2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number 14

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Ministerial Statements

Mining industry in B.C.

Hon. P. Bell

J. MacPhail

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

People moving to B.C.

S. Orr

High-technology industry in Kelowna

J. Weisbeck

Hepatitis C awareness

Mayencourt

Oral Questions

Investigation of child abuse

complaints and death of Kayla John

J. Kwan

Hon. C.

Clark

Child protection services in Zeballos

J. MacPhail

Hon. C.

Clark

Report on offshore oil and gas

industry

D. MacKay

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Committee of the Whole House

Ministerial Accountability Bases Act,

2004-2005 (Bill 49)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Ministerial Accountability Bases Act,

2004-2005 (Bill 49)

Committee of the Whole House

International Financial Activity Act

(Bill 53)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

International Financial Activity Act

(Bill 53)

Second Reading of Bills

Financial Institutions Statutes

Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 39)

Hon. G.

Collins

Teaching Profession Amendment Act,

2004 (Bill 55)

Hon. T.

Christensen

J. Kwan

M. Hunter

R. Masi

B. Lekstrom

K. Stewart

Hon. T.

Christensen

Committee of the Whole House

Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2004

(Bill 43)

Hon. C.

Hansen

J. MacPhail

S. Orr

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2004

(Bill 43)

Committee of the Whole House

Wildlife Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill

51)

J. MacPhail

Hon. B.

Barisoff

B. Lekstrom

D. Jarvis

Reporting of Bills

Wildlife Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill

51)

Third Reading of Bills

Wildlife Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill

51)

Committee of the Whole House

Parks and Protected Areas Statutes

Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 50)

J. MacPhail

Hon. B.

Barisoff

D. MacKay

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Parks and Protected Areas Statutes

Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 50)

Committee of the Whole House

Correction Act (Bill 44)

D. MacKay

Hon. R.

Coleman

J. Kwan

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Correction Act (Bill 44)

[ Page 11139 ]

MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004

The House

met at 2:05 p.m.

Introductions by Members

MacPhail: There are several members of the caravan of hope with us today.

The caravan of hope represents the estimated 65,000 British Columbians infected

with hepatitis C. It's a provincewide group of citizens concerned with hepatitis

C. It's a non-profit organization. They banded together to ensure that there's

greater access, treatment and medicine for victims of hepatitis C. The group

joining us today is Joan King, Beverly Atlas, Marjorie Harris, Heather Harris,

Deanna Auger, Destiny Auger, Bradley Kane and David Mazoff.

Also with

the group today is Carol Romanow. She has been a strong advocate at Action

Committee of People with Disabilities in Victoria. Her role is to assist people

to navigate through all of the circumstances, including legislation, and

particularly those with hepatitis C. Would everybody please make them welcome.

Hon. S.

Hagen: In the precincts today are 36 grade 5 students from Tsolum Elementary

School together with their teachers, Ms. Valerie Sherriff and Ms. Carol Walters,

and eight dedicated parents from the school, as well, in the Comox Valley. Would

the House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. P.

Bell: Joining us in the gallery today from the wonderful city of Kelowna is

my sister, Kit Bell. I would ask that the House please make her very welcome.

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce seven students from Princess

Margaret Secondary School who are touring our Legislature today. They are Denise

Torok, Agata Stanielewicz, Kylie Van Eaton, Eja Ali, Al Habib, Margaret Yu and

Lisa Van Zyderveld. Joining them is their teacher, Jonathan Nielson.

These seven

students were participating in the Rotary Club of Surrey Adventure in

Citizenship speech meet, an event that focuses on developing a greater awareness

among young people of both the responsibilities and the importance of

citizenship. These grade 10 and 11 students were asked to speak on what there is

to celebrate in Canada. Their responses were lively and represented a refreshing

image of youthful pride in being Canadian.

As an

acknowledgment of their fine work, I invited these students on a trip to the

British Columbia Legislature to gain a greater understanding of how our

provincial government works. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. G.

Abbott: In the gallery today is a former resident of my hometown of

Sicamous, Tamara Schweeder. She's the partner of my former executive assistant,

Jay Schlosar, who is also a former resident of Sicamous.

While I'm

on former residents of Sicamous, I failed the other day to introduce Byron

Plant, who's a former resident of Sicamous now working as a legislative intern

here.

MacPhail: You see a trend there, eh?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Yes, there are not many left at home, Mr. Speaker.

With Tamara

here today is her friend Lindsey Timmermans of Victoria. I'd like the House to

make them all welcome.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Today in the galleries we're joined by the wife of my ministerial

assistant, Lynne Cyr. Lynne is joined by her two daughters, Robyn and Megan. I

would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for Surrey-Tynehead has another class.

Hayer: Mr. Speaker, I have another guest. It gives me great pleasure to

introduce my constituent, my friend Rob Terris. Since 1982, he has been

contributing to the Surrey community as president of the Guildford Community

Partners Society and as president of Tynehead Community Association, as well as

a member of the Guildford Lions Club. Would the House please make him very

welcome.

Ministerial Statements

MINING INDUSTRY IN B.C.

Hon. P.

Bell: I rise to make a ministerial statement. The province has proclaimed

May 16 to 22, 2004, to be Mining Week in British Columbia. All British

Columbians benefit from the mining undertaken in this province. Given the

importance of mining to B.C.'s economy and to our individual lives, it's

appropriate that we take time to recognize the importance of this industry.

[1410]

From fuel

cells to medical equipment, the minerals mined in B.C. are used to manufacture a

wide variety of products used in everyday life. For example, zinc is used in

soap, molybdenum is used to make lightbulbs, gold for electrical wire — and

I'd like to see that electrical wire, Mr. Speaker — silver in mirrors, lead

for fine crystal, aluminum for aircraft parts, and copper that's used in medical

equipment along with thermal coal used in many steel products. Crystalline

graphite is the raw material used now to make fuel cells. These are just a few

of the uses of these B.C. minerals that are put to use every day.

Our

province also produces aggregate. The aggregate industry is in many ways one of

the cornerstones of our economy — no pun intended. The industry itself employs

about 3,000 people, but every British Colum-

[ Page 11140 ]

bian consumes this product. In fact, on average, every person in B.C.

consumes about 13 tonnes of aggregate per year. This aggregate is used in our

infrastructure, to build roads and to construct our homes. Aggregate is also

heavily relied on for the basic infrastructure of our society. The increased

cost to the aggregate industry has had a major impact on our entire economy.

Much of

British Columbia was actually built on the mining industry. In 1862, Billy

Barker found gold at Williams Creek, a discovery that started a rush of fortune

seekers from all over the world and brought with it a rush of construction,

people and wealth. Thousands of people travelled the Cariboo wagon road between

1862 and 1870, converging on the boomtown called Barkerville. In fact, by the

late 1860s, Barkerville was widely believed to be one of the largest towns west

of Chicago and north of San Francisco.

These days

there are 13 metal mines and coalmines in B.C. and 860 aggregate and industrial

pits and quarries. Today mining directly employs about 10,000 British Columbians

at an average wage of over $89,000 per year, the highest average wage of any

industry in the province. The good news is that with over 12,000 mineral

occurrences in the province, coupled with soaring demands for metals, there is a

vast untapped potential for responsible and sustainable development in British

Columbia.

Government

is committed to supporting the long tradition of mining in British Columbia and

is partnering with industry for responsible and sustainable development. Mining

in British Columbia is an environmentally responsible industry. In fact, mining

activity affects less than one-third of 1 percent of the entire land base of the

province. That's just 28,000 hectares that are currently being used by mining,

an area that is about twice the size of Vancouver city proper.

When mines

close, lands are reclaimed for other uses. Through reclamation, mines have

successfully re-established habitat for elk, moose, deer, Rocky Mountain bighorn

sheep and mountain goats. They've provided grazing lands for cattle and have

successfully reforested waste rock dumps. They've established a trophy Kamloops

trout fishery and a tailings pond and have created spawning habitat for bull

trout in our province.

Our

guidelines have been adopted around the world, including by Ontario and major

multinational corporations such as Placer Dome. It's also noteworthy that mining

is the safest heavy industry in this province. In fact, just a few weeks ago I

was at Quinsam Coal on Vancouver Island where I was honoured to present the John

T. Ryan award for safety. Quinsam is the only underground operating coalmine in

the province, and they've worked in excess of two years without a single

reportable accident.

There are

many promising signs on the horizon that mining is making a comeback. Under our

Premier, Gordon Campbell, mineral exploration has increased from just $25

million in 2001 and is expected to reach between $90 million and $120 million

this year. Claim-staking is also way up, but most importantly — unlike the

nineties, which saw mines close down one after another — we're once again

seeing mines reopen in the province. Gibraltar and Bralorne have

announced their intentions to reopen, and Pine Valley Coal has announced that it

will be opening a new mine near Chetwynd prior to the end of the year.

Throughout

B.C.'s history, mining has been one of the important pillars of our economy. Our

goal is to make British Columbia the most attractive jurisdiction in the world

for mining. Let me repeat that: the most attractive jurisdiction in the world,

because mining can operate anywhere. Our government's new action agenda for

mining is taking the steps to restore our competitiveness, allowing us to

revitalize our mining industry and bring back the economic potential that's so

important to our province.

[1415]

MacPhail: I rise, too, in response to the ministerial statement to celebrate

Mining Week. It was interesting that the minister chose a historical overview,

and of course there has been gold, silver, copper, molybdenum, zinc and many

other metals in them there hills for time immemorial — nothing new there

whatsoever.

Frankly,

since people have come to live in B.C., they've sought out these metals and put

them to productive use. Most of the productive use has been to export them, to

trade them. They have always traded more when they could get more for them in

return — basic economics. I know the minister understands that. As the

minister rightfully acknowledges, the hot Asian market driven by China is

driving up metal prices — all prices. When prices are high, exploration

increases, as does investment, and that's excellent. That's the reality of any

resource-exporting economy.

In British

Columbia, though, as opposed to….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MacPhail: I think the minister mistook me for David Anderson.

We were,

though, in the 1930s and forties, price setters, and now in British Columbia

we're price takers, not price makers. There was an example from the 1990s about

mining, and it proves to be very insightful in relation to the growing economy.

In June of '97 the Mount Polley mine was completed. Private sector

investment–built, it took over 12 months and $115 million of investment. In

September of 2001 the mine had to suspend operations because commodity prices

had plummeted. Now those commodity prices are back, and hopefully this mine,

which was built on time and under budget, will be put to useful production as

well.

What does

make me a little bit nervous — and it's only a cautionary note here — is

that as we know full well the mining industry is about commodity prices. We have

to be ever so cautious not to throw the baby

[ Page 11141 ]

out with the bathwater and have a zeal for cutting red tape that may impede

proper environmental and regulatory oversight, and then somehow be charged with

improper activity in those areas in the world market.

Certainly,

a responsible, productive mining industry is a necessity for B.C. What we must

do, though, is move forward to a modern, sustainable industry and not to the

past where communities were devastated.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) PEOPLE MOVING TO B.C.

S. Orr:

In politics we try to get our message out to the public with facts. We quite

often get facts provided by Stats Canada or other public agencies. This usually

starts the age-old debate of

interpretation. The opposition reads it one way; we

usually read it the other.

Well, I

decided I wanted to find out the real facts on the net flow of people coming

back to British Columbia. Is it really true, or is it just another

interpretation of stats? This weekend I had the opportunity to ask a couple of

people who I figure should really know — people who rent trucks. Barrie

Rogers, who I've never met before, owns Budget Car and Truck Rental on Vancouver

Island, in the Okanagan and in the Kootenay region. He was very clear. This is

the best year he has ever had. He is deadheading more trucks back to Alberta

than he has in years.

Judy Scott,

who owns Budget Car and Truck Rental right here in Victoria, said the same

thing. But Judy is a friend, and I wanted an unbiased opinion so she put me in

touch with her distribution manager, Terry Judd, who has worked for Budget for

ten years. He confirmed the same thing, but he reminded me of something. It is

ordinary working folk that rent trucks. They can't afford moving companies, so

they don't move for the sake of it. They move because it's worthwhile.

[1420]

I know some

people don't always believe what politicians say — surprise. But I have a

witness, someone who was sitting right opposite me when I asked this question

— a national, provincial and local journalist, an author, a television

political pundit, and someone who has been known to be a little critical of this

government and quite outspoken. When I mention his name, I want to hear no

groans — Norman Spector. As God is my witness — sorry, Freudian slip…. I

mean as Norman is my witness, these facts did not come from politicians or spin

doctors or bureaucrats but from people who really know on the ground what is

going on — people who rent trucks.

HIGH-TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY IN KELOWNA

Weisbeck: On Thursday, June 3, I will again be hosting the sixth annual

Okanagan Technology Symposium. I was prompted six years ago, after listening to

numerous accounts of the thriving technology centres in both Victoria and

Vancouver, to host this conference. I felt it was time to showcase the 250

technology companies that made Kelowna the centre of the Silicon Vineyard. The

first conference focused on the future of e-commerce. It was an opportunity for

Kelowna high-tech firms to strut their stuff and also the opportunity to invite

some of the high-tech companies to Kelowna just in case they wanted to have some

future expansion. Nortel, EDS and Microsoft are some of them that showed up.

A great

deal has happened in six years. Kelowna is now recognized as the third-largest

high-tech centre in the province and growing. Kelowna is not only a very

desirable place to live — ten golf courses within the city limits…

An Hon.

Member: If you're a golfer.

Weisbeck: If you're a golfer.

…but a

great place to do business.

A recent

KPMG report shows that Kelowna has been rated the most cost-competitive place to

do business. Kelowna has been ranked number one in the Pacific region with

significant savings over Seattle at 18 percent, San Jose at 23 percent and San

Diego at 17 percent. I know with the addition of the UBC Okanagan and its

research capacity, the final piece of the puzzle to make Kelowna one of the most

desirable places in North America for high-tech business to grow is in place.

The title

of this year's conference is "Convergence of health care delivery and life

sciences research." One of the main themes will be a forum on the impact of

a full research university on our area and the development of health research.

I'm very pleased that we'll have our opening remarks from the Minister of

Management Services. We'll have Dr. Michael Hayden, director of the Centre for

Molecular Medicine and Therapeutics at UBC and the founder of Xenon Genetics, to

name but a few of the speakers.

I urge

everyone to check the conference website — www.rebootconference.com — and

join us on Thursday, June 3 for a very interesting and informative day, and

stick around for the weekend for a round of golf.

HEPATITIS C AWARENESS

Mayencourt: As was noted by the Leader of the Opposition, today we're being

visited by the caravan of hope, which represents the over 65,000 people in

British Columbia that live with hepatitis C. May is hepatitis C month in British

Columbia. Of the over 250,000 people in Canada estimated to have hepatitis C,

almost 30 percent live here in British Columbia with only 14 percent of the

Canadian population.

While

there's lots to be done to help people with hep C, we are seeing some

improvement. Let me tell you a little story that happened to me. Last year we

had a group of these people who were living with hepatitis C. They came to the

Legislature and spoke to caucus members. We took their suggestions and

implemented them as best we could. The result was the

[ Page 11142 ]

release or listing of pegylated interferon, a new drug to help them with a

cure.

Apparently,

things are starting to work, because the other day I was stopped on the street

by a Victoria-area bus. The driver opened the door, and he said: "Hey, do

you remember me?" I did remember him, but I couldn't remember from where.

He said: "Well, I was in the hep C group." He said that things are

much better because of the changes that we implemented last year. He was very

proud of the fact that he was on the road to recovery and that he was back at

work and feeling like he was part of life again.

I'm

standing in front of this bus, and it occurs to me that last year there were

many people living with hep C just waiting on the curb, waiting at the curb to

begin a journey. This healing journey started with some of our changes to

treatment options. This journey is, today, leading them back to full productive

lives, an opportunity to participate and to thrive in a better British Columbia.

[1425]

We've

managed to help 650 people, like that bus driver this year, and we're committed

to a course of action to reach more hepatitis C patients so that we can start

them on the road to recovery. This is truly the spirit and the message of the

caravan of hope.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

INVESTIGATION OF

CHILD ABUSE COMPLAINTS

AND DEATH OF KAYLA JOHN

J. Kwan:

In his report into the death of Matthew Vaudreuil, Justice Gove recommended that

all reports of child abuse or neglect should be investigated regardless of the

credibility of the reporter and regardless of whether there have been previous

investigations of similar incidences — recommendations that I should say the

government, when in opposition, supported wholeheartedly.

The tragic

death of Kayla John in Zeballos has touched us all. To date, officials at the

Ministry of Children and Family Development have not said whether they undertook

an investigation into complaints about potential abuse of Kayla John. All

officials have said is that they take more stock in complaints from people who

have direct contact with the family than in anonymous complaints. Kayla's

stepfather called the Ministry of Children and Family Development 14 times in

the last year to inform the ministry that Kayla was being abused. Can the

Minister of Children and Family Development tell British Columbians what actions

her ministry took to follow up on those warnings?

Hon. C.

Clark: The death of Kayla John is a tragedy not just for that small

community, but it's a tragedy that every single parent across British Columbia

feels acutely. It's particularly true in a small community like Zeballos, where

everybody knows everyone else and where there is a strong sense of parents

supporting one another. So first I'd like to offer my condolences to Kayla's

family and to her extended family and the community, which included, I think,

everybody who knew her. It would have included her teachers. It would have

included her neighbours. It would have included everybody who had any contact

with her.

Second, I'd

say this. The police investigation is still ongoing, and I wouldn't want to say

anything that would jeopardize the investigation. I know that everybody who

loved that little girl wants to make sure justice is done in that situation, so

I don't want to say anything that would in any way affect the investigation.

I can

certainly say this, though, to the member. The ministry follows up all

suggestions of abuse or where a child is at risk, no matter what source the

complaint comes from. Our social workers on the front lines do all they can to

try and make sure we don't leave any stone unturned when there is an allegation

that any child in British Columbia is put at risk.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

One death is too many. In this instance, the death of Kayla John is one that I

think the members of the community will remember and the families will remember,

and we hope, certainly, that the government will take the right steps in

addressing the issue.

Now, before

the last election, the now Minister of Children and Family Development said she

supported Judge Gove's call for a substantial increase in the number of

front-line workers in the ministry. The reality is that after the election, the

minister and her predecessor presided over a dramatic cut — a reduction in the

number of front-line workers across the province. On the Island alone we know

that at least 30 front-line workers have been reduced.

In order to

cut those positions, the government overhauled investigative procedures to

ensure that fewer investigations were undertaken in the first place. Can the

Minister of Children and Family Development tell us if the Kayla John case

received a full investigation by the ministry officials, or was the matter put

on the back burner because of budget reductions and staffing cuts?

Hon. C.

Clark: The member's suggestion is just wrong. Our ministry takes all of the

concerns that are brought to it incredibly seriously. Social workers on the

front line of this ministry don't ignore complaints that have come forward, and

we continue to investigate the complaints that come forward to this ministry. I

think we talked about this extensively in estimates as well — that the way we

go about judging whether or not an investigation is warranted hasn't changed.

One of the

things that has changed, though, in this ministry is that the number of children

who are coming into care of the government has dropped. We are the

[ Page 11143 ]

only province in Canada that's managed to change the culture of social work

so that social workers are using the range of the skills that are available to

them and that they're trained for to ensure that we continue to support families

where children are not at risk in those families.

[1430]

Rather than

removing a child from the home as a first resort, which was certainly the

culture of this ministry for many years — and I think social workers would

often say it wasn't the best practice — we are changing the practice.

Provinces across the country and jurisdictions across the world are looking to

what we've done to see how they can also contribute to try and better support

families, to build family support, to make those places safe places for

children.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further question.

J. Kwan:

The stepfather reported to the ministry 14 times on the issue of alleged abuse.

Is the minister saying that the stepfather was wrong?

Last year

the former Minister of Children and Family Development developed "a

workload reduction strategy." That strategy involved farming out reports of

moderate abuse or reports of likelihood of physical harm or sexual abuse away

from trained investigators, handing them to community agencies instead. The

former minister assured British Columbians that the government's number one

priority was still to investigate and protect abused children.

The death

of Kayla John raises serious questions about how the ministry handles

investigations into reports of abuse and neglect. This minister admitted during

estimates that they don't investigate every case.

Can the

Minister of Children and Family Development assure British Columbians that she

has ordered a full administrative review into Kayla John's tragic death to

determine if Justice Gove's recommendations have been followed or ignored?

Hon. C.

Clark: I can assure the member that Justice Gove's recommendations have

been, as she knows, fully embraced by the ministry. We need to make sure that

the lessons we learned from the tragic death of Matthew Vaudreuil are learned

and honoured and always respected in our practice.

I can't

tell the member if the ministry was involved with the family, because that would

be a violation of their privacy rights. I can't tell her whether or not we were

even able to respond to phone calls if they were made. But I can tell her, in

general, this — that front-line social workers do respond to complaints where

they're made and that we certainly make sure that where those complaints come

from someone who has direct knowledge of the family, those complaints are acted

on.

Now, one of

the things that this ministry has done….

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm sure I'll get another opportunity to answer.

CHILD PROTECTION

SERVICES IN ZEBALLOS

MacPhail: The minister knows very well that the Gove recommendations are not

in force now under her government. There are not resources to enforce the Gove

recommendations. The community of Zeballos is in crisis. It's isolated and

economically depressed. The social order is breaking down — they themselves

say that — in a climate of deprivation, poverty and serious dysfunction.

If the

ministry had investigated the stepfather's complaints — over a dozen of them

from Kayla John's family — the government would have been well aware of the

situation developing in Zeballos. It would have known about the all-night

drinking parties involving adults and kids as young as 13. It would have known

about the kids roaming the streets when they should have been in school. There

are not front-line workers investigating circumstances in Zeballos. If the

government had known about the conditions in Zeballos, it could have acted. It

could have put resources in place to support the community through some very

wrenching transitions that it's been going through.

Zeballos is

not the only community going through this. Resources to support families without

any….

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, thank you. It's time for the question now, please.

MacPhail: Can the Premier tell us what, if any, action his government is

taking to focus more resources on protecting children in Zeballos now that we

have all the details? What is his plan to help the whole community of children

in Zeballos through this time of trial?

Hon. C.

Clark: It's important to remember that it's not true that we have all the

details. There is a police investigation ongoing. As long as that investigation

is ongoing, they will be gathering information. It's just simply not true to say

that we do have all the details and to speak about them as though the

investigation is complete and all of the answers have been made public. To do

anything else would be irresponsible.

[1435]

Our

ministry has been working hard to engage communities in making decisions about

how we protect kids. Part of the change in practice that we've worked through

has meant that there has been 15 percent fewer kids coming into the care of the

ministry. That's contrasted with only a 10 percent reduction in the number of

social workers who are working out there. Using the workload management tool

that the previous government implemented, we've actually

[ Page 11144 ]

seen a smaller workload burden on individual social workers, on average,

across the province.

What

happened in Zeballos is a tragedy. We need to respect the privacy of the family.

We need to honour the right of the RCMP to make sure that their investigation

can be done and concluded and that…

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. C.

Clark: …justice is done.

MacPhail: My question was about the community of Zeballos. Everyone in the

community is admitting to a community in deep trouble. Kayla John is a tragedy

of that community. My question was about Zeballos.

At the end

of the day, it's the government's job to protect kids from abuse and neglect.

This isn't about children in care; it's about children in the community being

harmed. It's exactly the opposite of what the minister is claiming credit for.

Unfortunately, the Premier has been far more consumed with budget-cutting,

failed reorganization schemes and getting sweetheart deals for their friends

than meeting their mandate. The B.C. Liberals promised more money for

communities and kids, they promised administrative stability, and they promised

to focus resources on clients.

Kayla John

was in the community. In every case, they have not met their commitments. I ask

the Premier again: given the social crisis in Zeballos, will he commit from this

day forward to focus new resources on child and family protection in Zeballos?

Or do the cuts to the Ministry of Children and Family Development mean that no

one will have the tools to do the job?

Hon. C.

Clark: I'll offer a couple of factual corrections for the member. First of

all, that child was not a child who was in the care of the ministry. Second…

MacPhail: Exactly.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: …the number of children who have come into care of the ministry has

dropped by 15 percent. The number of social workers across the province, on

average, has dropped by less than 10 percent concurrently.

Third, I

would say this. In Port Hardy, which is the area that services Zeballos, there

have been no reductions in the number of social workers in that community.

I know that

offering these facts for the member will not dilute her urge to make this a

political issue, but those are the facts. I think it's important that while the

community grieves and while the RCMP operation is ongoing, we make sure that

we…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. C.

Clark: …discuss this in light of the facts that are before us.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

REPORT ON OFFSHORE

OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY

MacKay: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Having just

returned from Fort Nelson and Fort St. John, I saw what the booming oil and gas

sector was doing up there. It's creating jobs and attracting investment in the

northeast part of the province.

The

constituents that I represent in the northwest portion of the province would

like to know what opportunities await them on the offshore B.C. coast. However,

Mr. Tom Gunton, the economic wizard for the previous NDP government whose

policies literally destroyed the mining industry in the province of British

Columbia, claims that the offshore oil and gas development will produce only 200

direct jobs and $18 million for provincial revenues.

To the

minister: can British Columbians place any confidence in this report that the

prospect of economic development from offshore oil and gas is a myth?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: We should look at the pedigree of Mr. Gunton and his history in

British Columbia. He's served since the seventies as the chairman for the

party's economic development and financial planning. He put together a study on

resources, regional development and provincial policies, which said that

Crown-owned forestry and mining companies should compete directly with the

private sector in order to wrest control away from private firms. He served as

Glen Clark's adviser through two disastrous budgets. He went on to Moe Sihota to

totally put policies forward that destroyed the forest industry.

[1440]

Only a

socialist by the name of Tom Gunton would come out with a report and say that

$110 billion worth of economic value only creates 200 jobs and $18 million in

provincial revenue. Only a socialist like Tom Gunton would say something like

that. On top of that, I guess he is the adviser to Carole James because….

Actually,

the oil and gas industry onshore provides to the government $2 billion a year

right now in royalties to pay for health care and education. That is

substantial.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

[End of

question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole House for consideration of Bill 49.

[ Page 11145 ]

Committee of the Whole House

MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

BASES ACT, 2004-2005

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 49; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:42 p.m.

Sections 1

and 2 approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:43 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill

49, Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2004-2005, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 53.

Committee of the Whole House

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL

ACTIVITY ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 53; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:44 p.m.

Sections 1

to 75 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:45 p.m.

The

House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 53,

International Financial Activity Act, reported complete without amendment, read

a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 39.

Second Reading of Bills

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The

Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, amends the Financial

Institutions Act and the Credit Union Incorporation Act. The amendments improve

the efficiency and effectiveness of the regulation of the financial services

sector to enhance and maintain public confidence in the sector as well as to

reduce the overall regulatory burden.

Under the

amendments to the Financial Institutions Act, the regulation of extraprovincial

corporations will be reformed to simplify and streamline the process for being

authorized to do business in British Columbia. Duplication and overlap among

regulators in various jurisdictions are reduced, and greater reliance is placed

on the primary jurisdiction, especially for federally regulated institutions.

Despite this reliance, the British Columbia regulator will continue to have

access to the information it needs and the regulatory tools to intervene as and

if required. Reducing regulatory overlap and duplication will enable the British

Columbia regulator to focus on areas where the risk is greatest.

The

approach to the regulation of the business and operations of provincially

incorporated credit unions, trust companies and insurers is also amended to

reduce unnecessarily prescriptive rules and limitations on operations. The bill

enables the expansion of the business powers of these provincial financial

institutions to be consistent with other Canadian jurisdictions. This maintains

competitive equity.

As a

reflection of current market reality, the Financial Institutions Act will no

longer provide for the incorporation and authorization in British Columbia of

provincial deposit-taking trust companies. Only those provincial trust companies

that do business exclusively will continue to be provided for under the act. The

amendments also adjust the regulatory approach to financial institutions capital

and liquidity and the rules respecting self-dealing. The amendments to the

self-dealing rules will streamline and simplify the internal approval process

that a financial institution must undertake while continuing to provide adequate

safeguards that prohibit harmful self-dealing.

The

amendments will enable the market conduct rules applying to those selling

products and services in the financial services sector to be modernized and

updated. The goal is to ensure continued consumer confidence while enhancing

competition by eliminating provisions that restrain trade without benefiting the

consumer. Examples include streamlining the restriction on rebating, focusing

the regulation of tied selling on coercive practices, improving the disclosure

requirements and repealing the confidentiality provision

[ Page 11146 ]

to eliminate overlap with the new private sector privacy legislation.

The roles

and responsibilities of the Financial Institutions Commission and the

superintendent are clarified. The commission will now clearly be the primary

regulatory authority for the financial services sector in the province. The

commission will assume responsibility for regulatory decisions currently made by

the minister and most of the regulatory decisions currently made by the

superintendent. This will make the decision-making process simpler while

maintaining a high level of regulatory due diligence and accountability.

The

responsibilities of the Insurance Council for the licensing and regulation of

insurance agents, salespersons and adjusters are also updated. The council will

have the authority to establish its own rules, subject to the approval of the

minister, for the licensing and regulation of agents, salespersons and

adjusters.

The bill

also updates the regulatory powers available to the commission, the

superintendent and the Insurance Council. Consistent with other regulatory

regimes, the commission, superintendent and council are provided with the

authority to order the payment of costs for an investigation or hearing and

impose administrative penalties subject, of course, to due process.

The

amendments to the Credit Union Incorporation Act included in this bill expand

the capacity of credit unions to operate outside of British Columbia. The

changes also give British Columbia credit unions the capacity to transfer out of

the province and give extraprovincial credit unions the capacity to transfer

into British Columbia. These changes put credit unions on an equal footing with

other financial institutions.

[1450]

reviewing the regulatory framework for the financial services sector, we

consulted extensively with a wide range of parties over a two-year period,

including the financial services industry, financial services intermediaries and

the general public. The amendments in this bill reflect the input provided

during those consultations.

The

amendments made to the financial services sector legislation in this bill create

a framework for smarter regulation of this sector. I move second reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 39,

Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 55.

TEACHING PROFESSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. T.

Christensen: I move that Bill 55 be read for a second time now.

This act

introduces a number of changes to the Teaching Profession Act to further clarify

the role of the B.C. College of Teachers and to put into place changes agreed to

by cabinet over the past year. In this case it is a bit instructive to look back

at the history of the College of Teachers to give us some perspective as to

where we've come from, where we are today and, in fact, where we are going.

The College

of Teachers was established back in 1987 pursuant to the Teaching Profession

Act. Unlike many professional self-governing bodies where the profession comes

to government with a proposal to become a self-governing profession, asking for

legislation to establish the self-governing profession, the College of Teachers

was brought into place amongst a good deal of disagreement within the profession

as to whether, in fact, they wanted to have a college of teachers and be a

self-governing profession. Some might say in hindsight that that actually

created a great deal of difficulty for the college right off the bat. At that

time the BCTF, the teachers union, in particular was opposed to the

establishment of the college. As I said, there was a great deal of discussion at

that time about the college.

Over time

that seemed to have changed. Certainly, in more recent years the BCTF has been

very involved with the college, to the point of endorsing candidates and funding

election campaigns for candidates for election to the council. That, in and of

itself, has caused some difficulties as well.

If we look

back at the Teaching Profession Act — and one of the elements of the act that

has never changed and an element that is similar to other professional

self-governing bodies — we need to look at the object of the act to begin

with. The object is "to establish, having regard to the public interest,

standards for the education, professional responsibility and competence of its

members…and applicants for membership…."

The School

Act provides that all teachers, principals, vice-principals, directors of

instruction, superintendents of schools or assistant superintendents of schools

who are employed by school boards must be members of the College of Teachers.

The membership and the group that is governed by the college certainly extend

much beyond teachers to include a good number of educators that are working both

in our public school system and, in many cases, in our independent schools.

Until last

year the college was governed by a council composed of 15 persons elected by

members and five persons appointed by government. One of those five was

nominated by the deans of the faculties of education in the province. About a

year ago amendments were made to the Teaching Profession Act to change the

composition of the council to eight elected

[ Page 11147 ]

members and 12 appointed council members. One of those 12 would still be

nominated by the deans of the faculties of education.

Those

amendments came about in response to a good number of concerns that had been

expressed about the College of Teachers as to whether or not it was truly acting

first and foremost in the public interest, and about the independence of the

College of Teachers in respect of the British Columbia Teachers Federation —

the teachers union, in particular — and whether or not the union was

exercising too much influence in respect of the college council. We must

remember, first and foremost, in respect of any self-governing body that it is

the public interest which that self-governing body is there to protect and serve

in its governance of the particular profession.

[1455]

One of the

things that stood out in terms of the College of Teachers in comparison to many

other professions is that notwithstanding that in

section 4 of the act, one of

the objects of the college was to establish standards of conduct for the

profession, in the 16 years that the College of Teachers had existed up until

last year, it had never developed standards of conduct. It was a glaring

omission in terms of the question of whether the college was serving the public

interest.

It was

necessary to take a look at the College of Teachers and the Teaching Profession

Act a year ago and see what could be done to try and ensure that this

self-governing body was living up to its intent as required by the Teaching

Profession Act. That was up to a year ago. Since that time we've heard from

teachers. We've heard from principals, vice-principals, superintendents,

trustees and a good number of members of the public, and we've heard from

parents in terms of the importance of the College of Teachers and the importance

of it moving forward in a manner that does, in fact, serve the public interest.

You may

have seen in the media over the weekend, Mr. Speaker, that the B.C.

Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils was holding its annual general meeting

over the weekend in Richmond. They passed a number of resolutions in respect of

the College of Teachers, many of which emphasize a number of the points I've

made. They certainly are looking to have a College of Teachers that will allow

parents to take complaints about educators directly to the college and require

teachers to report serious misconduct by peers. Those are goals that the public

should expect from the College of Teachers and any self-governing profession in

the province.

They also

passed resolutions demonstrating support for the establishment of standards for

education, competence and conduct for B.C. educators. Again, those are things we

all should and, I think, all do take for granted that a self-governing

professional body would be doing. In particular, they voted in support of an

independent college free from the influence of any one voice in the education

community to ensure that students, parents and the public interest are

protected. Again, those are elements we would all assume should be in place in

terms of any professional body in the province.

We have

listened to parents. We have listened to other education stakeholders, and we

have listened to the voices of teachers over the last year who have said very

clearly to government that they wish to be considered a profession. They wish,

like other self-governing professions, to have a majority of the council of the

college elected, and we are responding to what we have heard in now moving

forward.

This

legislation will ensure that the college's governing council is made up of a

majority of elected teachers and that it continues to protect the public

interest. In fact, combined with 12 elected members, there will be an additional

three members that must be appointed from among members of the college, so

three-quarters of the college's governing council will be made up of members of

the college. This does deliver on government's commitment to provide an

independent college governing council and a council that is fair, is balanced

and serves the professionalism of B.C. educators.

The

intention, certainly, is to consult — and the legislation requires that the

minister consult — with principals, with superintendents and with parents in

looking at who should be the appointed members to the college council. In doing

that, certainly we will be listening very carefully to the suggested voices. We

will be ensuring, as the legislation requires, that once the full council is in

place, 15 members of the council are members of the college who are governed by

the council, ensuring that there is a voice of experience at the council.

[1500]

addition, and this is critically important…. There will be, in addition to one

of the deans of the faculties of education, an additional four appointed members

who will be laypersons — as with other professional colleges or professional

self-governing bodies — who do bring an element of interest, of the public

interest and perhaps a different viewpoint to discussions at the council to

ensure that those that are immersed in the profession also get that outside

voice in terms of the deliberations they are having.

With Bill

55, membership and certification in the college are being merged into one

concept called a certificate holder. This meets the spirit of a request from the

college that all certified persons are also required to be members. As I

indicated earlier, in order to be employed by a school board as a teacher,

vice-principal or principal, a person must hold the teaching certificate. Annual

fees must be paid to maintain certification, and all persons who have the

benefits of certification are now required to contribute to the operations of

the college.

That

amendment merging certification and membership also does close somewhat of what

has been a bit of a loophole in the legislation by ensuring that the college

will now be in a position to ensure that applicants for certification are, in

fact, fit to be a teacher. Previously, the issue of fitness and an assessment of

[ Page 11148 ]

fitness to be a member of the teaching profession only applied to applicants

for membership. In fact, a person could apply for and obtain a certificate of

qualification based on meeting just very specific criteria rather than on an

overall assessment of fitness, which is a typical consideration in most

professions.

The bill

makes a further amendment to the requirement for a member of the college to

report on another member who they believe is guilty of professional misconduct.

This amendment certainly was necessary to provide some direction around the duty

to report, and it is something we heard from all our education partners on. I

believe we do have a provision now that is a workable provision that will

certainly provide clear direction to members of the profession but also provide

a clear standard and clear protection in respect of students and the public

interest. The amendment clarifies that the duty to report professional

misconduct will arise in situations where it is believed there is professional

misconduct that involves physical harm to a student, sexual abuse or sexual

exploitation of a student or significant emotional harm to a student — all of

which we would expect a report to be made to the college. These amendments

certainly ensure that the college continues to protect the public interest.

To ensure

the independence of the college council, all members of the council will now be

required to make a declaration or to swear an oath of office. This oath will

underscore the individual's role as a council member while stressing the

importance of the college's independence. All council members will be required

to take the oath prior to sitting on the college's council. The oath of office

will ensure that all members of the council elected and appointed put the public

interest first above all other interests in compliance with the spirit of the

Teaching Profession Act and, I should add, with the spirit of any self-governing

profession that is there first and foremost to serve the public interest.

There are a

number of other relatively minor amendments that will allow the college council

to operate and serve the profession and the public interest better. We've added

authority to permit the statutory committee called the qualifications committee

to make decisions concerning qualifications for admission and certification.

Currently, the committee must make recommendations for decision to the college

council, so this power may now be delegated to the committee by bylaw of the

council. Again, it is an enabling provision that may allow the college council

to operate more efficiently. This will certainly provide consistency and clear

authority for levels of council delegation to committees and subcommittees and

will reduce the time needed for processing certification. This process is

consistent with the principles of administrative law, and similar changes were

made for the other statutory committees — the discipline and the teacher

education committees — in 2003.

[1505]

In order to

provide clarity in legislation to indicate a subcommittee can be drawn from the

membership at large, authority has been added to include non-council members in

statutory committees of the college. This provides an opportunity for the

college council to reach beyond its members into the broader members of the

profession to provide a greater degree of input on the college's work and to

provide some experience for other members of the profession to see how the

college works. I'm told this is very much consistent with the practice in other

professions and certainly does add to a broader ability for the college to meet

its mandate.

A further

minor amendment is to increase the term of office for members of the council to

three years from the current two. Again, in discussing the college and getting

input from members of the college, this amendment will provide for greater

consistency and continuity of policy and decision-making in the college. It is a

more appropriate length of time, given the complexity of tasks and issues and

the length of time it takes council members to become familiar with their

duties.

As well,

it's expected this will provide some cost savings to the college. You will note,

as well, that we've allowed for the election of the members of the college to be

staggered to ensure that in electing 12 members of the college, all 12 won't be

replaced at the same time. Once this initial college is elected in the coming

weeks, then further elections will be staggered so that four of 12 zones are

elected in each year, providing for some rollover each year and an opportunity

for the council to be evolving at all times.

A further

amendment is that one of the statutory committees of the college called the

teacher education programs committee will be amended to simply change the title

of the committee to the teacher education committee, as that more accurately

reflects the work of that committee.

There has

been a great deal of anticipation about this legislation and government

following through on its commitment to amend the makeup of the council so that a

majority is democratically elected. Government is doing its part with this bill

to enable the teaching profession to pursue what I believe to be the goal of the

vast majority of professional teachers in this province, and that is to be an

effective self-governing profession that protects the professionalism of

teachers and other educators and serves the public interest in a consistent,

fair and balanced manner.

Whether or

not this legislation allows the college to realize that goal remains to be seen.

Government has acted to ensure that a majority is democratically elected. In

order for any professional self-governing body to be effective, it needs two

things, in my view. It must be respected by the profession that it governs, and

it must be respected by the public. If those two elements exist, then a

professional college will be able to do its job well, serving the public

interest and regulating the profession in a progressive manner.

In order

for that to happen, the education community needs to want to have a professional

college, and I believe that the vast majority of teachers in our province do

want that. In order for that to function, those

[ Page 11149 ]

professional members need to support the college by the payment of dues, just

as any other profession does.

This

legislation enables an effective self-governing professional body to be created,

and I'm looking forward to working with teachers around the province to ensure

that, in fact, that is what we get with Bill 55 and the College of Teachers.

I move that

the bill now be read a second time.

R. Masi:

I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

[1510]

Introductions by Members

R. Masi:

It's my pleasure today to introduce a number of students — I think close to

100 — in the precinct from Hellings Elementary School in Delta North,

accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Hirose and Ms. Locke. I've met them outside

on the grounds, and it's a fine body of students representing Delta North here.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Kwan:

Let me first put on the record that the opposition supports Bill 55, the

Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2004.

I also have

to start by saying and asking, quite frankly, the question of why we're here

debating Bill 55. The answer is regrettably simple. We're here today because the

Liberals are a government of conflict and confrontation. One year ago, almost to

the exact date, we were here debating Bill 51, the Teaching Profession Amendment

Act, 2003. One year ago the Deputy Premier, who was the Education minister at

the time, forced the opposition, in the dying days of the session, to debate a

bill that stripped teachers of their right to be a self-governing profession.

One year ago the Liberals decided to draw a battle line with teachers, putting

children and parents in the middle. One year ago the Liberals decided that the

professionals who educate their children and our children were not worthy of a

self-governing body. They were okay with used car dealers governing their own,

but not teachers.

The

government was wrong then. They were way wrong. The battle, of course, was led

by the Premier and the Deputy Premier. They were arrogant in their approach.

They chose a path of conflict and division. They created an atmosphere of

mistrust and stress in our education system, all for a mean-spirited attack on a

group of people they see as a special interest group. That is shameful.

For the

most part, you have to ask the question: why did the government do this? The

answer is simple. The government did it because their approach of confrontation

is the only approach they know of, and for some bizarre reason it has taken them

an entire year to admit their wrongdoing and to fix it.

But here we

are finally, one year later, with Bill 55. It gives back to teachers one of the

many things the Liberals have stripped from them with the heavy hand of

legislation — their right to be a self-governing profession like doctors,

nurses, realtors and used car dealers. The minister says that the teaching

profession, after much consultation, is now given back their self-governing

authority. You know what, Mr. Speaker? Before the government took away their

self-governing authority, they had been saying to the government that that

approach was the wrong approach and that they deserved to be self-governing like

any other profession in the province, and the government then, a year ago,

refused to listen.

Let me say

congratulations to the new minister for solving this problem, but it should

never have occurred in the first place. The government created this mess with

its arrogance and an uncaring approach to governing. I should remind the

minister and this House that he voted in favour of the last bill, Bill 51. He

voted in favour of it at second reading, and he voted in favour of it during

committee. The conflict, the confusion and the stress on the education system

since Bill 51 was introduced and created by this government…. They only have

themselves to blame.

It is time

this government and this minister get their act together and get their story

straight. The minister's press release claims he is being fair and balanced with

Bill 55. Well, this legislation is only a part of a bigger story which is

anything but fair and balanced. Just a few short weeks ago we were debating Bill

19 in this very House, the Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment

Act, 2004. There was nothing in Bill 19 that was fair and balanced, nothing at

all — just more conflict, more confrontation and more arrogance.

[1515]

Bill 19

erased a decision of the B.C. Supreme Court. Bill 19 said that the government

did not agree with the B.C. Supreme Court, and instead of going through an

appeal process like all British Columbians do when they disagree with a ruling,

the Labour minister, the Minister of Education and this government decided they

would just legislate the ruling irrelevant. How fair is that? How balanced is

that?

Bill 19

removed from teachers' collective agreements critical negotiated protections for

students and teachers related to class size, services for special needs

students, and specialty services from counsellors, librarians and ESL teachers.

These contractual guarantees were put in place to protect learning conditions

for children.

One of the

guarantees wiped out by the Liberals from the Qualicum was: "Where safety

is a factor, the number of students in the laboratory, shop or other specialized

class shall not exceed the number for which the facility is designed." For

some reason, the Liberals thought that was just too much.

Just

imagine for a moment teachers trying to ensure the safety of students, and this

government thinks that is wrong. Teachers work hard at the bargaining table to

[ Page 11150 ]

ensure services for students are available and adequate. However, this

government decided to make it illegal for teachers to include the provisions

that protect the education and safety of our students in the bargaining process.

This minister claims to be fair and balanced. First they rip up contracts, take

control of the College of Teachers, and erase contractual guarantees to ensure

safety and healthy learning environments. What will the Liberals do next, Mr.

Speaker? Well, we have already seen it.

Last week

the minister was out in force with all of the backbenchers, vilifying the

teachers for the things they might say in parent-teacher conferences. Liberal

MLAs were all over the media complaining that teachers should not discuss

politics at parent-teacher meetings. These MLAs didn't even do their homework.

All teachers want to do is hand out cards to concerned parents that explain why

their children are in danger in classes. Teachers are not expressing political

viewpoints; they're handing out factual information on class sizes. It is this

government that has allowed class sizes to expand. That is a fact, not a

political viewpoint. Any Liberal MLA who cries foul at this is out of touch.

Class sizes

are fundamentally linked to learning outcomes and student achievement. If

Liberal MLAs are so worried about what teachers are saying about class sizes,

maybe they should do something constructive about it and get the government to

adequately fund our education system instead of spending millions of dollars on

partisan advertising.

Over the

last three years we have seen nothing but hostility from this government towards

working people. Whether they are nurses, health care support workers or teaching

assistants, this government chooses to fight them every chance they get. They

have not been shy about bashing teachers around either. These are the people who

are front-line educators. They are the people we entrust our children with every

day, the people who guide our children through math problems, teach our children

the history of this country, coach their soccer teams, sponsor their clubs,

console them after they've been bullied or provide them with a caring ear.

They're hard-working, undervalued, pivotal mentors to the youth of this

province.

What does

this government do? It wages a battle against them and their democratically

elected organizations. They're labelled a special interest group, and the

government refuses to work with them in a constructive and collaborative manner.

It is only after intense public pressure that this government finally acts. It

took one full year for the government to swallow its overly inflated sense of

pride, one whole year to finally do the right thing. How is that fair?

There are

many challenges in our education system. There are many areas we need to work

together on to improve the outcomes. However, the Liberal government has

steadily exacerbated these challenges. Since coming to power, they ensured that

education funding was frozen for over two years while they gave their rich

friends a massive tax cut. They called this protection.

[1520]

Instead of

protecting the system, the government froze education funding and imposed a wage

settlement on school districts. Then they refused to fund it; they refused to

pay for it. The government refuses to pay for rising energy costs that are being

imposed by B.C. Hydro. The government increased gas taxes and refused to help

school districts pay for these increases in transportation costs for students.

The government refuses to assist districts to cover MSP premium costs that this

government had increased.

The result

has been cuts to services, cuts to staff and cuts to resources. We have seen

over 100 schools closed and many valuable programs cut across the province. Not

only is this government failing to accept responsibility for the loss of

services in our communities, but they have created a system full of tension.

Last year I warned the government about the impacts of Bill 51. They refused to

listen. I said it would only make the tension in the system worse, and they did

it anyway. With their large majority, they voted for the bill.

It is time

for the government to back off from the battle with teachers and the editorial

war and do what is best for students — work with the teachers, not against

them. It is time for a new vision of education in British Columbia, one that

goes beyond the Minister of Education's rhetoric and removes the children from

the front lines. This bill is a step, but much more is needed.

There are

many things that we can do. We can listen to the voices in our communities

instead of shutting them out. School boards can continue to speak on behalf of

their communities and ensure that the Minister of Education is listening.

Students and parents should be granted the same ability. We must also listen to

the teachers, the professionals that work day in and day out to ensure that our

children receive an education — the best they could offer.

One of the

lessons we must learn comes from Dr. Rozanski's assessment report of Ontario's

education system. On December 10, 2002, Dr. Rozanski's education task force

released a lengthy report entitled Investing in Public Education: Advancing

the Goal of Continuous Improvement in Student Learning and Achievement . The

opposition has spoken about this report before, but we have yet to see the

government take it to heart. Overall, the report contained 33 recommendations

that in the words of Dr. Rozanski were "aimed at improving equity,

fairness, certainty and stability in the funding of Ontario's students and

staff."

At the

heart of these recommendations was adequate flexible funding. Dr. Rozanski

insisted that funding needs to reflect real current costs. In Ontario there was

a funding freeze set at 1997 levels. As a result, officials were forced to make

significant cuts to the education system. Rozanski then recommended that Ontario

spend $1.08 billion just to reverse the damage done by the funding freeze.

Rozanski's message is clear. Forcing cuts will lead to long-term difficulties

and the potential deterioration of the system — something we cannot afford.

[ Page 11151 ]

We need to

listen to Dr. Rozanski and his recommendations here in British Columbia in order

to avoid the consequences seen in Ontario. We cannot impose salary increases on

school boards without funding them. The costs down the road would be too high.

We cannot download MSP increases to school boards without properly funding them,

or we'll see the impacts in the classroom. We cannot expect school boards to pay

for increasing energy costs and gas prices in the face of declining enrolment

without giving them real tools to ensure fair and equitable access for all

students. We cannot cut services to classrooms without putting more strain on

the professionals who work in those very schools.

Teachers

need the support of society and government to maintain the quality of education

we cherish so deeply. We cannot afford this battle that the Liberals, this

Minister of Education, have put in place and are determined to fight. We cannot

afford to make the same mistakes that Ontario made. Instead, we need to support

teachers, educators, parents, school boards and students.

[1525]

Dr.

Rozanski also argues that we need to create an atmosphere of reciprocal

accountability. If the government wants to impose standards on schools and

teachers and if government wants to hold school boards accountable, government

itself must be held accountable for providing schools with adequate resources to

ensure that targets and accountability measures can be met. Government must be

accountable to work with all of the people involved and not against them. So far

it's not happening in British Columbia. The opposition, however, will continue

its efforts to ensure that the voice of accountability is heard.

Bill 55

recognizes that the Liberals were way out of line last year, but this

legislation is only a small step towards reciprocal accountability. The

government and this minister must abandon their relentless attacks on teachers

and those advocating for improved services. If the government refuses to be

accountable, the tension in the system will remain, to the benefit of no one. It

is time for the battle lines to be taken down. The government needs to ensure

that children's interests are put first and foremost before their political

interests.

Hunter: I rise to speak to Bill 55. In doing so, I want to say right off the

top that there's nobody in this House to whom I would take second place in terms

of the respect that I have for the dedication and professionalism of the vast

majority of teachers in this province. I think it's a tough job. It's one I

certainly wouldn't want to do, but I have a lot of respect for those people.

Secondly,

we've just been treated to a very interesting view of the education scene by the

member of the opposition. I think I should reject right now any of those

allegations the member made that put in the court of government all the

responsibility for whatever confrontation and tension might exist in the schools

of British Columbia.

She failed

to mention that most school districts are actually getting on with the job of

managing the rather significant financial resources that British Columbia allots

to them. She failed to mention that school districts plan now on a three-year

basis, so they can actually plan financially for the local parents and schools.

She failed to mention the announcement of the Minister of Education just last

week that we are putting $10 million more into a program called Community LINK,

which provides more money to school districts to do those kind of things that

school boards believe need to be done in their communities for children who are

perhaps less advantaged than some. Ten million dollars into that program brings

it up to about $45 million equitably distributed across the province, based on

science. It's something the opposition doesn't mention, but I will.

I think

that we both, however, have an interest in making sure that the teachers college

is an effective self-governing body. A year ago — the member of the opposition

is right — we stood here and debated Bill 51. I have to tell you, in that

debate I was convinced that the new balance put into the teachers college was

one with which I was comfortable. I was comfortable because it is very clear to

me that the organization that has fought the changes, the B.C. Teachers

Federation, always expresses its private interests. I'm not so sure that it

always expresses what I take to be the public interest. The public interest in

education includes me. It includes you, Mr. Speaker. It includes parents. It

includes volunteers. It includes grandparents. It includes the community. It is

not just the domain of teachers who happen to be members of their union, the

B.C. Teachers Federation.

While I

have enormous respect for teachers, I know that many teachers are very concerned

about the operations of their own union. It does not always allow them the

freedom of expression that an organization, in my view, should. So I am very

concerned, actually, about the introduction of Bill 51. I think that a year ago,

I was convinced, as I say, of the need for some changes.

[1530]

acknowledge to the minister that this bill does make significant improvements in

some aspects of the operation of the college. He mentioned in his remarks that

it improves the duty to report professional misconduct in certain circumstances.

It requires members to swear an oath, and I hope that will improve the conduct

and the operations of the teachers college.

[H. Long in the chair.]

I have to

say that I am disturbed by what I hear from the B.C. Teachers Federation.

Politics in the classroom, as a result of an arbitral award last week, is

something that unfortunately we have to look forward to. I am concerned that in

the dispute with government, the B.C. Teachers Federation has chosen not to

repay to this point over $2 million in college dues that it is holding on behalf

of its members — money that the taxpayers of British Columbia advanced to the

college in light of that dispute.

[ Page 11152 ]

I believe

that the independent college that parents want, which they made clear as

recently as this past weekend at a DPAC conference, and that I want is well

achieved under the provisions of the former Bill 51. For that reason, I will not

be supporting this bill.

R. Masi:

I would like to make a few comments on Bill 55, the teachers college act. I

certainly want to commend the minister for the restructuring of the College of

Teachers. This new arrangement, this new organization, of 12 college members

elected, three college members from the B.C. principals and vice-principals, the

superintendents and the independent teachers…. I think it makes sure that it

gives the members of the College of Teachers a definite majority. This also, of

course, has the one appointment from the deans of education and four appointed

by the minister from a range of the general public.

This is a

fair and balanced representation of K-to-12 education in British Columbia. I

think we've gone through some controversy relative to the organization and the

structure of the college, but I know that the minister, after due consideration,

has come up with a formula now that is in fact fair and balanced.

The

objectives of the college are also clearly stated in the legislation. I know

that any professional teacher should and would support the objectives, such as

the establishment of standards for education — I think that's self-evident —

and also to acknowledge and support professional responsibility and competence,

which again is self-explanatory. A major objective is to encourage the

professional interests of members, such as professional development, which in my

view has deteriorated somewhat over the last few years. I think the College of

Teachers is the essential location for the improvement of professional

development in this province.

As I

mentioned, the minister has heard the voices of teachers throughout the

province. He has provided an opportunity for professional teachers to in fact

establish a new professionalism in British Columbia. I think that's the essence

of this legislation. This is an opportunity for professional teachers to throw

off the binds of the Teachers Federation and strike out and form a new

professionalism and a new attitude towards their profession in the province. The

ball now — there's no question — is in the classroom teachers' court.

In my

opinion, it's not appropriate for the BCTF, the teachers union, to attempt to

manipulate, as they have in the past, the elections for the college council. We

don't see this anywhere else. We don't see it with the College of Physicians and

Surgeons. We don't see it with the professional nurses. They have their unions

and other organizations that are the same, but the union does not attempt to

interfere or interject their philosophy into the elections of their professional

colleges. I think that's a critical point, and I would like to see the British

Columbia Teachers Federation adopt a new attitude towards their involvement in

the College of Teachers.

[1535]

As I

mentioned, it's only the BCTF union leaders that feel they must control the

college, and it is really not the mandate of the union to control the

professional college when all the members of the college are not members of the

B.C. Teachers Federation. Somehow that point has just slipped by. Principals and

vice-principals are not members of the BCTF. The independent teachers — by the

way, independent teachers in British Columbia are 10 percent of the teaching

force — and also superintendents…. These are all accredited, certified

teachers who are members of the College of Teachers and who, in the past, have

really not had an effective voice in the College of Teachers because the union

has manipulated the election process.

It is the

role of the unions generally to collectively advance the interest of their own

members, and we know that. That is the role of a union. They look at wages,

salaries, benefits. That is the essential position of a union, and so it should

be. The unions do not necessarily represent all the interests of the public or

all the participants in education, such as students, parents and taxpayers in

general. Education is broad; it's widespread. The BCTF cannot be the only voice

in terms of professionalism in this province.

This

legislation presents an opportunity for the professional teachers to take

control of their professional activities without political overtones, without

interference from the B.C. Federation of Labour, the BCGEU, CUPE or any other

external body. I think this is a critical point; it's an essential point. I see

the changes in this new act as an opportunity for all the participants, for all

voices in education, to join in to establish a true professional body dedicated

to the highest standards of professional competence and responsibility.

Lekstrom: I rise today to speak on Bill 55. Listening to what others in the

chamber have said is quite interesting. The issue we're dealing with is really

about the College of Teachers. One of the focuses going back one year, as was

pointed out, was the number of elected teachers to the college — a very

serious issue and a significant one that the British Columbia Teachers

Federation took issue with. Upon taking issue, they withheld dues that were

payable and as a result of that, I guess, managed to bring the idea forward that

the number of teachers to be elected to this board had to be increased compared

to what was in Bill 51 of last year.

Through

many discussions, I'm sure, with the minister and people within the B.C.

Teachers Federation, a new bill is before us. Bill 55 is one that I think

accommodates their requests to a degree and matches a balance to find out what

has to take place to make this work.

I do have

some concerns, and they're somewhat unique. Bill 55, when you read it in

context, is a decent document. It's a reasonable bill when you look at it and

you go through what's there. To me, the reason it is before us isn't acceptable.

The B.C. Teachers Federation has withheld over $2 million, which is really

taxpayers' money. It's $2 million that this province and this government took

and paid on behalf of the teachers who did not submit their dues. That causes me

grave concern.

[ Page 11153 ]

[1540]

We talk

about dropping the battle lines and taking the battle lines down. I think a lot

of work has to be done yet. Just recently I have heard a couple of people talk

on the arbitrator's decision to allow what I would describe as putting political

rhetoric in the hands of teachers in the schools. I don't think they want that.

I think we should do a better job as British Columbians of teaching our children

what the political system is all about — not that this government is bad or

this government is good and, you know, this or that.

It's about

the system. So many of our kids coming out of school today don't realize the

system we live in, in British Columbia and Canada, or how our democracy was

gained and was fought for. People died for our right to cast a vote. We have to

do a much better job of that, and I think it's fair to say, whether you are a

teacher or you are a resident of British Columbia, that it makes some sense —

but not to preach politics of one party over another in the classroom or to

parents coming to visit in a teacher interview. That arbitrator's decision is

nothing short of a disgrace in my eyes.

I want to

go back to Bill 55 and what it holds in this document. I believe what it holds

is an understanding that the government listened to the concerns brought forward

by the teachers — not without a great deal of deliberations, I think, on both

sides. But having said that, I have seen no willingness from the other side to

put the money back that they've withheld — money they've taken out of the

classrooms of the students that they're there to teach. That's $2 million less

that the government has to invest. That investment is in our classrooms. It's in

our schools.

They're

somewhat hypocritical in my view. They're fighting on behalf of a better

education system. They want our children to learn in a great environment, and I

have the utmost respect for that. But at the same time they've kept $2 million

in their pocket and told every other British Columbian: "You have to pay

that on our behalf because we're mad at the government. They passed the bill

that we didn't like, and we're not going to pay that money back." That's

unreasonable. It just is not in the best interest of the children. I don't think

it is in the best interest of our province. If that is how battle lines are

supposed to come down, they're living in a different world than I am, because

that just doesn't work for me.

Do we want

to remove the children from the front lines? Definitely. I will go back to what

I said about the arbitrator's decision. If we remove our children from the front

lines of this political issue that we're in, the way to do it is not by

utilizing the arbitrator's decision to allow this to take place.

I would

love to hear a commitment from the BCTF upon listening to the debate in this

Legislature — and I'm sure they're listening — to come forward and do what's

respectful and what's right and forward the money they've kept from taxpayers of

British Columbia, just as this House is living up to its agreement to change

Bill 51 by presenting Bill 55 here today to give the majority of the college

elected teachers. That's what it's all about. It's politics in every sense of

the word. It just is not right that we are now committed as a government to make

the changes in a bill and do not have a reciprocal agreement that the other side

should live up to.

The college

dues and what takes place as a self-governing profession within that college. As

was indicated by other colleagues here, I think most people have the utmost

respect for teachers. It's not a job I would like, because it is a job that you

want to love to do or have to love to do, to go into that classroom and deal

with all the issues you face day after day. I'm not that old, but some of the

stories my children bring home…. It's quite amazing what goes on in our

classrooms today. For a teacher to be able to deal with that and educate the

students at the same time, they're obviously very special. But from my view, it

seems like there is a select group controlling the BCTF that seems to be forcing

the hand of some of the decisions made.

We've lived

up to our agreement. We've changed the makeup of the college so that teachers

have the majority and can elect 12…. Although the bill is fine, it is a bill

here based on, probably, principles that were negotiated by the dollar, when I

think of what the BCTF has done. Until I see a reciprocal agreement where the

BCTF lives up to its obligation to give the $2 million that it's taken out of

the classroom and out of taxpayers' pockets of British Columbia, I can't support

this bill.

[1545]

Stewart: I would just like to have an opportunity to support this bill. One

of the things in following through with the process that we've undertaken with

this bill is…. I did get quite a bit of response back from teachers I know

when the bill was first introduced. There seemed to be some misinformation out

there with regard to the intent of this government, or what I perceive was the

intent of this government, and also quite a bit of rhetoric from the more

radical members of the teachers union with regards to what our intentions were.

I believe it caused a lot of misinformation.

I am also

concerned about the funds that are left there owing to the citizens of British

Columbia that they've had to cover through other areas — because it does take

funds to operate these organizations — although it's not enough of a

consideration for me to oppose this bill. I believe that in the true spirit in

which this is intended to help overcome some of the past difficulties and areas

of misinformation that were placed out….

I would

surely hope that by this bill being passed by the government today, the logical

people — which I presume and from what I've seen of the teachers I know is a

vast majority of teachers — would view this as something that is not only good

for the students, not only good for the teachers, not only good for the

administrators, not only good for the school board but good for all people in

future learning in British Columbia. I would trust that shortly after the

conclusion of this bill, if it is concluded in a positive way, the Teachers

Federation will come forward with the funds that

[ Page 11154 ]

they've been withholding. It's on that assumption, which I know is a

dangerous thing in this business, that I will be fully supporting this bill.

Deputy

Speaker: The Minister of Education closes debate on Bill 55.

Hon. T.

Christensen: It's been interesting, and I appreciate the words of other

members in the House and the contribution to this debate. It was interesting

listening to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and her taking the

opportunity of the discussion of the College of Teachers to list off her many

complaints about public education in the province and, consistent with her

practice, not offering any solutions. I know the member often likes to list off

different numbers of what's happening in public education, but she never

actually lists off what the most critical numbers are when we're looking at

public education, and that's what the results are.

The results

are — and this is likely why she doesn't tell the House this — that the

completion rates are up for students completing high school. Aboriginal

completion rates are up. Provincial scholarships — we awarded 400 more

provincial scholarships last year than we had in 2002. There are many indicators

showing that students are actually doing much better in school. As I travel the

province, I certainly see exemplary practices going on in schools in districts

right around the province.

I think

it's always worth noting that we spend too much time focusing on the challenges,

and we rarely spend the time we should focusing on the fact that we have and

continue to have one of the pre-eminent public education systems both in Canada

and, in fact, in the world. People continue to come to British Columbia to see

what we're doing here, and the innovations being practised in public schools

here, so they can take those ideas back to their own jurisdictions and copy

them.

A number of

other remarks that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant made suggested that

Bill 51 last year just came out of the blue — that the College of Teachers was

ticking along, operating fine, and that, really, there was no need for

government to act — and nothing could be further from the truth. As I

indicated earlier, the College of Teachers had existed for 16 years without

having developed standards of conduct for the profession. That's the most

fundamental thing that any self-governing professional body can do, yet for 16

years the College of Teachers hadn't managed to do that.

[1550]

There was a

general lack of public confidence in the College of Teachers and confidence by

the other education stakeholders. A lack of confidence was generated by the fact

that the B.C. Teachers Federation, the teachers union, chose to try and very

deliberately exercise influence over the College of Teachers, resulting in a

college that did not have that one thing which I mentioned earlier that a

college needs, and that is the confidence of the public. The college at that

time didn't have a public complaint process, which is something that at a

minimum we should expect from any self-governing profession moving forward.

We have

worked hard on this file over the course of the last year. We have looked to

develop a framework for a college of teachers that can serve the needs of the

profession in a manner that protects the public interest. Moving forward, I'm

confident that that is going to happen.

The

transitional college has drafted standards of competence that they are now out

consulting on, and I emphasize that those are draft standards of competence. The

government certainly will be encouraging the newly elected college council to

include the final standards in the college bylaws once that consultation is

complete. It's critical that as a self-governing profession, the College of

Teachers has appropriate standards of conduct.

Government,

as I said, has also heard very clearly that there must be a formal public

complaint process for the college but also that that process needs to respect

existing processes developed by individual schools and local school districts.

Government will encourage the college to finalize a public complaint process

that will be included in the college bylaws. If those things are followed

through on, I'm confident we will end up with a college of teachers that does

have the respect of both the profession and British Columbians all around this

province.

I think

what the members of the opposition seem clearly not to grasp is the distinction

that must be made between the College of Teachers and the British Columbia

Teachers Federation. As the member for Nanaimo indicated, the British Columbia

Teachers Federation serves a very legitimate and important purpose in serving

its members as a union. It has a role to play in collective bargaining. It has a

role to play in advancing the interests of its members as a union.

Contrast

that with the purpose of any self-governing professional body. Its primary

object is certainly to develop standards for the profession and to govern the

profession — but in the public interest. It is a simple fact that governing in

the public interest is not the same as representing the interests of the union.

It is not the same role as a union, and it is critical that that distinction be

drawn.

I do have

reason for concern in this regard. The BCTF along with numerous professional

teachers around the province said to government: "It is important that

teachers be a self-governing profession." I agree with that; my colleagues

agree with that. They indicated that in order to be an effective self-governing

body, it was important — like other self-governing colleges and professional

bodies — that a majority of the members of the governing council be elected by

members of the profession. Government agrees with that. We're moving to do that

with Bill 55 so that 12 out of the 20 members — clearly a majority — are

elected by members of the college.

[ Page 11155 ]

Unfortunately,

since the BCTF took that original position, they have more recently indicated

that they in fact wish to have 14 members. Government isn't going to provide for

14 members, because that would provide a lack of balance between elected members

and other members of the council that are there to ensure the public interest is

respected. My concern around the argument that the BCTF would like to see 14

members elected is that the argument is clearly made in the context of a desire

to control the College of Teachers. They expressly state that they want 14

elected so that they can change bylaws. That is clearly inappropriate, and it is

further evidence — and evidence that concerns me — that the British Columbia

Teachers Federation does not yet see the distinction between a professional

college of teachers and its mandate as the teachers union.

[1555]

Moving

forward, we really are at a critical juncture. Bill 55 is enabling legislation,

in my view. It enables professional teachers in this province to choose to be a

self-governing profession and to serve the public interest in how their

profession is governed. If we are to get to a point where the College of

Teachers is fulfilling its role like any other self-governing profession, the

College of Teachers is going to have to operate like other self-governing

professional bodies — like the Law Society, like the College of Physicians and

Surgeons, like a host of other self-governing professions we have in this

province.

If the BCTF

wishes teachers to have a self-governing professional body, they need to review

and remove their practice of endorsing candidates for election to the college

council. In some discussions with the BCTF executive, they've indicated to me

they're prepared to do that and that they don't see endorsement as being a

critical issue. They say to me that it is important, and they recognize the

importance that there be that independence. I am hopeful the BCTF will follow

through on their suggestion that they would be prepared to remove endorsement.

But the

BCTF needs to go further. They need to encourage their members to pay dues to

the college, dues of $90 a year, which is less than half the dues paid by any

other self-governing profession in this province. I think they're less than 10

percent of some of the self-governing professions, so those are reasonable dues

that should be paid in order for the college to fulfil its mandate.

I've had

the distinct pleasure over the last four months of visiting about 15 of the 60

school districts in this province and meeting with principals, vice-principals,

teachers and parents. I can tell you that we are incredibly fortunate to have

teachers who are dedicated, day in and day out, to being very professional in

doing all they can to meet the needs of our students in the classrooms. We have

innovative practices going on in classrooms from one part of this province to

another, with all of that innovation driven by teachers who are continually

striving to meet the needs of their students and ensure that their students get

the best education possible.

Those are

the teachers who are out there in our classrooms. Those are the teachers who

deserve and sincerely want to be a self-governing profession. That is the

professionalism that's occurring in classrooms around the province. We've had a

lot of discussion in the last few days about the BCTF, the direction they're

going with wanting to pursue political action in schools and the arbitrator's

ruling that's now being appealed.

To be

perfectly frank, all of that discussion flies in the face of the experience I'm

seeing when I go to classrooms. The teachers I see in classrooms don't want to

talk politics. They want to talk about what they can do to improve the outcomes

of their students, what new literacy initiative and what numeracy initiative

they can try, what we are doing and what they can do to promote a broader range

of opportunities for students as they go through school.

That's the

professionalism that is going on out there, and I commend all those teachers who

work day in and day out on behalf of students right around this province. As we

move forward, it's critical that that distinction be made at all levels between

the interests of the BCTF and the interests of the profession. I think it would

be extremely dangerous if the BCTF chooses to follow through on what it has said

it intends to do in terms of using things like parent-teacher interviews to

pursue their own political objections to government.

I say this

based on comments I've received from parents, and I base it on my own

perspective as a parent. You go to a parent-teacher interview to discuss your

child's progress. You expect your child's teacher to be professional in that

discussion and to talk to you about what your child is learning, the methods

being used, the initiatives you could take as a parent to help your child learn

better. Certainly, in my experience as a parent, the one teacher I've had to

deal with in a parent-teacher interview has been extremely professional.

[1600]

To change

that relationship to one that might involve any suggestion of politics

completely undermines that teacher's professionalism. I would ask the BCTF to

think long and hard before it chooses to go down a path that undermines the

professionalism of educators around this province. I would ask that individual

teachers think about that thoroughly before they go down that path.

Bill 55

provides the vehicle to have a truly professional college of teachers, to have a

truly professional self-governing body here in British Columbia. It is a vehicle

I am hopeful and confident that teachers around the province will embrace and

that we will be able to move forward and establish ourselves as the first

jurisdiction in Canada to truly have an effective self-governing body for our

professional educators.

I move

second reading of Bill 55.

Second

reading of Bill 55 approved on division.

Hon. T.

Christensen: I move that Bill 55 be referred to a Committee of the Whole

House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 11156 ]

Bill 55,

Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I call committee stage on Bill 43.

Committee of the Whole House

VITAL STATISTICS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 43; K. Stewart in the chair.

The

committee met at 4:03 p.m.

Sections

1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On

section

Hon. C.

Hansen: On this

section there are some issues raised by some individuals

that I wanted to take the opportunity to elaborate on a bit. Without actually

having a question put to me on this section, I wanted to be proactive and put

this on the record.

The issue

that was raised for me was around a situation where a child would have been born

as a result of a rape, for example, and what protections there would be for the

mother. I wanted to make it quite clear that we are not proposing any changes to

the legislation in that regard, in that it is still up to the discretion of the

courts to determine whether or not the father would be named on the birth

certificate. The change we are also bringing in is to give the courts the

ability to also determine whether or not the father should be allowed to

participate in the naming of the child.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

One of the

suggestions that had come forward as we were considering this legislation was

whether or not it would be possible to make it explicit, in the case of

an act

such as rape that was found to be a criminal act by the courts, that the ability

of the courts to hear those cases would be restricted. I wanted to put on the

record that I'm advised that if we did that, it would perhaps fetter the courts

in ways which would have unintended consequences, in that it would put

limitations on the ability of the courts to look at the broad ranges of

circumstances which might lead the courts to not allow the father either to be

named on the birth certificate or, in fact, to participate in the naming of the

child.

[1605]

I did want

to raise that in response to some concerns that had been raised with me earlier,

and I'd be pleased to take any other questions.

MacPhail: My colleague has my file. She's picked it up with everything. So

I'll start my questions, and then I might just have to ask for a moment —

she's in the Douglas Fir Room — to get it.

It is on

this very section,

section 4. I just want to make sure that we clarify these

changes for people who are particularly…. I must tell the minister that the

areas where we have had questions for me to ask the minister are from the

adoption community. To begin, I just want to ask the minister this. The sections

that are being changed here are to deal with the court case, as the minister has

just said. I thought the court case also addressed the issue of sections 3(1)(

b) and 3(6)(

b) of the Vital Statistics Act in terms of amending paternity and

naming rights, but this new legislation doesn't address changes to those

sections.

Hon. C.

Hansen: The court case that was decided on by the Supreme Court of Canada

last June in fact started many years ago. In a miscellaneous statutes bill that

came through this House in 2002, we made some amendments to

section 3 around the

rights of the courts to order that the father's name be reflected in the birth

certificate. When the court decision came down, it was actually in the context

of both issues. But the court actually acknowledged that we, as the B.C.

Legislature, had in fact amended this legislation around the ability of the

court to order that the father's name be added to the birth certificate.

Where the

courts went further than that last June was with regard to the naming of the

child, and they found that issue was also discriminatory. So in fact, what

flowed from the court decision is that we had already done the side with regard

to the rights of the courts to order that a father's name be reflected on the

birth certificate. We then had to go the extra step to reflect the court's

ruling with regard to the father's rights in the naming of the child.

MacPhail: That's very helpful. But I'm wondering whether it's that the

public doesn't yet have access to some sort of record to these changes. Can I

just confirm with the minister what the changes are that were made to

section 3,

before, to deal with this? Perhaps he could just read them into the record. What

I'm discerning is he's saying that changes were made in a previous amendment to

deal with the Supreme Court of Canada changes around naming the father. Could he

just read into the record what the current law is around that, then?

[1610]

Hon. C.

Hansen: This court case goes back a number of years. This had been before

the courts, but not to the Supreme Court of Canada until last June. In October

2002, in a miscellaneous statutes amendment, we brought in changes that amended

section 3 that the member referred to. It was by adding the following paragraph,

and that was: "(

d) the child's mother or father, if the application is

accompanied by a copy of an order of the court declaring the child's paternity,

unless the court orders that the father's particulars are not to be included on

the child's registration of birth."

[ Page 11157 ]

Then this next

section actually just provides for an effective date of that

— that it would only apply to court orders made after October 1, 2002, and

that if it was for a court order prior to that, it would have to, in fact, go

back to the court.

Those

amendments from 2002 were proclaimed, I believe, in October of that year and

have been in effect.

MacPhail: I see that's actually 3(6)(d) — "d" as in dog — that

the minister was just reading into the record from the Vital Statistics Act.

Is it the

minister's view that this change deals with the results of the Supreme Court

decision of last June? If his answer is yes and he does feel that way, then I'm

wondering whether he would be willing to receive letters from people with their

personal circumstances, as we have received, to ensure that the law is correct.

I'm not asking for changes but just to ensure that the law is correct and that

if it perhaps isn't meeting all circumstances flowing from the Supreme Court

decision, he would take that into account.

Hon. C.

Hansen: The short answer to her question is yes. These changes do reflect

the Supreme Court's decision of June of last year.

To her

second question as to whether or not I'd be willing to receive letters and

representation, the answer is yes. If I can just point out — it may be

helpful; I'm not sure — that in the court's decision, the Supreme Court was

reflecting the wording of the Vital Statistics Act prior to the changes that we

had in place in 2002. So there may be some people who don't appreciate the fact

that this has almost been a two-stage transition. We did the changes in 2002,

which addressed some of the issues that were subsequently reflected in the

Supreme Court decision, but the courts, of course, also went further when it

came to the actual naming, and these changes now also reflect that. But the

short answer is yes, I'd be pleased to receive those letters.

MacPhail: I appreciate that.

S. Orr:

I have had several conversations with the minister over a period of time on an

issue that I have concerns about. I do believe that this comes under

section 4.

I've gone through the bill. It's kind of hard to find out where it is in here,

but I think it's under

section 4(2).

My concern

is over the protection of a woman who has been raped or a woman who has fled an

abusive marriage or relationship. I want to find out what protection she has if

the father has the right to have his name on the birth certificate. Can you

assure me or can you explain to me on the record where I would feel comfortable

that a woman who has been raped or a woman who is fleeing an abusive marriage or

relationship has some sort of protection?

[1615]

Hon. C.

Hansen: At the outset, I did try to address some of those issues. Just to

respond to the member's question specifically, the advice that I have is that

for us to put additional restrictions on the courts in terms of circumstances

under which they may or may not hear a case may in fact have the opposite

result.

I'll read

you this, which may help explain it: "Specific exceptions in the act would

restrict the court from using its discretion to consider a broad range of

circumstances such as spousal abuse, incest and stalking when considering an

order to refuse registration of a father's particulars." In other words, if

we were to try to carve out circumstances that would say to the courts that they

could not hear a case, for example, where the father had been convicted of a

rape, that may in fact impede the court's ability to reject a case where the

father may be accused of rape but not convicted of a rape. So the protection to

the mother is really in the power of the courts and the requirement that the

courts must consider the best interests of the child, which is in the

legislation. For us to further restrict the ability of the court may in fact

have the opposite effect in those circumstances.

S. Orr:

I think that answers my concerns, but I do want it on the record because when

judges go to make decisions, quite often they will read the Hansard when

they are reading the legislation. Hopefully, this will be flagged, and he or she

will become very cognizant of an issue that I have raised.

Sections 4

to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

MacPhail: I'm wondering whether this is just a technicality of a misprint,

but I'm dealing with

section 11(b), which repeals and substitutes

section 36(4)

of the Vital Statistics Act. It reads — 11(b)(4): "Subject to sections 63

(2) and 64 (3) of the Adoption Act…." I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, whether

it should actually read subject to 63(2) and 64(2) of the Adoption Act. Those

two sections are identical — 63(2) and 64(2) of the Adoption Act. Therefore,

that's why I wondered whether it should be that instead. This is strictly

technical, but it doesn't seem to read correctly if it refers to

section 64(3)

of the Adoption Act.

Interjection.

MacPhail: Yes, that's fine. I appreciate it.

[1620]

Hon. C.

Hansen: This particular reference is the same language as was in the bill

before, so we're not changing it. That's the first thing to point out.

Secondly,

what

section 63(2) does is restrict the…. If there is a disclosure veto on the

information, then that information cannot be disclosed.

Section 64(3) says that

if a birth parent is applying for information, they cannot get access to the

information about the adoptive parents. They can get information about the child

but not the adoptive parents.

[ Page 11158 ]

I am

advised that these two references, first of all, haven't changed from the

original wording — they're simply restated in this — but also that it

pertains to those two provisions.

MacPhail: I'm sorry. I misunderstood the point. They haven't changed from

the original wording where? The original wording….

Hon. C.

Hansen: This particular section…. What it does is repeal…. Is it 37? It

repeals 36 and then restates it, but in restating it, it incorporates much of

the original language in

section 36. In this particular reference, where it

says, "Subject to sections 63 (2) and 64 (3) of the Adoption Act,"

that is exactly the same language in this

section that exists prior. So we are

not changing that particular reference, and it is with regard to those two

issues that these references occur.

MacPhail: Okay. I'm not going to belabour this point. I hope it wasn't in

the original act that the mistake was made. Believe you me, I could criticize

the author of that mistake from now till doomsday. I did the Adoption Act, Mr.

Chair. I was the one who did it. I just hope it's not an error from the original

act, because it does seem to me that there's disclosure being talked about,

first of all, to the adopted child 19 and over. Then the other section,

section

64 of the Adoption Act, is disclosure to the birth parent.

How do we

ensure that the provisions of "a certified copy or certified electronic

extract," etc., which is now provided in this new legislation, will be

provided to an adopted person…? How do we ensure that that's also provided to

a birth parent?

Hon. C.

Hansen: What this does is say that if there is information that can be

provided under the Vital Statistics Act, that does not take priority over the

Adoption Act. If there is a restriction on the provision of information in the

Adoption Act under these two sections that the member referred to, then they

have to be respected. Information that cannot be disclosed under the Adoption

Act has to also not be disclosed under the Vital Statistics Act so that we have

consistency between the two.

[1625]

MacPhail: Okay, fine. That's fine, Mr. Chair. I think the minister has a

handle on it. I hope people who are looking at this can understand it as well,

because these sections of the Adoption Act are very widely used, and British

Columbia should take great pride in that.

We're

discussing, generally, changes to disclosure under the Adoption Act now. That's

what

section 11 is about. I want to ask the minister a general question about

disclosure in that area relating to vital statistics.

The

minister has addressed some issues around birth fathers. I appreciate the

changes he has made in that area. It's my understanding that birth fathers who

aren't named on the birth certificate…. There was a period — I think it was

prior to 1962 — when birth fathers were deliberately excluded from being on

the birth certificate. They are now denied access to a child's adoption records

under the Adoption Act because they can't produce the birth certificate with

their name on it. In the period from 1948 to 1962, I think, birth fathers were

specifically prohibited from being listed on the birth certificate. They now

don't have a birth certificate, pursuant to the

section that we were just

talking about, to produce.

It is

becoming clear that it's a catch-22. Has the minister had any representations

made on this? Does he have any proposals for solutions?

The

Chair: Leader of the Opposition.

MacPhail: May I add one other fact to this, Mr. Chair? It is relevant to

these sections of the Adoption Act.

There has

been no disclosure veto filed in these particular situations. It's by virtue of

the fact that the father doesn't have the legal piece of information that is

required because of a warped law, I would say, that existed between 1948 and

[1630]

Hon. C.

Hansen: As I understand it — actually, this is an interesting piece of

B.C. history — between 1948 and 1962, if the father signed the registration,

then he was automatically added to the birth certificate as the father,

regardless of marriage. In 1962 it changed so that there had to be a joint

statement of paternity. That was the system that was in place between 1962 and

1987. Then in 1987 it went back, in fact, to the system whereby if the father

signed the registration, it resulted in his name being added to the birth

certificate.

The

question from the member, as I understand it, is…. At the time the

registration was done in those years, if the father did not sign it, then there

would be no record. The challenge for Vital Statistics is that they have no

legal record of who the father was during those years. I'm not sure if the

member has any particular suggestions around that. I think her specific question

to me was: have I had representations on that? My answer is: not that I'm aware

of, although letters may have come into the ministry in that regard. I would

certainly be open to suggestions. I don't think anybody has any quick solutions

as to how to deal with that, given that there is no legal paper trail with

regard to who the father was in those cases.

MacPhail: I appreciate that, and I will urge people who have concerns around

this to make representations to the minister. All of the tests of these laws

require personal circumstances, if you ask me, to understand how to enforce

them. I will urge people to do that.

This

section,

section 11, talks about the Adoption Act and disclosure. Part of

disclosure is that people get to veto disclosure. I just wondered…. We are

facing a situation now where a disclosure veto continues in

[ Page 11159 ]

effect until two years after a person has died. We are now at a situation

where the law has been in force long enough that that test has been met.

However, there's nothing in the act or nothing that people can easily access

when people in the adoption circle are looking for disclosure after a person has

died, and they don't know when the person has died.

I know

under some circumstances people may say: "Oh well, don't you know when a

person dies?" Well, this is a circumstance where people have actually put

in place a veto, which is the equivalent of a no-contact, and yet the law was

very clear to say that records can be disclosed two years after the person dies.

People are now at the stage where they're pretty much having to file a request,

pursuant to

section 5, almost on a daily basis to see whether the person has

died.

Has the

minister had any experience with this? Is there a solution to this? Is there a

way at Vital Statistics, with our wonderful records — I think we've won a lot

of awards for our Vital Statistics in British Columbia — where a person can

check deaths on line?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I'm trying to think of how…. The more we get into this, the more

you start to appreciate the complexities of this.

The

member's question, I think, is relevant not only to this

section but also to the

section around the release of birth certificates 100 years — or 120 years, as

we're proposing — after the birth of the individual. The problem we have is

that we don't have records of individuals who pass away, who may be born in

B.C., who may have been put up for adoption in B.C., but who then move out of

the province, or the birth parents may move out of the province. We don't have

ways of tracking that.

[1635]

I guess the

short answer to the member's question is that we have not come up with solutions

as to how to manage that information, even with some of the new technologies

that Vital Statistics is employing in the province.

MacPhail: That's fair comment.

Are deaths

registered in a public way if they're B.C. born and died?

Hon. C.

Hansen: If they pass away in B.C. or if we have proof of death of an

individual, then that information is available through archives 20 years after

the individual dies. I know the member is looking for an opportunity to

determine whether an individual is deceased or not on a shorter time frame than

that, but what is in place now is 20 years.

MacPhail: Just my final comment on this. I think British Columbians should

be very proud of their vital statistics model here in British Columbia and also

their adoption laws. I would hope that the minister, Vital Statistics and the

Ministry of Children and Family Development could work together at some point to

do a review of access to adoption records, so that we can ensure that all three

points of the triangle — whether you are a birth parent, an adoptive parent or

an adoptee — ar