for the benefit of history. We did it on behalf even of

government members, who have hitherto been too afraid of the press to even consider

such combat. The only thing that tarnished the moment, hon. Speaker, was an absolutely

awful umpiring job by a person who even I am afraid to mention in here.

I hope that all

members will join me in congratulating the opposition for its historic effort to

strip away the power of the scribes. Now that the precedent has been set, I encourage

even government members to consider such an activity in future.

[1350]

Mr. Speaker:

Member, I must demand an apology and a withdrawal of that. [Laughter.]

C. Evans:

Mr. Speaker, because I understand the inability to see is a disability that we all

respect, I withdraw my comment.

Mr. Speaker:

Seeing as I think we have introduced just about everybody, anyone that wasn't introduced,

welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (MEMBERS'

REMUNERATION AND PENSIONS)

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. M. de Jong

presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Legislative

Assembly (Members' Remuneration and Pensions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. M. de Jong:

Mr. Speaker, on April 30, 2007, the report of the Independent Commission to Review

MLA Compensation was delivered to you. Shortly thereafter — I think the next day

— it was tabled in this chamber.

Bill 37 seeks to

implement those recommendations contained within the report dealing with the MLA

compensation package and the reinstatement of a defined-benefit pension plan.

Dealing firstly

with the compensation, Bill 37 does the following. It sets the basic compensation

for each member at $98,000 per year, and it establishes the additional salaries

to be paid to the party leaders, cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries,

Speakers and caucus officers, consistent with the report's recommendations.

Secondly, Bill 37

re-establishes a defined-benefit pension plan to be administered by the Public Service

Pension Board. Under the terms of the pension, members would contribute 11 percent

of their earnings. Consistent with the report, members would be entitled to pension

benefits calculated on the following basis: 3.5 percent of their highest three-year

average earning times the number of years of pensionable service.

Before qualifying

for any pension, a member would have had to have served six years. The maximum pension

that may be received is 70 percent of the highest three-year average earnings which,

at the accrual rate, would require 20 years of pensionable service.

A full pension would

not be payable until age 65 and a reduced pension starting at age 60. The legislation

authorizes the purchase back of pensionable service to June 1996, prior to April

1, 2007, on the following basis. For the period May 17, 2005, to March 31, 2007,

the plan participant must pay 50 percent of the cost of the pension benefit resulting

from the purchase. For the period preceding May 16, 2005, the plan participant must

pay 11 percent of the sum of the member's annual earnings and the amount that the

government paid toward the member's voluntary RRSP.

Going forward, I

can advise members that I am advised that the annual incremental cost of this pay

and pension package is estimated at $8.3 million. With respect to one-time costs

related to the pension buyback, I'm advised that, assuming all eligible individuals

choose to exercise their full buyback rights, the total one-time cost would be $42

million, of which individuals would contribute $8 million.

If passed, this

bill provides that this pension and pay package is deemed to take effect April 1,

2007, and shall apply to all current members and to all future members elected in

subsequent elections or by-elections. However, for current members of this assembly,

the bill provides an option.

For current members

who disagree with the panel recommendations and do not wish to be bound by the pay

and the pension provisions of Bill 37, the member may opt out of both the pay and

pension provisions by providing written notice to the Speaker within seven days

of this bill receiving royal assent. Notice to opt out is permanent and irrevocable.

In such a case the member would continue to be paid in accordance with the terms

of the existing compensation package.

The government recommends

Bill 37 to the House and, in advance of what will be a free vote for government

members, urges all MLAs to carefully review the provisions of Bill 37.

I move first reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong:

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for consideration by the

House at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 8060 ]

Bill 37, Legislative

Assembly (Members' Remuneration and Pensions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1355]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) WOODLOTS

C. Trevena:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about woodlots. Woodlots are one of the smaller

forms of forest tenure but ones which in many cases are the epitome of all we hear

about sustainability. As one woodlot owner said to me: "We're like the family farm

versus industrial agriculture."

In woodlots you

find the reality of stewardship, of looking after the resource. It's not just a

matter of making a living now, but it's for future generations, for families now

and in years to come. To make it work, you have to look after it. Often you find

yourself walking through a woodlot and finding it hard to work out where any logging

has taken place. It is truly selective logging.

There is also a

community responsibility. If a woodlot owner decides to strip-log, he won't only

ruin his future; he'll likely upset his neighbours and the community. Woodlots are

largely in small communities, and it's never good to upset your neighbours. You're

only going to see them at the mailbox, in the store or on the ferry.

I think that's one

of the reasons why woodlots work in small communities. Woodlot owners are our neighbours.

Their woodlots are their back yards and back onto ours, so there is clear community

accountability. They also make communities work, running their own sawmills or using

others in the community.

There are a number

of woodlots in my constituency of North Island. On Quadra Island alone there are

seven operating and another due to start up, which is going to be run by the Cape

Mudge First Nation. At any one time, one of them will be running, employing local

people and using local services.

It's not a rural

idyll. They are faced with the forestry issues of stumpage and the shift to electronic

filing more suited for the big operators. It is unquestionably hard work. But woodlots

are important for our communities' health and for our forests' health.

I would urge members

of this House to go out, hike around a woodlot and see for yourselves the part they

play in our province's forestry fabric.

LORI WIKDAHL

R. Hawes:

On a cold day in February 2002, Lori Wikdahl made a decision. At that time illness

had left her virtually bedridden. In her words: "I found relief in nothing. I had

no hope. I was lost." You see, Lori suffers from multiple sclerosis. On that day

she decided she would no longer succumb to her illness.

She began walking

a few steps each week and soon was walking every day. A few months later she struggled

through the 10K Super Cities Walk in Abbotsford. In New Brunswick on May 1, 2003,

Lori Wikdahl began a trek across Canada to raise awareness of multiple sclerosis.

This is a debilitating

disease that attacks the central nervous system, often robbing its victims of mobility,

coordination and speech. There's no known cure.

On February 7, 2004,

Lori Wikdahl poured water she had gathered from the Atlantic Ocean into the waters

of the Pacific in Stanley Park in Vancouver. She was the first woman to walk across

Canada, and in doing so, she became a beacon of hope for the thousands who suffer

from this most debilitating of diseases. In two weeks Lori will take

part in the

Great Walk, a very difficult trek between Gold River and Tahsis.

This is Multiple

Sclerosis Month. I can think of no better way to recognize this than by recognizing

the courage, tenacity and determination of Lori Wikdahl. These are surely the traits

needed for all victims of MS to survive.

Thank you, Lori,

for the example you have set for all of us and the hope you have given to those

who really need it.

HAIDALINK WIND POWER PROJECT

G. Coons:

I'd like to acknowledge an event so significant that it will blow you away. The

NaiKun Wind energy group and the Haida Nation recently announced that they have

entered into a memorandum of understanding to establish HaidaLink, a proposal that

would connect Haida Gwaii to the mainland energy grid at Prince Rupert. This large-scale

offshore wind farm will provide a cost-effective, clean, domestic energy source

to serve the growing electricity market in British Columbia.

The first phase

of the proposal, a 320-megawatt project located in the waters of the Hecate Strait

off the coast of Haida Gwaii, is to begin construction in 2009. This first part

of the project alone could provide power to 120,000 B.C. homes. When fully operational,

the five-phase wind farm will generate enough electricity to supply more than half

a million homes in British Columbia.

Arnie Bellis, chairperson

of the Haida Power Authority and vice-president of the Council of the Haida Nation,

recognizes the need for clean energy on Haida Gwaii. Currently the majority of their

power comes from burning diesel. He believes that HaidaLink will be a win-win for

everybody.

[1400]

The island can eliminate

most of its diesel generation by connecting to the B.C. Hydro grid, and the project

can provide the Haida Nation with a sustainable economic opportunity.

The recently signed

MOU is contingent upon NaiKun successfully completing the environmental impact assessment

process as well as the construction and operation of phase 1. The Haida Power Authority

will be the primary shareholder of HaidaLink, with a

[ Page 8061 ]

portion by the NaiKun Wind group, a Vancouver-based energy company.

As the region is

particularly rich in crab and migratory seabirds, a full and thorough environmental

assessment review is required by each of the three governments — the Haida Nation,

the province and the federal government.

This is a great

opportunity for B.C. and the Haida Nation. As the world recognizes our true potential,

we must ensure our green energy policy enshrines public ownership of all our valuable

renewable resources.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members. Members. Question period hasn't started yet.

STEVESTON WATER PARK

J. Yap: I'd

like to highlight a truly great project that is underway in my riding of Richmond-Steveston

and nearing completion by early June 2007. I'm of course speaking of the Steveston

water park. Located within Steveston Park, this water park will encompass the community

spirit of Richmond, maintaining a nautical theme in keeping with the heritage of

the Steveston community. The park is heavily used already by children in the surrounding

neighbourhoods, and this new water park will attract kids from all over Richmond.

The water park will

be one of the most inclusive on the lower mainland, if not in all of British Columbia.

With two sections — one catering to preschool children and the other focusing on

the more advanced interest of school-aged kids — it will attract children of all

ages.

But the feature

that sets it apart from the rest is the fact that the Steveston water park will

be able to meet the mobility requirements of all children. This means that those

in wheelchairs will also be able to enjoy a cool dip on a hot day, thanks to a water-ready

chair donated by the Rick Hansen foundation.

This project's success

is a true testament to the hard work and dedication of the Steveston Community Society,

who have worked tirelessly to fundraise and promote the benefits of bringing this

unique water park to Steveston. I want to commend the directors and many volunteers

for their efforts, in particular president Ben Branscombe and vice-president Jim

Kojima, who have been instrumental in moving this project from conception to reality.

Also making this

water park possible were the financial contributions from the city of Richmond,

the province of British Columbia and many community-minded private donors who combined

to enhance the atmosphere of the community and bring a whole new level of fun to

Steveston Park. Please join me in applauding the efforts of those involved.

If you find yourself

in Steveston this summer, please don't hesitate to take a run through the water

yourself.

EMMA PETERSON

G. Gentner:

Many accolades are expressed here regarding our remarkable young people — our Little

Leaguers, our hockey teams and even caucus softball teams. I want to share with

the House remarkable Emma Peterson, a grade 10 student from Burnsview Secondary

School in North Delta.

Emma took first

place in NASA's international essay competition judged by 24 NASA scientists. She's

the first Canadian to have won. The contest — mounted by NASA in a bid to inspire

what they hope will be the next generation of engineers, scientists and astronauts

— asked students to imagine living and working 50 years in the future. They were

to write an original essay describing how air and space transportation had changed

as a result of the successful implementation of new technologies by 2057. This amazing

young woman, at 15, competed with peers that were two to three years older than

her.

Her mom calls Emma

a normal typical kid who plays competitive soccer, snowboards, and produces films

and documentaries. Last year she went to a writers fair and slipped a copy of her

sci-fi novel under the eyes of a representative of a major publisher. He was so

amazed at what he saw that he stopped all interviews and began reading and editing

her book on the spot.

J.R.R. Tolkien,

H.G. Wells and Asimov — move over. There's an agent in New York right now marketing

Canada's next Atwood.

Sorry, Mom; Emma

Peterson is more than your typical average kid. She epitomizes British Columbia's

future.

[1405]

WEST VANCOUVER SHORELINE

PRESERVATION SOCIETY

R. Sultan:

That famous Viking warrior King Canute went to the beach one day, put down his chair

and ordered the tide to stop coming in. He almost drowned, but he made his point

to followers who were constantly reminding him of his great government powers.

We could use King

Canute on Ambleside beach in my riding. The tide rolls in, big waves undercut the

seawall, and our once sandy beach has been transformed into a patch of gravel.

Enter the West Vancouver

Shoreline Preservation Society. These concerned citizens have been analyzing shoreline

erosion in our community. They show photos from 60 years ago that show a wide, kid-friendly

beach; today, rocky shingle. What's going on?

Beaches are changeable

things. Ours has been adversely impacted by the Cleveland Dam, by the dredging of

the First Narrows ship channel, by the relocation of the mouth of the Capilano River,

by private bulkheads, by B.C. Rail causeway and by a stormier ocean environment.

Working with the

municipality, the society has tested various remedies. Pilot projects capture beach

material coming off the hillside and appear to be work-

[ Page 8062 ]

ing. More ambitiously, one can envisage offshore reefs to capture sand before

it disappears into the ocean deep.

It's not easy to

replicate Mother Nature, but thanks are due to Ray Richards, Jack Wood, Beryl Allen,

Chuck Brawner, Bruce Knight, Tim Arnold, Hugh Hamilton and Kevin Webb — I might

also mention my son, an ocean engineer, named Nels — for putting their collective

talent to work in order to preserve our Ambleside beachfront heritage.

Oral Questions

ROLE OF LIBERAL OFFICIALS

IN RCMP INVESTIGATION OF

GOVERNMENT STAFF

C. James:

The Premier's ultimate responsibility is to the public and to the law. When B.C.

Liberal Party executive director Kelly Reichert met with the Premier in June 2005

and told him that the RCMP were contemplating charges, why didn't the Premier say

it was inappropriate to have that discussion and end the meeting? Why did Mr. Reichert

leave that meeting with the Premier and begin the cover-up?

Hon. G. Campbell:

From day one I have called for an independent, open, unfettered investigation, and

I have called for that to be carried out without political interference. Frankly,

the Leader of the Opposition should understand this. It is important in our system,

it's important in our judicial system, and it's important in a democracy that there

not be political interference in judicial processes that are underway.

This opposition

has, for the last number of days, called on the government to interfere politically

in a judicial process that has not seen one single witness…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

Hon. G. Campbell:

…not one single witness.

So let me tell the

Leader of the Opposition this clearly. We will not interfere. We will not comment

on issues that are arising from the court, because we believe it is time for government

to stand up. It's always time for government to stand up for the rule of law and

the independence of the judicial process.

Mr. Speaker:

The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James:

I'm pleased that the Premier has finally gotten the message. Political interference

by the government is exactly why we're asking these questions.

Following the meeting

with the Premier, Kelly Reichert went to the police and pleaded with them to protect

the Liberal Party from embarrassment. That comes…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members. Members.

[1410]

C. James:

…directly from an RCMP report.

Again to the Premier:

when did the Premier know about this cover-up, and why is protecting the Liberal

Party more important than protecting the public from B.C. Liberal corruption?

Hon. G. Campbell:

You know, the only shame here is the Leader of the Opposition, who doesn't understand

the independence of the judiciary, the importance of an independent prosecutor that

has been established….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

Hon. G. Campbell:

This government has been very clear from the outset. We want a full, independent,

unfettered investigation. If prosecutions are necessary, they should be carried

out. That is carried out by an independent prosecutor.

The Leader of the

Opposition has an obligation to understand what independence of the judiciary means.

This government understands it. This government is going to stand behind independence

of our court processes, because that is a fundamental tenet of our democracy in

Canada.

Mr. Speaker:

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James:

Well, the Premier may think he can hide behind the court process, but apparently

he forgot to tell that to the rest of his members, since the Attorney General actually

spoke about the issue yesterday outside the House.

Yesterday the Attorney

General leapt to the defence of the Liberal Party and said there was absolutely

no reason for dirty tricks because the B.C. Liberals were in power.

Well, again to the

Premier: if the Attorney General is right and speaking out about this issue, then

why did Kelly Reichert leave a meeting with the Premier and try and involve the

police in a cover-up?

Hon. G. Campbell:

I think it's appalling, frankly, that the Leader of the Opposition tries to shield

herself in this House with those sorts of statements. Here's what the Leader of

the Opposition said just a few months ago.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

Hon. G. Campbell:

November 2, 2006: "The Attorney General should leave this case to the courts and

keep future comments to himself. It is essential to the rule of law" — this is the

whole opposition that was saying this — "that the integrity of the judicial process

not be interfered with. High-profile prosecutions have

[ Page 8063 ]

failed in the past because politicians felt compelled to make comments in public

that were later deemed to be prejudicial."

Let me say this,

Mr. Speaker. We will not prejudice this trial. We will not politically interfere

in the courts, because that's what's critical to justice today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

GOVERNMENT ROLE IN

PARTISAN MEDIA ACTIVITIES

B. Ralston:

The allegations we're discussing arise in part from an RCMP report that speaks of

knowledge of the commission of political dirty tricks at the highest levels of government.

This report was credible enough that the Attorney General felt he had to comment

on it yesterday outside the Legislature.

Will the Premier

advise the Legislature what he knew about political dirty tricks of operatives acting

for the B.C. Liberal Party?

Hon. G. Campbell:

You know, it's surprising to me that I have to talk to someone who claims to be

an officer of the court about the independence of the judicial process. It is really

amazing to me. We did not put these words in the opposition's mouth. This is what

the opposition says: "It's essential to the rule of law that the integrity of the

judicial process not be interfered with."

Let me say, hon.

Speaker, that I concur with that, and I am not going to sacrifice at the altar of

political expediency one of the fundamental tenets of Canadian democracy.

[1415]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

Member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston:

If the Premier won't say what he knew, will he say when he knew it?

Hon. G. Campbell:

Let me be perfectly upfront with the opposition. I want all the opposition to understand

this.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

Hon. G. Campbell:

The opposition leader herself said just last November that there should be no political

interference. It is essential to court processes. The opposition critic said that

high-profile prosecutions have failed because politicians felt compelled to make

comments in public that were later deemed prejudicial.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

Hon. G. Campbell:

From day one this government called for a full, independent, unfettered investigation.

There was an independent prosecutor. There is a judicial process in place. It is

only right for those people who are elected to public office to serve the public

interest and protect the independent judicial process.

D. Chudnovsky:

A little review. For weeks now…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

D. Chudnovsky:

…those of us on this side have been demanding that this government come clean on

whether political dirty tricks are being run out of the Premier's office and the

offices of cabinet colleagues. During that time the allegations have mounted each

day.

For weeks the Premier,

the Attorney General and the Minister of Finance have all refused to stand in this

House and denounce this type of activity. Yesterday the Attorney General, outside

this House, commented on the evidence and the allegations.

Today in the House

we're asking the Premier to comment on the allegations as well. Will the Premier

stand in this House today and denounce dirty tricks and cover-ups?

Hon. G. Campbell:

Let's recap. For weeks now the opposition has been advocating political interference

in the independent judicial process. For weeks now the opposition has come in, with

the shelter of this House, and made allegations which in their mind are free from

any sort of consequence.

The fact of the

matter is this. From day one this government called for an open, independent, unfettered

investigation. From day one we called for no political interference.

The difference between

this side of the House and that side of the House…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

Hon. G. Campbell:

…is that that side — and we know from their record — believes in political interference.

This side of the House believes in the independence of the courts for all the people

of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker:

The member has a supplemental.

D. Chudnovsky:

Will the Premier do today in the House what the Attorney General did yesterday outside

of the House? Will the Premier denounce dirty tricks and cover-ups in the House

to the people of B.C. today?

Hon. G. Campbell:

There's only one group in this House that deserves denouncement from anyone, and

that's the opposition. Unlike the opposition….

Interjections.

[ Page 8064 ]

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

Premier, just take

your seat for a second.

Continue, Premier.

[1420]

Hon. G. Campbell:

This is what should actually take place in these instances. There should be independent

investigations. It should be unfettered; it should be free of political interference.

Anyone who runs for public office knows that is a requirement.

The only group that

doesn't seem to understand that political interference is not appropriate is the

opposition. How desperate do you have to get to undermine one of the most fundamental

tenets of any democracy and the rule of law? The opposition is saying to politically

interfere. We will not politically interfere.

ROLE OF LIBERAL OFFICIALS

IN RCMP INVESTIGATION OF

GOVERNMENT STAFF

S. Simpson:

The Premier should understand we're not talking about something that is before the

courts here. We're talking about dirty tricks. We're talking about the dirty tricks

that have been condoned by this government. We're talking about the dirty tricks

that are coming out of offices of this government, and you'll know….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

Just take your seat

for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

Continue.

S. Simpson:

We're talking about dirty tricks — dirty tricks by this government, condoned by

this government, out of the highest offices of this government. They're not before

the courts, and part of the reason is because the executive director of the Liberal

Party, after a discussion with the Premier, went and begged the RCMP not to lay

charges. That's why they're not before the courts. That is interference. That's

interference.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

Take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members. Members.

Continue.

S. Simpson:

These aren't allegations from this side. This is a police report filed in the courts.

This is a police report.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

S. Simpson:

My question is a simple one to the Premier. Will he confirm or deny that the conversation

with Mr. Reichert occurred? And if it did occur, what advice did he give Mr. Reichert

before he interfered?

Hon. G. Campbell:

I assume from the question from the member opposite that he thinks the independent

prosecutor isn't doing his job. If he feels that way, he should say that to the

independent prosecutor.

These are the facts.

The fact is that for our system to work, it is not appropriate for political interference

to take place. The fact is that for our system to work…. We actually concur. I concur

with what the Leader of the Opposition said.

The opposition can

change their minds on all sorts of things. We've seen them do that in the past.

But this is one thing that this government will not change its mind on. We will

not be commenting.

Mr. Speaker:

Member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson:

The question isn't whether the special prosecutor is doing his job. The question

is whether the Premier is doing his job.

The Premier's first

job is to uphold the law in this province. His other job is to uphold the integrity

of this government. Both of those are in question today. So for once in this whole

discussion…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

S. Simpson:

…will the Premier put the public interest first — ahead of the B.C. Liberal Party

and his government — and tell the people: does he condone these dirty tricks, or

will he stop them?

Hon. G. Campbell:

I think that the member opposite has made an important point. In fact, the public

in British Columbia are going to judge this government's actions, just as the public

of British Columbia will judge that opposition and its actions.

[1425]

This is a government

that believes in an independent judiciary, that believes in the independent judicial

process, that believes in no political interference in any of those processes. That's

an opposition that believes in political interference first, political interference

second and political interference always, evidently.

GOVERNMENT ROLE IN

PARTISAN MEDIA ACTIVITIES

L. Krog:

The simple reality is that British Columbians expect answers. More importantly,

they deserve answers. The Attorney General said he doesn't condone dirty tricks.

He's determined, and he commented outside of this House, that the Liberals had no

reason

[ Page 8065 ]

to engage in dirty tricks. That sounds like a comment on the case to me.

My question to the

Premier is very simple. Can he tell us on what basis the Attorney General came to

that conclusion?

Hon. G. Campbell:

Hon. Speaker, it's great to hear from the critic for the Attorney General, who actually

articulated a principle that was very important just a few months ago. He's now

articulating a different principle. A few months ago it was important for politicians

not to interfere. A few months ago the critic for the Attorney General said…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

Hon. G. Campbell:

…that high-profile prosecutions have failed in the past because politicians felt

compelled to make comments.

That's critical.

Our politicians on this side of the House will not be making comments. It is

not correct to make comments. We will be protecting the independence of the judiciary.

When the courts have ruled, then the public will know what the situation is, and

they will make their own judgments.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

The member has a

supplemental.

L. Krog:

I wasn't aware that the charges before the court were for political dirty tricks

— not so far. But for a month the Attorney General said he wouldn't comment on the

case, and yesterday he did. Now the Attorney General has said the allegations can't

be true.

He's obviously come

to that conclusion. Will the Premier tell us if the Attorney General is right? It's

a simple question. Did the Liberal Party engage in a taxpayer-funded dirty tricks

campaign or didn't it?

Hon. G. Campbell:

The member can wriggle, and the member can squirm, but the fact of the matter is

that the principle remains the same, Mr. Speaker. The principle is to protect the

integrity of the courts. Again, we have an officer of the courts who doesn't seem

to understand that. That says an awful lot about the opposition.

Let me be clear

about this once again. This government will not interfere with this process, as

we said from the first day. It should be unfettered, it should be open, it should

be independent, and it should proceed to its conclusion without political interference.

That was our commitment then, and it's our commitment now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

ROLE OF LIBERAL OFFICIALS

IN RCMP INVESTIGATION OF

GOVERNMENT STAFF

R. Fleming:

Mr. Speaker, it's too late for the Premier to say that he won't politically interfere.

Mr. Reichert already has, and it's on tape.

My question to the

Premier is: when did Mr. Reichert tip off…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

R. Fleming:

…the Premier about the investigation? And will the Premier today outline the political

interference that has occurred from his party leadership and his cabinet colleagues

in the matter of political dirty tricks?

Hon. G. Campbell:

You know, Mr. Speaker, in two years we're all going to go to the polls, and we're

all going to be judged for the actions we take — both sides of this House.

[1430]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

Hon. G. Campbell:

So they're going to…. The people of British Columbia….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Premier, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

Continue, Premier.

Hon. G. Campbell:

The people of British Columbia will decide whether they want to support a party

that believes in the rule of law and an independent judiciary, or one that believes

in political interference.

The people of British

Columbia will decide whether they want a party which has brought our economy back

from the brink of destruction and from the fiscal mismanagement of the dismal decade

of the 1990s. The people of British Columbia will decide whether they want a party

that's given us the best health care system in Canada.

And, Mr. Speaker,

the people of British Columbia will be deciding whether they want to have a party

that stands on principle or political expedience.

J. Kwan:

When Kelly Reichert met with the Premier and was told by Kelly Reichert that charges

would likely be laid for political dirty tricks, did the Premier tell Kelly Reichert

not to politically interfere with the RCMP investigation? Or did the executive director

[ Page 8066 ]

the B.C. Liberal Party just ignore the Premier's advice, who happens to be the

leader of the B.C. Liberal Party?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

Hon. G. Campbell:

Again, let me try and say this in a way that the opposition will understand it.

This is actually an important part because….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members. Members.

Continue, Premier.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Campbell:

I believed it in November of 2006, and I believe it in May of 2007. I believed it

in 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2001. I've believed it as long as I've been involved

in public life, and I would expect everybody else in this House to believe this

as well. That is, it's essential to the rule of law that the integrity of the judicial

process not be interfered with.

Now, for some reason

— out of, I guess, desperation — the opposition has decided that that is no longer

a principle that they're willing to stand for. So let me be clear. This side of

the House, this government, will always stand for a free, independent judiciary

— free of political interference.

Mr. Speaker:

The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan:

The fact is that political dirty tricks are not before the courts. There are no

charges being laid, at least not yet. The fact is the RCMP documents released yesterday

marked "Kelly Reichert. Not for disclosure" show Kelly Reichert asking the RCMP

not to recommend charges for dirty tricks, because the details of the tricks would

be embarrassing to the B.C. Liberal Party.

My question to the

Premier is this. Will the Premier put his oath of office ahead of his political

interests and tell British Columbians what transpired in that meeting with him and

Kelly Reichert?

[1435]

An Hon. Member:

Same answer. Read it.

Hon. G. Campbell:

Can you hold up the card for me, please?

The fact of the

matter is that everybody in this House — everybody….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

Hon. G. Campbell:

All members in this House are required to uphold their oath of office — every single

member of this House. Part of our oath of office is to maintain the independence

of the judiciary.

While I intend to

carry on as I said I would from day one — to allow this process to reach its full

conclusion — when that conclusion is reached, I think the people of British Columbia

will judge. They will judge a government that has stood for principle or an opposition

that stood for political expedience.

GOVERNMENT ROLE IN

PARTISAN MEDIA ACTIVITIES

M. Farnworth:

We have heard a litany, over the last few weeks, of dirty tricks coming out of the

Premier's office, coming out of the highest reaches of the Liberal Party of British

Columbia. We have received no answers in this chamber — not one, hon. Speaker. Yet

the Attorney General feels it's okay to stand outside this chamber and say that

those things aren't acceptable and he doesn't believe them.

The Premier has

talked about principle. Well, if he doesn't want to answer in this chamber, when

he leaves this chamber, will he stand outside and tell the media…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Member, take your seat.

Whoever said that

down there, withdraw and apologize, please.

L. Mayencourt:

No, I'll leave the chamber.

Mr. Speaker:

Continue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

M. Farnworth:

Hon. Speaker, my question to the Premier is simple. When he leaves this chamber,

will he say that dirty tricks are not one of the principles that he believes in?

Hon. G. Campbell:

The member opposite can rest assured that when I leave this chamber, I will say

exactly what I said when this started. We need to have an independent review. It

has to be an independent investigation, and it has to be free from political interference.

Let me say, hon.

Speaker, that I am perfectly willing to stand before British Columbians in two years

and be acceptable and accountable for the actions this government has taken. I am

perfectly willing to stand on a government's record, which is to create better employment,

more employment — lower unemployment than ever in the history of this province.

I'm willing to stand

on the record of a government that has opened up opportunity in British Columbia

in every region of this province. I'm willing to stand in a government that stands

for principle, which says that

[ Page 8067 ]

we will not politically interfere in our courts. We will not do that until that

court proceeding is concluded.

Finally, Mr. Speaker,

let me say this. I hope the opposition will go and look at themselves in the mirror,

see what they actually said just six months ago, and tell British Columbians why

they've changed their mind and political interference is a better route than judicial

independence.

[End of question

period.]

Reports from Committees

R. Austin:

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the final report of the Special Committee

on Sustainable Aquaculture.

I move the report

be taken as read and received.

[1440]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong:

I call in this chamber committee stage debate of Bill 20, to be followed, ultimately,

by committee stage debate on Bills 35 and 33. In Committee A, Committee of Supply,

for the information of members, continued debate on the Ministry of Economic Development.

Committee of the Whole House

SCHOOL (STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

ENABLING) MENDMENT ACT, 2007

(continued)

The House in Committee

of the Whole (Section

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

The committee met

at 2:44 p.m.

Sections 18 and

19 approved.

section 20.

D. Cubberley:

It's an exciting challenge and my first experience of dealing with three pieces

of legislation in two days — actually in 24 hours. They all have their own complexity,

and that makes it a lot of fun and very stimulating.

[1445]

We had had some

discussion on a number of sections of this bill, and we're now into a series of

sections dealing with specialty academies, then trades programs and musical instrument

programs, which endorse or allow the charging of fees in quite tightly defined circumstances.

We all know the general history of how we got to the place of considering this part

of the legislation, and I won't go over that ground.

Following the striking

down of existing provisions by the courts, there's been considerable public discussion

around several areas which I believe are captured quite accurately in the four sections

that have a bearing on these kinds of fees. We heard a lot, after the court decision,

from families, students, trustees and educators in the areas of sports, recreation

— not so much trades, for my part, and not so much as was part of the public discussion

— and especially music programs.

Those voices said

very strongly and publicly that if there was no ability to charge fees in the instance

of specialty academies and no ability to charge for musical instrument rentals in

the schools, that programs would be lost and that choice would suffer. There can

be debate around this, I know, but the point was made by the families that these

are programs that are additional to core requirements in schools. They're not part

of the core curriculum.

They are, if you

will, an innovation, in the case of specialty academies, in the way that programs

are delivered. This allow things that cannot by their nature easily be made available

in a school as part of the core curriculum to be made available when there is an

audience amongst the families with kids in those schools. I know those voices very

well, because I happen to represent a suburban constituency with a large number

of schools.

I know them well

because I also have and have had a relationship, prior to becoming a legislator

in this chamber, with the schools in my district — the high schools in particular

and probably with one high school better than others, which is Reynolds. In the

area of specialty academies, in particular sports academies — which is what the

families tend to call them — I understand how those programs work.

I also understand

that in the case of a school like Reynolds, the possibility of creating a soccer

academy has made a tremendous contribution to the school, both for the kids who

have been enabled to make their way into that kind of program and have that experience

and also for the school as a whole, in gaining a reputation as an innovative school

and having an ability to, if you will, strut their stuff a little bit around achievement

and innovation.

The idea that was

conceived there — and there's a great deal of credit due to the teachers and the

principal at that school for conceiving it — has spread and continues to spread

around the province. More and larger urban centres, I believe, and not evenly in

those centres…. As it's understood better, other schools have been attracted to

it, and it offers tremendous advantages to the kids who get to participate in those

programs.

In the case of Reynolds

and other schools, as well, they have been anxious to keep the program open to people,

irrespective of financial means. That's certainly one of the important issues in

canvassing this clause and the idea of enabling it.

I want to say also

that I have heard and met with, as I know the minister has, many, many parents.

Many, many letters and several organizations advocate on behalf of both the specialty

academies and on behalf of music programs, and they marshal very persuasive arguments.

[1450]

As I say, I have

an understanding of how those programs work. I think every high school in my con-

[ Page 8068 ]

stituency has an academy program, in different areas — hockey at one, soccer

at another and lacrosse at a third, I believe.

There are fees charged

in those programs. The fees are required to enable the purchase both of access to

higher levels of coaching skill and access to recreational facilities or sporting

facilities that could not reasonably be provided at a high school. In the instance

of Spectrum, part of the pooling of funding is to be able to secure access to ice

time.

One of the things

that the bill does set out — and I am pleased that it does that — is to say that

if fees are going to be charged, there has to be a real hardship policy in place.

We'll have a chance to canvass that a little more under the specific clause.

I think it's very

important and it should not be underestimated that in legitimating the idea of being

able to charge fees for this kind of thing, it is tremendously important that a

balancing element be put in place. As we in this chamber know only too well, people

don't come to school with the same resources. While some kids' families will be

able to marshal the resources for this kind of thing, other kids' families may not.

It's absolutely necessary for fairness and equality that there be a means of access

to the program if we go ahead and create the power to have these fees.

The bill makes these

conditional on having a hardship policy in place, and I think that is a very good

thing. It's certainly what the families that I spoke with around Reynolds and their

organization were advocating, and I'm pleased to see that that's included in the

bill. We strongly advocate it, and we will want to make sure, if the bill should

pass, by chance — and it may — that upon implementation the hardship policy requirement

is taken seriously. I won't belabour that at this point.

It's important to

say and acknowledge as well that there are also dissenting voices on this issue.

I'm sure members opposite are aware of them. They are people who want to see public

education provided entirely free of fees. I respect that position and believe that

in a better world — not a perfect world but a better world — it would be how all

education would be provided. It would be fee-free. I think it's a goal that we should

be aiming for and not one that we should be moving away from.

I think the people

who advocate that position have a really clear image of public education as having

an obligation to provide equality of access and as it being a process of levelling

up, of redistributing opportunity to people. I personally believe that public education

is probably the most important redistributive mechanism we have created and that

it allows opportunity to come to people who otherwise might not have access to it.

I do think in a

better world, which hopefully one day we can get back to creating, that it will

be the case that there are absolutely no fees for anything. I also believe, along

the lines of the families who took the trouble to contact me, to lobby me, to persist

in making sure that I had some awareness of this problem — about sports academies

and music programs in particular — that to prevent any assessment of fees for these

kinds of programs, either for instrument rentals or for sports academies, would

actually have the effect in practice of reducing access to these kinds of programs

for kids from all walks of life.

I spoke with a lot

of people about this over the interim, the period of time we've had since the court

struck down the existing legislation. I want to say, in regard to specialty academies

before passing to a question, that I'm a supporter, along with that very wide range

of people and interests that have asked to be allowed the privilege of assessing

fees so that certain activities can occur. I'm a supporter of those in the very

limited and specific areas that are being targeted here, in this case the specialty

academies. But I have to say, as well, that in all of the conversations that I had

with people, all of the aspects that are in this bill were raised by them with me

except for one.

[1455]

There's one aspect

in here that I didn't hear, frankly, raised at any point in the public conversation

— it was never raised with me privately, and no interest group that I'm aware of

has asked for it — and that's the requirement that decisions regarding the creation

of specialty academies be subject to approval by school planning councils.

This is something

that almost has a Martian quality to it in the way that it dropped in from outer

space. It's counterintuitive, as well, to myself and to my colleagues and to virtually

all of the people that I've spoken with about this, none of whom knew it was coming

— that planning councils be given a veto over whether you would fund specialty academies.

I want to begin

by asking the minister if she could tell the House why she's proposing, in this

case, to elevate an unrepresentative body over trustees, who are elected directly

by the taxpaying public to oversee the spending of their money. Why did she choose

to elevate that body over an elected body in determining whether a specialty academy

could exist?

Hon. S. Bond:

First of all, the critic's comments reflect very accurately what this government

is responding to. I literally spoke to hundreds of parents and, most importantly,

students who said we need to protect choice through specialty academies, band instrument

rental and trades materials. In fact, this

section of legislation absolutely reflects

what government heard, and we're committed to retaining those kinds of choices within

public education.

The member opposite

spoke about hardship policies being in place. I can honestly say that as a former

school board trustee and chair, one of the things that was most important to us

was the whole issue of equity. We had very clear hardship policies in place. School

districts across the province today are required to have hardship policies in place,

and they work.

School trustees

care about equity. They care about children, and they use that frequently to make

sure that children have access to these programs. I'm very confident that boards

will continue to act in that way with the new legislation.

The member asks

about the role of school planning councils and why it was important and where it

came

[ Page 8069 ]

from. It came from this government's belief that parents have a critical role

to play in meaningful decision-making in schools. We've said that since the day

we took office, we believe it today, and we continue to say the same thing.

What this ensures

is that when we are going to look at a new program being created at a school — which

may impact a neighbourhood and the children that attend that school — parents have

a critical role to play in making sure that that's what the community of parents

is interested in having happen. We did not hear a specific request for this, but

continually and constantly as I work with parents and travel across this province,

there's a message from parents: "We want roles in public education. We want a meaningful

role."

One would think

that if we want to work through the possibility and the ongoing role of fees being

charged for some programs, then absolutely parents should have a meaningful role

in that decision-making process.

D. Cubberley:

I think we would agree 100 percent about parents having meaningful roles in the

processes. But to confer on an unelected body — at least an unrepresentative, unelected

body, which in some cases may not actually exist — a veto over whether elected trustees,

who have the responsibility for deciding how taxpayer dollars are spent and who

have to face election and have to deal with parents directly…. To pick a body which

I think the vast majority of parents don't know exists and give it a veto is a curious

codicil to place on this policy.

The question I have

is: why would you pick a body that most households couldn't name as even existing,

that most parents don't know exists, that plays no role in the life of the parents'

relationship with the school and that is much further away from parents than, say,

parent advisory councils are? Why give it a veto?

Hon. S. Bond:

In some ways I beg to differ with the critic. The representatives that are on school

planning councils are our parents. They're actually closer to parents. I remember

this as a locally elected school board trustee. Would that I had been recognized

globally in my community for being a school trustee. That would have been a wonderful

thing.

[1500]

I would suggest

that the parents who sit on school planning councils are chosen by parents in that

community, and in fact, the expectation with this piece of legislation is that school

planning councils also must communicate with the parent advisory council.

This is about giving

parents the opportunity to have a meaningful decision about whether or not fees

will be charged for a program that's going to take place in their very school. We

don't think that's unreasonable, and it keeps it very close to the very group of

people that it's going to impact.

D. Cubberley:

The very group of people that it's going to impact are the parents who are sponsoring

the proposal for the academy, because they are the ones who will be paying the fees.

I would submit that in most cases, those are not parents who are going to be on

the school planning council.

I'd be interested

to know whether the minister knows how many schools actually have school planning

councils in place. What percentage of schools have school planning councils in place,

that are functioning?

Hon. S. Bond:

I don't have the exact number, but the fact of the matter is that schools are required

by law to have a school planning council. Indeed, the member opposite is correct.

There are some school districts in which that has been a challenge.

One of the challenges

we had in one particular school district was that teachers chose not to participate

in school planning councils from day one. That was a challenge, but school districts

and schools are required to have school planning councils in place.

There is inconsistency

across the province, and we're working with the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory

Councils on how we can strengthen school planning councils and make sure that schools

are abiding by what is law.

D. Cubberley:

What I'm hearing from the minister is that while they may be required by law, they

aren't in fact in place in all schools or school districts. They aren't up and functioning,

which could be a reflection of the fact that they are having some difficulty, shall

we say, establishing a role for themselves within schools and maintaining credibility

with parents, educators, school trustees, administrators and others who work in

the school system.

I'm surprised for

the minister to say that she doesn't know how many are actually up and running.

I would think….

Interjection.

D. Cubberley:

No, but I would think that if you want to give a veto over spending to a body, you

would want to know whether that body had warm bodies on it or not. I will ask once

again: what percentage of these are actually at work with warm bodies on them and

functioning in the school in some fashion?

Hon. S. Bond:

As I said to the critic, we don't know the exact number. Most recently, I have sent

a letter to school districts asking for, first of all, compliance with the law in

British Columbia, and we expect school districts to have school planning councils

in place.

We are working with

the school districts to make sure that there is consistency across the province.

The critic is reflecting concerns that have been expressed by school trustees when

I met with them and most recently in letters that we've received.

We've been clear.

We are going to work with school trustees to sort through the issues that are of

concern to them, but we also have heard from parents about how important it is for

them to have a significant and meaningful role in this decision-making process.

That's what the legislation reflects.

[ Page 8070 ]

D. Cubberley:

I have to say, as a parent with a child in school, that I haven't heard any parents

talking about it, and I go to the school fairly regularly. Also, as critic for Education,

I have spoken with many of the parents and received the letters from them lobbying

in favour of this ability to have a specialty academy.

I have to say that

I went over those letters, and I never saw one letter in there that requested more

opportunity for parents outside of the ability to engage in support of the specialty

academy or to participate directly in institutions. I never saw a letter which said:

"What we really need here is for the school planning council to have a veto over

these fees that we are trying to be able to assess for specialty academies." I have

heard no parents ask for it.

What I have heard,

and I think it's really important…. This bill is an omnibus bill. It makes wide-ranging

and very important changes to public education.

[1505]

Those changes are

not without controversy, which the minister is fully aware of. One of the largest

controversies that has occurred is with school trustees. School trustees were among

the most prominent interest groups pressing for the ability to be able to, in these

very defined areas, have fees assessed to facilitate programs. The school trustees

were well positioned, I believe, to be strong supporters of the legislation that

was being brought in, and the school trustees are not strong supporters of this

bill.

How did that happen?

It didn't happen entirely because of this clause which is embedded in the bill.

It happened, in part, because the bill removes substantial authority from school

districts in a way that was done without any consultation or warning and has dramatically

upset that group of people who are now looking over their shoulder and wondering

whether the system of co-governance, which has prevailed in the province, is in

fact starting to be undermined by changes initiated by government.

The school planning

council…. The dropping in of this veto fits very well with some of the other things,

like the dropping in of an appeal process without any public discussion before doing

it. It fits in very well with that part of the bill. It is in our opinion and, respectfully,

most unfortunate that there wasn't discussion prior to suggesting this kind of thing.

To step to legislation with no discussion, to refer to parents who aren't identified,

to not be able to refer to any interest groups that are asking for something and

to say we'll try to put a fence around it after we pass broad-ranging legislation

is, quite frankly, not a very good approach to crafting legislation.

It does make it

look like sausage-making, quite frankly, and we need to move away from that. We

don't want to do things that way, because it unnecessarily gets people riled up,

and it has. It has.

I want to read briefly

from a North Vancouver school district letter which was sent to the minister. She'll

be aware of this, but I think it's important that the House gets a sense of how

trustees see this bill. This is a bill they were positioned to support until these

things were done. This is Chris Dorais, North Vancouver school district. Having

commented on other problems in the bill, Chris Dorais suggests:

"Finally,

the power being provided to school planning councils with respect to charging

fees is inappropriate. This will enable a body, which does not have the mandate

of the electorate and community, to make decisions on the future of programming

and fees for those programs in a school district.

"We believe

that school planning councils should be consulted. They should be consulted. I

think that's quite reasonable, as PACs should be consulted because they play an

important role, or we hope they do, in a community. However, to provide a body

that is effectively appointed or elected from a small subset of the community

with this type of veto is completely undemocratic and could restrict opportunities

for school boards to improve programming and address the financial impacts of

declining enrolment.

"We would

ask again that Bill 20 be amended to provide for SPC consultation rather than

a veto."

I ask the minister

candidly here: why would you not simply have brought in a requirement for consultation,

which would have created an avenue for meaningful discussion? It would be a formal

requirement before proceeding with the development of any proposal to refer it to

a school planning council for comment and to refer it to a parent advisory committee,

as well, for comment, and simply leave it at that. Why would you bring it in as

a veto?

Hon. S. Bond:

As I said to the member opposite previously, this is not about a specific request

to give parents more meaningful roles in public education; it's an ongoing commitment

of this government to say, since 2001, that we're going to have parents involved

in meaningful ways. That includes a balance when we're bringing a piece of legislation

to the floor which, in fact, will allow school districts to create fees and specialty

academies in schools where those parents' children will attend.

We believe that

what's absolutely essential in order to bring balance to this bill…. I appreciate

the concerns that the member opposite is expressing on behalf of B.C. school trustees.

While I can certainly agree that I didn't receive hundreds of letters asking for

school planning council validation, every single time that I visit the B.C. Confederation

of Parent Advisory Councils — who, as the member opposite would know, is the provincial

organization representing parents — they continue to say: "We want meaningful and

significant roles in public education."

[1510]

We've been committed

to that since 2001. We believe that it is reasonable, if a school board is going

to add a new program which will change the face of a school and also charge fees

for which parents will be responsible, that ultimately they should have a significant

role in that decision, and that's what the bill says.

D. Cubberley:

I appreciate the comments from the minister, and BCCPAC is certainly an important

organization. But I would suggest with the greatest respect…. For example, BCCPAC

recently passed a resolution calling for the passage of a bill to protect

[ Page 8071 ]

anaphylactic students. That does not mean that the minister will act on that,

nor should it. The minister should take that as one piece of advice and consider

it with other pieces of advice.

I'll resist the

temptation to tell her other pieces of advice in that regard, but I don't want to

resist the temptation here, because it's a very important public purpose that we're

discussing.

I think this particular

provision strikes trustees as being one brick too many being added to the backpack.

I think that if you look at the April 2 letter from trustees, it was trying to alert

government to the fact that it was overswinging. I just want to read it into the

record, because it's important. These are the strongest institutional proponents,

the strongest interest group, asking for the ability to be able to do this, to create

these specialty academies.

They have said:

"While

we are also pleased that fees can be collected for specialty academies, we are

concerned that including a requirement of school planning council approval for

these fees muddies the water of accountability. SPCs have no direct accountability

to the public" — that's a very important point: they are not responsible to the

public — "and continue to experience challenges in representation and decision-making.

It's unclear how SPCs would reach democratically representative and locally accountable

decisions in these matters.

"SPC membership

can change significantly from year to year based on the availability and willingness

of the representatives. It could also potentially alter the composition and focus

of SPCs by encouraging individuals for or against a specialty academy to seek

membership" — this is raising a practical consideration about how politics works

amongst families, in a neighbourhood and around schools — "rather than those interested

in focusing on the broader improvement goals of the school.

"We also

have concerns about non-elected individuals making decisions that effect the allocation

of public funds, since it is not just additional fees but also district operating

funds that run specialty academies. This provision could also result in funding

instability to specialty academies and jeopardize their ability to attract students."

This is very important. "As well, there are potential complications for specialty

academies that are actually district programs but are located in a single school"

— which is a perfectly reasonable way to set a program up. "The ability for a

single SPC to not approve funding for a program at a particular school narrows

a board's ability to provide specialty academies to students throughout the district."

In consequence of those concerns, and those are substantial concerns, "we urge

you to replace the provision for school planning council approval of the establishment

of specialty academy fees with a provision that provides SPCs with the opportunity

for input."

I would submit to

the minister on this that the opportunity for input is really what she described

parents as wanting to have. If the SPC is a vehicle for that, we should have a mechanism

in this bill that allows for input to decisions, that rewards participation by allowing

that avenue of input, and we should do the same for parent advisory councils.

To give a veto to

a body which is not representative of the community and has an ability to guide

the expenditure of taxpayer funding, some of which comes from the local level, is

inappropriate. I would seek the minister's response.

[1515]

Hon. S. Bond:

Only a brief one, Madam Chair, because I've answered it on numerous occasions. In

fact, we believe, if there is going to be a fee charged for a program within their

school and they're going to pay the fee, that parents should have a significant

role in making that decision.

D. Cubberley:

Well, I'm going to seek to place an amendment on the floor — because we do think

that it's important, given the interest represented here — that would alter this

in the way that trustees and others have asked, and which I think accords with common

sense.

The amendment, if

it's allowable, would simply say:

Section 20, 82.1(2)(

a) is deleted and the following text is added:

(2) a board may offer a specialty academy if

(

a) the school planning council and the parent advisory committee for the school

where the board proposes to offer the specialty academy have been consulted, and ]

There's a copy

for the Clerk and a copy for the minister. I'll await the decision.

The Chair:

Continue.

On the amendment.

D. Cubberley:

I believe that some other members may wish to speak to this. I think I've made the

case that's embodied in the actual amendment. I would urge members to recall what

we did yesterday afternoon when we looked at a piece of legislation that the government

had before the House, Bill 22, which involved modifications to PEN numbers. In recognition

of the fact that there was something missing from the bill, the minister brought

in an amendment to the bill, which we supported. That amendment improved the bill.

I think that's an important thing for members of the House to keep in mind.

We have an opportunity

here to improve a

section of the bill that is not at issue by taking out a provision

which can only offend and will not, I would submit, achieve the purpose that the

minister has stated for its being included.

I'll cede to other

members who may wish to comment, but this is an opportunity to improve this bill.

N. Macdonald:

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this amendment. It's an amendment that

I think the House should support.

It would be interesting

if I knew the full history of how the school planning councils came to be. My sense

was — and this was at a distance — that Christy Clark made a speech and made plans

or spoke to the parent advisory committee and made a commitment to in-

[ Page 8072 ]

volve parents more. As an elementary school principal, you need the parents involved.

I think that that has always been the way it is, and it remains so.

The mechanism that

the government came up with…. I think it was when Ms. Clark was the minister responsible.

It could have been with Mr. Christensen. No, I'm sure it was with Ms. Clark. She

came up with the idea of the school planning council, and she mandated it for schools.

The question that

the critic asked the minister about how many schools do not have school planning

councils is a significant one. The government will give, with this legislation,

significant powers to the school planning councils. I would make two points. First,

I think that's the wrong place to go. Second, there are complications with the school

planning councils — that system.

I can tell you,

as a principal, we had an obligation, as the minister pointed out, to have a school

planning council set up. I had it at my school. Especially with elementary schools,

it's easier. I had a very active parent advisory council that were fully involved

in decisions that we made at a certain level. I can tell you that it was a challenge

to twist arms to get them to go to the school planning council.

I was lucky to have

a teacher that would volunteer. When they volunteered to do that, it meant that

they weren't available to do something else, and that's one issue. You have a finite

amount of time. I would have preferred it if the teacher had worked with the badminton

club or something else. She had to give that up, because there are only so many

evenings that are available. Instead, she was good enough to come on the school

planning council.

[1520]

Then you have to

convince a number of parents to come on and deal with issues that at times they

don't feel are within their purview. They are difficult issues. You are dealing

with a school planning document that you can certainly explain and get people to

understand, and then they will pass it. But there's very often the illusion of real

input, rather than the reality of real input. That is just the nature of what is

being dealt with often at school planning councils. That was my experience.

To have a group

of parents together is always a useful thing. School planning councils, as the trustees

made it clear to the minister, are a group that change often. They are a group that

it is very often difficult for a principal to put together. People are busy in their

lives. They give up an evening to come and participate at the school, and they really

want to know that it's meaningful. Very often they don't want to sit and do the

things that the school planning council asks them to do.

That was my experience.

It was still a lovely group to sit with. We did accomplish some things.

To use this as a

mechanism that would give some veto power, I think, is just inappropriate. It doesn't

make sense, and I think that on the ground it wouldn't work. I guarantee you the

school planning council would give their views on this, that it is something that

of course the school planning councils would participate in and that they would

be fully consulted. If the PAC or the school planning council was against something

going forward, well, I would be surprised if that's something that the principal

would then push.

Trustees are the

ones that are responsible, and it makes complete sense to leave those sorts of decisions

with school trustees. To muddy the waters — and I think that's a term that the trustees

use — by giving some sort of veto power to the school planning councils makes no

sense at all to me.

I see it serves

a political process. It allows the minister to go to the PACs and say, "Here, this

is what I've done for you," but in practical terms it does not make sense. Philosophically,

I think that the critic has very clearly laid out, similar to what the trustees

association has laid out, that it is not a sensible way to proceed as well.

I certainly think

that this is a reasonable amendment. It is one that will improve this. It would

be my hope that it's one that would be supported. I thank the critic for putting

it forward, because it's very sensible.

I turn over to my

colleague to continue.

C. Wyse:

I, too, would like to rise in support of the amendment that has been put in front

of the House. There's an aspect that I would like to elaborate upon, and that is

programs that are offered as a district program. That becomes an issue in rural

districts, whether it be a band program, for example…. Given the set of circumstances

without the amendment in place, it requires the endorsement of an unknown number

of planning councils. It brings a destabilization into the system, albeit possibly

inadvertently, but it in actual fact does do that.

The amendment allows

for the consultation that has been suggested, but it allows it to be obtained in

exactly that fact without undermining the general responsibility that has been assigned

to local trustees. In doing such, they have not taken into account such programs

that I have mentioned from a districtwide basis.

Where I'm from,

in a rural district, it is not uncommon to have many of these planning councils

that simply are not functioning. When you get into programs that deal with "must,"

then how do you keep them running when legislation makes it mandatory? How do you

offer districtwide programs that would require more than one of these planning councils

to come together? You increase the chances of not having that type of a situation

being allowed to obtain the conclusion that the ministry is attempting to do here.

[1525]

I would suggest

that there are a number of reasons why the ministry would be interested in actually

supporting this very sensible resolution, the amendment that is put into place.

I don't believe that the intention is to destabilize the local government through

the board of trustees, but by leaving this type of legislation as it reads, that

in actual fact becomes one of the outcomes.

Once more I would

like to thank for the opportunity to have been able to present this point of view

on behalf of the more rural districts across the province.

Amendment negatived

on division.

[ Page 8073 ]

section 20.

D. Cubberley:

I'd like to just move a little bit into the trades program area and ask how

fees and the potential hardship policy relative…. I should not ask too much at once.

The potential in the trades program that's being conferred here is to charge for

what? Just to give a sense to everyone in the chamber what it is that this will

do.

[H. Bloy in the

chair.]

Hon. S. Bond:

In fact, the resources necessary for many trades and apprenticeship programs are

extremely expensive. This would allow the school district to either charge a rental

fee for tools that are provided for a student or require the student to bring their

own tools.

D. Cubberley:

I'm assuming that…. I'll date myself in framing the question this way, I know. It's

been a long time since I was around a high school shop, and I'm not entirely aware

of how much shop is actually taught at schools of a general kind, currently.

The impact of allowing

fees around a trades program won't prevent or begin to exclude or preclude the provision

of more general education around the use of tools in any apprenticeship area that

a student might have access to. Does it risk in any way, for lack of a better term,

professionalizing involvement in training that's consistent with trades training

but isn't part of an apprenticeship?

Hon. S. Bond:

This does not impact industrial arts programs or anything like that.

D. Cubberley:

Unless there's another member on this side who wants to raise an issue here, I'd

just like to pass to the requirement for a financial hardship policy. We can use

the instance of musical instruments or any of the areas to illustrate this, but

the minister had commented before on the importance of a hardship policy.

I would say it would

be impossible for members on this side to support this part of the bill if we did

not believe that this would be meaningful policy. At the same time one recognizes

that, even with a hardship policy in place, it's less than an ideal situation because

it involves elements that are extremely sensitive for individuals who are in the

position where they lack the resources to participate on their own dime.

I want to ask the

minister for some sense of comfort around how this is going to work and to what

extent and in what ways we will ensure that the no-hardship policies around these

fees are meaningful so that people of lesser means are not precluded from involving

themselves in these programs.

[1530]

Hon. S. Bond:

As the member would note by looking at the legislation, the

section says that

if a school board actually wants to offer specialty courses or charge fees, they

must have a policy in place to prevent children not having access. You know, that

is an essential component. They will not get to do the preceding parts if they haven't

actually got a policy in place.

I can only say again,

as a former school board chair and trustee, that virtually every school board in

the province today already has a hardship policy in place and they, as school trustees

and staff and others, are probably more concerned than the critic and I could ever

be about ensuring that access is in place for children.

So you don't get

to do the previous parts of the

section unless you have a demonstrated policy that

clearly says that all of the fees of the board are subject to a hardship policy.

D. Cubberley:

I agree with the minister about the importance accorded to this by trustees, but

I'm also mindful of the fact that in practice, on the ground, it's typically the

teacher who is the person who will deal with this situation. I have tremendous respect

for the sensitivity of teachers in the handling of that, but it's a very, very difficult

issue. I don't envy them to be in the position of dealing with it.

I took some time

over the summer to talk to some teachers who do deal with this in relation, in particular,

to specialty academies — to get a sense of how they handle it. What I'm really looking

for here is an indication or an assurance that we're moving in the same direction.

Of course, we have

to move from the rather dry language of the bill to try and conjure how this would

work in reality, what that obligation that we're saying will be placed on school

districts would look like around this. To make it a little more concrete, I want

to ask a question as to: "Would it mean this?"

Would it mean, in

effect, having a no-hardship policy in place, that school district staff would be

prepared to waive fees in part or in whole to ensure that no student is denied access

to a program or activity — a student qualified for that activity or program? Would

that be a fair

interpretation of a no-hardship policy?

Hon. S. Bond:

I'm certainly not going to comment that that would be the only language or that

it would be the template language, because every policy, every board, has a slightly

different way of expressing it. What the policy has to capture is this: that they

have a procedure in place to facilitate participation by students of school age,

ordinarily resident in British Columbia, who would otherwise be excluded from the

course, class or program because of financial hardship.

I think that the

legislation is very clear. They must have a process in place that if there is a

child who could be excluded from a program because of financial reasons, they must

ensure that child has access.

Section 20 approved.

section 21.

D. Cubberley:

I just wanted to ask the minister a question on this. We canvassed this in the early

going

[ Page 8074 ]

on the bill, but I do want to ask the question for the record.

Why a requirement

that a board can only operate an early learning program with the prior agreement

of the minister? Why not allow boards to operate early learning programs if they

decide to operate early learning programs? Why have ministerial approval for an

early learning program?

[1535]

Hon. S. Bond:

The critic is correct. We have canvassed this.

Let me just very

succinctly say that we are beginning a series of early learning programs across

the province. Boards will enter into an agreement with us to host those programs.

They will be based on early learning and focused on pre-literacy skills in particular.

We know that will make a difference, so they will be required to enter into an agreement.

This is not to take

away or diminish community-level programs that exist. I want to be very clear about

that. I do not want there to be concern about those community providers and programs

that currently exist.

We are very excited

about a new program called StrongStart British Columbia. It has a series of principles

that look at a focus on pre-literacy. We are providing funding to boards for that.

We want to see those programs focus in that way, and they will be asked to have

an agreement with the minister to offer those.

Sections 21 to 36

inclusive approved.

section 37.

D. Cubberley:

I love the coordination, Mr. Chairman. It's a wonderful thing, isn't it? I should

have gotten involved in it much sooner, and in future I will always have that level

of organization.

Section 37 is a

very innocuous

section in the bill, but at some level it's going to have a potentially

profound impact on public education and non-public education in British Columbia

— at least as I read it, considering there are only eight words being removed from

the current act.

This is certainly

not an inconsequential change. I'd be interested, before launching into other questions,

to get a sense from the minister as to why this language is being taken out — what

the intent of removing this language is.

Hon. S. Bond:

While there are a number of words, this is about providing opportunities for children

in different ways within public education, who may not be successful in the current

system the way that it is structured.

It's also about

looking at best practice. It's about looking at areas like perhaps trades and technology

and clustering a group of children in a school where we can learn about best practice.

But it is very much to allow for choice and opportunity to meet the needs of children

in different ways within our public education system.

D. Cubberley:

Within public education — that's interesting. One of the things that was reported

publicly about a meeting that was held…. Obviously, we have to create the connection

back to this. A meeting was held on the minister's behalf with some interest groups

around the possibility, I believe, of an autism school on a new model.

Certainly, what

was reported out from that meeting was that what was discussed was not a school

that would be within public education. It was a school that would be outside of

public education — delivered in a different manner, funded in a different manner

and not under the direction of a school district.

I'm interested to

know whether this in any way, shape or form is connected to that. I perceive a connection.

A discussion began occurring publicly before the bill came in but has certainly

not been denied as the direction that I'm aware of.

[1540]

I guess they were

being called model schools in the newspaper, or provincial schools. One doesn't

see any denial of the fact that there is looking at models that are not within public

education. So when the minister framed it as being innovation within public education,

I had the impression that it's maybe innovation without public education.

Hon. S. Bond:

Well, first of all, we haven't determined any model, and I think that's an important

thing. What we are doing is responding to parents who feel that public education

the way it's currently structured does not meet the needs of their children.

I know that the

critic and I, in estimates and various other venues, have certainly talked about

the fact that we need to make some changes and that there are certain groups of

children for whom the system is not working very well. We need to sort out how to

do that.

This is about listening

to what parents have to say about their concerns. Of course, we are going to listen

to any parents who come to us and talk about the pros and cons, and that's exactly

what happens any time you suggest change.

But to the member

opposite's point, there is no model. There is no specific model. This is an opportunity

for us to discuss innovation. This is not about an independent school. This is about

a relationship with the Ministry of Education and finding ways to support children

that help them be more successful. I think that's actually something we should be

bold enough to think about.

D. Cubberley:

I can assure the minister that I'm bold. But to come back to what's being said….

The minister says that it's not about an independent school. But her staff, at least,

have had a meeting with interest groups where there was a discussion of something

which, in every regard that I could imagine, was in fact an independent school.

She can deny that staff had that meeting, but I have seen and talked to people about

the meeting.

There was a very

public approach by a former Minister of Education regarding a private contract to

[ Page 8075 ]

deliver a model school. So the range of innovation that the minister is considering

is certainly not limited to things that are not independent schools. In fact, really

all of the proposals that we have heard about so far, which have not been very well

fleshed out…. The ones that have been more fleshed out, because they leaked out,

have in fact been independent schools.

Is there something

in here that I'm missing that would prevent these being independent schools — the

model schools being fully independent schools?

Hon. S. Bond:

I said to the critic that this would be under the School Act, not the Independent

School Act — any model that we are contemplating. You know, maybe the member opposite

has not heard about any other opportunities. He reflects on a model that I can't

even attribute to being able to describe.

We have no specific

proposal in front of us. We have made no decisions. This is enabling legislation

to allow us to talk about opportunities for students in this province that might

involve innovation and might involve schools within schools. There's just a world

of possibility that we need to explore to ensure students' success.

Let me give the

member opposite an example of that. In a recent visit to Bella Coola there was a

proposal — just a general discussion — about the opportunity to offer a provincial

school based on aboriginal carving and how it has brought together a number of cultural

principles, working within graduation requirements.

Those are the kinds

of exciting proposals that are coming to us. When I say proposal, I want to be thoughtful.

I do not have a piece of paper that says: "Here's what we want to do." It's: "Here

are our ideas. Please let us work through this with you."

This is enabling

legislation. We think that's appropriate, and of course we're going to discuss options

of that nature with parents who have those concerns.

D. Cubberley:

There are so many interesting aspects to this that I hardly know which one to begin

with, but I want to come back to the comment that the minister made early on about

hearing from parents regarding the public classroom that, as currently structured,

doesn't meet the needs of their children.

That's one of the

things that I've heard the minister say. In fact, when I asked a question in the

House about this in question period, the minister made a similar comment about the

public school system not meeting the needs of special needs kids.

Yet at the same

time, the minister is saying that the system is working well. The cap on special

needs kids in the classroom and the conversation that takes place when the cap is

exceeded are all meaning that the appropriate resources are going to the special

needs kids in the classroom and that the system is fine the way it is and no additional

resources are needed. I'm having difficulty squaring those two things.

[1545]

The system is working

fine the way it is with the funding that we put in place and the programs that we

have in the system; and then on the other hand, the system isn't working well for

certain parents, and we need a model that's outside the inclusive classroom.

Interjection.

D. Cubberley:

Why not? I think it's a fascinating topic. I mean, someone once remarked that

a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, but I don't think this is

a foolish consistency we're looking for. We're looking for consistency in statements

about public education in British Columbia, and that's not foolish.

Hon. S. Bond:

I'll resist the temptation to make this any longer than it needs to be.

Of course I talk

about the success of public education in British Columbia. I am an advocate for

public education, and our results for the vast majority of children are outstanding.

Having said that, I am concerned that 11,000 children in this province do not graduate

every year. I would point out to the critic that when I speak about the success

of children, I don't single out children with special needs. I'm talking about aboriginal

children, other children, typical children who are not meeting success.

Of course we should

explore options. That's what our responsibility is. If 11,000 children a year do

not graduate, I would suggest that we need to make some changes. For the vast majority

of children, our system is one of the finest in the world. Yes, there are those

two circumstances — a system that for 79 percent of our students is outstanding,

but unfortunately it's only successful for 47 percent of our aboriginal children.

We do have some challenges. This is an opportunity for us to explore for all children,

not simply those children with special needs.

There is one statement,

hon. Chair, that I must correct and will do clearly. This is not about moving away

from an inclusive classroom. The principle of inclusion will continue to be the

model for delivery in British Columbia, and I certainly hope that the member opposite

would help me in being clear in that message. We do not want to cause concern for

families who have children with special needs. I have met, as recently as this weekend,

with members of families who have that concern.

We can simply say

this: the model of inclusion remains, and it would be unfortunate if a statement

like "outside the inclusive classroom" is something that would be repeated. That

is not accurate in fact. The principle of inclusion remains in place today and will

in the future in this province.

D. Cubberley:

There won't be any argument on this side of the House against the value of the inclusive

classroom. We support it as a principle; we support it as an idea. The fact is that

when you look at it, especially from the point of view of special needs kids, science

suggests that it works for them. That's where the evidence lies.

Where there's less

evidence — and this is where I want to probe the minister's thinking — is that pulling

some kids out and dropping them into model schools

[ Page 8076 ]

has beneficial effects. Surely the minister, in evoking the 79-percent success

rate and 21 percent not succeeding, is not suggesting model schools for 21 percent

of the population. The mind boggles.

One could imagine

what that might look like, and I would submit it would be ugly and beyond any financial

means that we have available to us. The Minister of Finance is smiling, but she

wouldn't be if you showed up with that proposal.

It's not working

for some — 21 percent of them. Model schools are one way we can improve it for the

21 percent. Let's say that we were talking about autistic kids. What percentage

of autistic kids would go to the autism model school? What percent would it be?

Would it be 1 percent? Would it be Z\z/ of 1 percent? Would it be Z\z// of 1 percent?

What percent of autistic kids would go to the model school? How would that have

an impact on the autistic kids who are in the inclusive classroom? What impact could

that have?

Hon. S. Bond:

First of all, the point here is that until we work to find a way to meet the needs

of every one of those 11,000 children, we're not going to rest on this side of the

House.

[1550]

Now, the question

is: how many of them will be in model schools? We don't even have a model school

proposal in front of us yet. The member opposite should also be aware that while

standing in the House and reflecting the views of the majority of parents is important,

the member is actually criticizing the views of other parents who have come to us

and said: "Please work with us. Please listen. Please find options."

It's not the government

standing here today and saying that we are going to do this because we think it's

the greatest thing on the planet. We are responding to parents who have said: "Please

talk to us about our children and how we can work together to help them be more

successful." I'm not sure how anyone could be opposed to that.

D. Cubberley:

It's interesting. The minister always comes up with parents who have spoken to her

about something, out of which we formulate legislation. But the parents are very

select parents. Sometimes — often, in fact — they're not in groups, not named. They're

running — shall we say, in the opinion being listened to — counter to what a majority

of parents might feel who might have an interest in the area. So invoking these

parents doesn't help very much in advancing the discussion, because they're largely

unknown.

However, as a result

of the kerfuffle around the secret meetings and the selective invitations to the

briefing — which wasn't a briefing, which didn't happen and which staff weren't

involved in, but were — and all of the other kinds of slipping and sliding with

this thing that has occurred in public, there has been a little bit of copy and

some statements by people.

What's interesting

is that one of those interests that has lobbied the minister for a model school,

which happens to be in the area of autism, did speak in public. She is highly critical

of the situation in the classroom now. She dislikes the structure in the classroom

at the current time. She does not feel there are adequate resources in place for

her child in the inclusive classroom. She feels there are significant issues in

public education. She says that she thinks, and I think that this is far too extreme,

there's the illusion of inclusion.

I can't comment

on what the parent of an autistic child struggles with, because that is a huge struggle.

I met with parents from an agency in Burnaby, all of whom have autistic children

or who work full-time in the field. All one can think after consultation with people

of that kind is how very, very difficult the struggle is. But I was so impressed,

and I'm sure that the minister would be as well, with how committed they were to

the idea of an inclusive classroom and to keeping autistic children in the mainstream

of society.

Their argument was

twofold. In the first place, they said that the kids do better in the classroom

with their peers. So at an achievement level, by being associated with other kids,

they do better. But the more profound argument for not going to model schools for

those parents was that the kids do better, are more independent and are more a part

of society when they leave an inclusive classroom than they can be when they've

been in a separate school where they are only with other autistic children.

That really was

very strong for me to hear from parents: a very strong commitment to working with

the school system. I think that all of the autistic parents — and I have not talked

to that many, but all of those that I have had contact with — are very humbled by

the struggle they face. They know they have to be engaged in advocating for their

child within the school system, that it doesn't automatically happen. They all see

challenges that are not currently and adequately responded to, but the majority

of them that I have met are committed to seeing change within the public school

system in an integrated, inclusive classroom.

What they're really

looking for there is leadership, the kind of leadership that we see moving in another

direction, I believe, inside this bill. But it isn't just the parents who have made

the fundamental choice that the venue for their child is the public school system

— even those who are talking to the minister in this area…. I raise autism because

this was the first area that came up when we started hearing of proposals being

floated for model schools.

[1555]

Jean Lewis — executive

director of Families for Early Autism Treatment of B.C., which was Canada's first

advocacy group for autism therapy — who is an extreme critic of the school system,

says there is no reason why what our kids need is not provided for within the public

school system. She says, and I think this is very powerful…. This is somebody who

is involved in talking about one of these potential model schools with the minister's

staff. She says:

"Evidence

and science tell us that kids with autism who are benefiting from ABA need to

be around typically developing peers, because if they're segregated, their maladaptive

behaviour increases and their lan-

[ Page 8077 ]

guage decreases." This is Jean Lewis. "That's not opinion; that's fact.

Parents are not choosing to set up alternative schools because they want to or

because it's a better idea. It's because those in the public school system are

such screwups."

That brings us back

to where the leadership is needed. I would argue very strongly that moving in the

direction of model schools…. Imagine a model school for autism. How many families

might actually be able to place a child in a model school for autism — 100 families,

150 families, 200 families? What portion of the autism community would that respond

to? And what might happen in a school of that kind?

I would ask the

minister this. An autistic child within the school system gets an allocation, I

believe — staff are here and can confirm this — of $16,000. At a typical model school

for autistic kids, one like the kind that might be run in Ottawa or the ones in

the United States, it's $100,000 a year per student to inject the resources for

those kids.

That would be fantastic.

That would be absolutely fantastic. If you could do that, it would be wonderful.

But what would the statement be for all the autistic kids in the inclusive classroom

in the school? I'm raising this because I'd like the minister to respond to the

real potential contents of this bill change, which will enable the creation of exactly

these kinds of schools.

In part, the ask

is for a response to the fact that separate schools do not advance autistic children

in this case, and other special needs kids, as well, over the inclusive classroom

in any regard. They increase maladaptive behaviour by taking them out of contact

with their non-autistic peers.

Hon. S. Bond:

First of all, unlike the member opposite, I am not going to purport to be an expert

in autism. I can understand where it is easy to stand up and make sweeping statements

about segregation and about what the best method of serving an autistic child and

family is, but I'm not (

a) qualified or (

b) prepared to do that.

The member opposite

is actually criticizing parents today who have come and been prepared to stand up

to say: "The system doesn't work for my child." Perhaps the member opposite would

like to meet with some of those parents and point out that from his perspective,

the autism model that should work for their children is this or that. I'm not prepared

to do that.

The member opposite

talks about leadership. Leadership is actually having the courage to challenge the

status quo from time to time and say: "You know what? Maybe, just maybe, there are

some children who we could serve differently in public education" — with all due

respect to the member opposite.

He talks about silent

meetings and one meeting. Well, for the member's information, I have spent the last

year visiting 49 school districts in British Columbia and have met with hundreds

of parents and organizations. To suggest that this was an "off the back of the envelope,

we had one meeting" discussion is absolutely irresponsible and inaccurate.

There are parents

in this province for whom the current system does not work, so let me reiterate

and clarify. We are not moving away from inclusion in British Columbia. It's an

important principle, and to those parents who choose that model for their children:

we support that, we will continue to endorse that, and that will be the model of

delivery for children in this province.

But that doesn't

meet the needs of all children, and it's unfortunate that in this discussion the

member opposite has chosen to single out an autism school. We're talking about opportunities

much broader than that. I think it's because that's the sensational discussion.

This is about culture and art and sports and technology and trades and perhaps —

perhaps — a new approach for children with special needs in this province.

That's what leadership

is about. It is about challenging the status quo, meeting the needs of children

in new ways. We're going to listen to parents who have views on both sides of the

argument.

[1600]

D. Cubberley:

I certainly agree that it's about challenging the status quo. The status quo that

needs to be challenged the most is the status quo in the minister's mindset and

the minister's office and the Ministry of Education about the adequacy of current

funding and approaches for special needs kids within an inclusive classroom.

It may have gone

past the minister that I was actually quoting from somebody who is part of the group

lobbying the minister for this avenue — the one that she is promoting — thinking

about change. I was inviting her to think back one level, which was presented by

this very person, who said it's not the best approach. The best approach is to reform

the inclusive classroom. That's the point that I want to make.

The other point

I want to make…. Nothing that the minister has said so far has spoken directly to

this to assure me in any way, shape or form that it's not the case. It would appear

that one of the impacts or a potential outcome from this amendment is that it would

enable the creation of charter schools in British Columbia. That, in turn, would

begin to enable possibilities for more fully funding independent schools.

I do not believe

that because an independent school has a direct relationship with the Minister of

Education and has funding provided directly by the minister, that it is somehow

operating within the public education system. To me, that doesn't mean anything.

A company could come along with a proposal to operate a model school of any kind,

and the minister might think that's a good idea. There appeared to be some interest

in the idea being floated by the former minister which, as I understand, was a business

proposal.

Nothing that has

been said in any way, shape or form closes off the possibility that this will be

the wedge that allows the possibility of the creation of charter schools in B.C.

I have to say — not unlike the piece of material that we dealt with on Bill 22,

which opens up the possibility of vouchers — that this opens up the possibility

of charter schools. That is the full-meal deal. There we have the beginnings of

the American-style education system.

[ Page 8078 ]

I'm very interested

in the minister's response on this.

Hon. S. Bond:

Yesterday it was vouchers; today it's charters. The answer is no to that and no

to this. The fact of the matter is that we have children who are not being served

well, from their parents' perspective, in British Columbia. Our job is to actually

find ways to meet the needs of those children, and it needs to be innovative.

I want to make this

very clear to the member opposite. He made the comments about, you know, why we

aren't reforming the inclusive classroom. Nothing in this legislation precludes

us reforming the inclusive classroom. In fact, inclusion is here to stay in British

Columbia, and we're delighted to contemplate how we might reform inclusive classrooms.

In fact, our ministry staff works with professionals across the province all the

time to do just that.

The good news about

this bill is that we are going to lead. We're going to look at how we can begin

to look at innovative ways in many areas that would…. This is an enabling piece

of legislation. There are no models in place. There are no specific proposals on

the table. We're simply looking at: how do we serve the needs of students more effectively

in British Columbia?

D. Cubberley:

Well it's very interesting. The minister talks about there being nothing preventing

us from engaging in leadership to reform the inclusive classroom in British Columbia

public schools. But nothing in the legislative agenda in any way, shape or form

speaks to that, and many things in the legislative agenda speak to things outside

of it. That's the reason why we have the concern that we have.

Politicians always

want to put themselves on the side of positive change. It goes with the profession.

I think it's almost impossible to avoid it. No one is going to stand up and say:

"Hey, I've got a bad idea. We should do this. It's going to make change, and it'll

be really bad." But you know, change isn't inherently good, and opposition to change

isn't inherently bad. That's not a quote from the member for Saanic