2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2007

Morning Sitting

Volume 21, Number 1

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Second Reading of Bills

Homeowner Protection Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill 34)

Hon. R.

Coleman

D. Thorne

Hon. J. van

Dongen

C. Puchmayr

Hon.

R. Coleman

Committee of the Whole House

Teaching Profession (Teacher

Registration) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 21)

D. Cubberley

Hon. S. Bond

N. Macdonald

Proceedings in

the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General

and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism (continued)

N. Simons

Hon. W. Oppal

B. Ralston

[ Page 7969 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2007

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Abbott: In Committee A, I call continued estimates

debate of the Ministry of Attorney General followed by the estimates debate of

the Ministry of Economic Development, and in this chamber second reading debate

on Bill 34, the Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2007.

Second Reading of Bills

HOMEOWNER PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 34 be read a second time

now.

Bill 34 proposes amendments to the Homeowner Protection Act that

strengthen consumer protection for people buying new homes in British Columbia.

These amendments have probably been talked about in this House since as far back

as 1998, when the first act came into place in B.C. — have been debated between

different critics and what have you. There have always been concerns with

certain areas of the act that probably needed some improvement as the act sort

of mellowed like aging good wine.

They provide a framework for improved qualifications for licensed

residential builders. They also regulate the construction of owner-built homes

in British Columbia. Owner-builders are currently exempt from the Homeowner

Protection Act requirements that homes be built by licensed builders and covered

by new home warranty insurance.

More than a quarter of the single-detached homes built since the

Homeowner Protection Act regulations came into effect in 1998 have been

constructed under this exemption. People in industry have told us for a long

time that this is a concern — the abuse of the owner-builder authorization to

build homes for sale, rather than people that would actually occupy their home

and occupy them to live in. This creates a gap in consumer protection, unfair

competition for licensed builders, lost tax revenue to government, and in

particular, it creates a gap with regards to new home warranty insurance for

those people who would want to buy a home from an owner-builder going forward.

[1005]

Bill 34 sets forth a series of new measures including providing

the Homeowner Protection Office with the authority to issue owner-builder

authorizations, setting the conditions under which an owner-builder

authorization is provided, setting limits on how often an owner-builder may

receive an owner-builder authorization and how much time must elapse before

selling the home.

It does also include, though, hardship clauses in order to be able

to deal with those individual one-off situations that may come along. It

clarifies the owner-builder's responsibility to buyers within the first ten

years, including stronger penalties for not notifying potential buyers that the

home was owner-built.

It establishes more effective enforcement tools, including

compliance orders and administrative penalties up to $225,000. These are

overdue, and they were discussed many times. As I said, this is a bill that has

evolved over the years, and everybody I have talked to in the industry and

outside of the industry thinks that it's about time.

Initiating a review and appeal process for both licensed and

residential builders and owner-builders, enabling a new owner-builder fee to

support administration in compliance activities. Bill 34 maintains the ability

of British Columbians to use their skill to build their own home while providing

restrictions and penalties to those who seek to abuse the owner-builder

exemption.

We recognize that the circumstances of people's lives sometimes

change unexpectedly. To avoid this undue strain on owner-builders, Bill 34

provides the registrar with discretion in applying owner-builder time

restrictions where those rules may present a hardship. In addition, Bill 34

incorporates changes to some of the

definitions with the act to ensure

consistency.

This bill also includes a change that we will refer to as the

Pendray amendment, which has to do with an owned-farm corporation being able to

become an owner-builder on the site of their farm, which was not something that

was allowed under the previous act. I won't speak to what we like to

affectionately call the Pendray amendment this morning.

My colleague from Abbotsford-Clayburn will be doing that in his

second reading debate and comments this morning with regards to the change that

came forward by a citizen in B.C. who wished to tell us, prior to his

unfortunate passing with a significant disease, the concern that he saw with the

act and how that change could be beneficial to farmers and to the farming

community.

I look forward to listening to the debates and concluding, as we

move on. In conclusion, these proposed amendments will allow the government to

increase consumer protection for everyone buying a new home in B.C. while

supporting a vibrant construction industry.

D. Thorne: Comments on the separating of Bill 34 this

morning. Certainly, we have needed to strengthen the Homeowner Protection Act,

an act that was legislated by the NDP government in July 1998 after the Barrett

Commission recommendations. I support the HPO as a tool in a consumer protection

toolbox.

I can see where this bill is going, a bill that has a lot of

housekeeping details and a lot of measures that will give the HPO more

flexibility and more power to work within when they're determining things like

fining and

[ Page 7970 ]

criteria for different aspects of the work that they do at the HPO.

That being said, I must say that Bill 34 is disappointing. I don't

believe that it goes far enough. It is long overdue, but since it is so long

overdue, we should have gone even further. I guess it is a small step towards

protecting consumers. Looking at it from that angle, certainly I will be

recommending that my caucus support this bill.

However, some of the most substantive issues and decisions in this

bill are being left for cabinet to decide when the regulations actually get

discussed, debated and passed. If you read through this proposed bill, you will

see that the meat of the bill is — as is often the case, I think — in the

regulations.

[1010]

Setting the time frame before an owner-builder can sell, setting

the criteria for issuing an owner-builder authorization, setting the criteria

for excusing a builder from certain obligations, setting the criteria for which

fines can be imposed, setting the fees for an owner-builder authorization,

setting the criteria under which an owner-builder must provide a security in the

absence of third-party warranty insurance and setting the licensing requirement

for builders.

All of those, the meat of the bill, will be done behind closed

doors by cabinet. For me and, I suspect, at third reading for my caucus, that's

going to be an issue for a lot of debate and a lot of concern.

Mr. Speaker, I have a note that somebody would like leave to make

an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

C. Trevena: In the gallery at the moment are 28 grade 5 and

grade 6 students from École Willow Point Elementary in Campbell River. They're

here with five parents and their teacher Mary Begg. Mary has been nominated for

the Campbell River Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year Award. Her love of

teaching and guiding of her students are clear to everyone who knows her and

respects her. I hope the House will make them all very welcome.

Debate Continued

D. Thorne: That being said about the regulations, I certainly

hope we are going to see more changes to the HPO in the near future — that this

is just the beginning of implementing recommendations not just from the Barrett

Commission but from papers like Raising the Bar, which the HPO published

in 2005.

One wonders why it has taken so long to start implementing any of

those recommendations and changes. These recommendations are coming from the HPO

after much consultation with the industry. We have not moved on that, so I'm

assuming this is the first small step towards implementing the Raising the

Bar paper.

For instance, licensing of all builders — full licensing. The

recommendations in Raising the Bar are that we change the current policy

of having warranty providers being the evaluation authority on all aspects of

licensing to narrowing their influence and their authority in that area, and

having the HPO itself responsible for the other parts of the full continuum of

licensing.

I hope we are going to move in that direction. I think it's fairly

clear, if you read through that report, that builders — and I'm assuming

consumers as well — are very concerned about the fact that warranty providers

really are uninterested in most aspects of the licensing strategy,

whereas the

financial parts are what they are interested in and probably should remain

involved in.

Some of the other issues that are not addressed or will not be

addressed in this chamber…. We'll have much more discussion about these in

committee stage. For example, what about the many areas of the province that

have no building-permit process?

Occupancy permits are nonexistent in those areas. People generally

do what they want. They live in homes they're building. There are all kinds of

problems generally with owner-builders in those areas, which we're not even

touching here. I'm assuming that we'll be moving quickly in those areas as well,

because this is another huge area of concern for consumer protection.

What about the whole issue of inadequate home inspections — the

concerns in those areas? Then the even bigger issues that arise when warranty

insurers don't pay out on legitimate claims, and the HPO has no power to get

involved or to break into that dispute process and come up with some kind of

resolution.

[1015]

I really believe that what we wanted when we brought in an office

like the HPO was that it be for consumer protection — a huge part of it — and

that it doesn't become a licensing bureau, in essence. The HPO has to be more

than a place where people get a licence for building, get education, and where

we regulate and monitor in the way the College of Physicians and Surgeons

monitors, but where we don't have a strong consumer protection part of it. Part

of that has to be dealing with the warranties — dealing with builders who do

build bad buildings and what happens to the consumers afterwards.

Southern British Columbia is littered with stories — and we're all

very aware of them — of people whose lives have been ruined by bad buildings,

bad warranty and builders who don't repair adequately even if they can be

brought to the plate to repair, which is not always the case. So that whole area

— hopefully, we can bring that into the committee stage.

The whole modernization strategy is a huge concern. I know it's

not mentioned in this bill, but its shadow is over the whole bill. Based on what

we know is not in this bill, the modernization strategy could be looked at as a

kind of scary recommendation.

I think the industry does need to be modernized. I think there are

a lot of really good points in the modernization strategy, but we must be very

sure, before

[ Page 7971 ]

we modernize an industry, that the industry is working the way it's supposed

to be — the best we can do to make it work the way it's supposed to be — that we

truly do have consumer protection built into offices like the HPO and that we

have some protection for builders as well.

In most cases these builders, whether they're owner-builders or

big residential companies, are not in this business to make problems for

consumers. We have to make sure that we're doing the best to have a level

playing field, where they are protected as well as the consumer.

I have some concerns, and I'm sure in the future we'll be doing

lots of talking in this chamber on the modernization strategy and on the

Limitation Act, which is a proposal coming through the Attorney General's office

right now. We will be looking at limitations on the lengths of time that the

consumer has to deal with builders and bad buildings and all of those areas that

I've been talking about.

Both the modernization strategy and the Limitation Act proposed

changes are a concern when we look at a bill like Bill 34. I'm hoping that very

soon we'll have another bill introduced so that we can deal with much, much

more, and those proposed acts won't seem as premature.

The minister referred to the percentage of homes that are built by

owner-builders, and the staff at HPO had told me the same thing. It is about 25

to 30 percent of homes. And of course, we know that significant numbers of those

fall through the cracks because they're not registered in any way.

Even the owner-builders that do register often get an exemption

which…. They shouldn't have gotten an exemption. It's based on incorrect

information — fraud, you might say — and they don't have to have warranty

insurance. As the minister has said, that's a huge issue for the industry, and

certainly it's a huge thing for the person buying the home, the consumer.

I am a little concerned in this bill — and I did ask the staff

from HPO about this — about the fact that they are not going to be asking for

any security from owner-builders, at least not as a rule. The registrar will,

hopefully, have the right to ask for security if they feel there's a specific or

special need for security.

[1020]

I'm hoping that time won't show that's a weak regulation and that

we should have probably had it in the bill that as a matter of course, if there

was no warranty insurance needed by the owner-builder, security of some kind

would be required, particularly when you look at the areas of the province where

we don't have a process in place to catch these people. They often fall through

the cracks. I think there's a lot more building going on in these areas — areas

like the islands and outlying areas.

For instance, I don't want to name any areas, but I know for sure

that up around Powell River — and it's only one of hundreds — there is no

building process in place, and there is a lot of building going on. In fact, the

Vancouver Sun just recommended it as a really still-cheap area and a

place to pick up some nice cottage land, if you want it. It's those cottages

that bring about a lot of problems too. They often turn into big houses, they

double in value, and they get sold by an owner-builder who has fallen through

the cracks.

We have to remember that's a real consumer issue as well. When

people can't recover damages and there is no warranty insurance, we all have

problems. It reflects on our whole society and certainly the economics of the

province. It's a big deal.

Even with the new powers and flexibility that this bill will give

the HPO, I'm hoping that's going to be enough for them to at least start working

on getting even more teeth, as they call it. They feel they've been gumming

people to death, and it hasn't been working too well. I think this bill is like

the baby teeth, perhaps, and I'm looking forward to those second teeth when they

come in.

I also want to just generally say in second reading that I think

the HPO should be given the power to do more to protect consumers in this

province. That is really what it was meant to be, and we have to be very careful

that we don't allow the HPO to become more of an overall licensing bureau for

residential and owner-builders.

I'm just about finished what I wanted to say at second reading. I

will be recommending to my caucus that they support Bill 34. I am hoping we'll

have a fulsome debate at committee stage as we go through clause by clause.

Most of the clauses are very much housekeeping details and will

probably get no debate. They'll just pass, and that's as it should be. But there

are three or four of them that we'll probably have major discussion on, around

time limits and corporations and licensing. Also, I'm hoping that there'll be

lots of debate and suggestions around what these regulations should look like

when cabinet does get to discuss them behind closed doors.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to speak today on Bill 34,

the Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2007. I rise to speak in support of this

bill and in particular to highlight the good work of the minister and his staff

in responding to a request on behalf of the farm community.

As the minister stated, I want to speak to what we affectionately

know within government as the Pendray amendment. About a year and a half ago, a

well-known and well-respected farmer in the Saanich Peninsula, a leader in the

agricultural community and a friend of this House first learned that he had ALS,

otherwise known as Lou Gehrig's disease.

At 56 years old and as a strong, healthy individual, this was the

last thing that Dave Pendray and his wife Linda and their family had in mind for

their life plan. But Dave Pendray, characteristically, quickly came to terms

with the reality of his crippling disease and set about to build a new house on

their farm for him and Linda — one that would best accommodate his escalating

disability.

[ Page 7972 ]

It wasn't long before Dave Pendray ran headlong into the rules and

regulations of the Homeowner Protection Act — in particular, the owner-builder

provisions of the act. To summarize the difficulty, because their farm was owned

by the farm company rather than the Pendrays personally, they were deemed under

the existing act to be not eligible for the owner-builder provisions.

[1025]

There were other difficulties as well. If you know Dave Pendray as

I do and as the member for Nelson-Creston does, he was not a big fan of

redundant government regulation. That would be putting it mildly.

After the minister and the HPO graciously helped Dave Pendray deal

with the immediate issues, Dave said to me: "This is a problem, and it needs to

be fixed. You guys need to change this legislation so that it never happens

again to someone else." I approached the minister again about a possible change

in legislation to help farmers in the same situation as Dave Pendray.

Fortuitously, the minister was in the process of the comprehensive

review that went into the development of this proposed legislation. I told the

minister that he had to get this legislation changed because I didn't want to

have to explain to Dave Pendray that it couldn't or wouldn't be done.

It is generally a fact that changing legislation is normally a

very long process, and that's if you can make it happen at all. But I was very

happy to be able to visit Dave Pendray less than three days before his untimely

passing in late February. My mission was to make sure that Dave knew that the

amendment had been drafted, it had cleared cabinet committee, and it was going

to the Legislature in this spring session.

I told Dave that the Pendray amendment to the Homeowner Protection

Act was going through, to the benefit of all farmers in B.C. The great thing is

that I do believe Dave understood every word I said, and he said back to me,

"That's good. I'm glad you got that done," as he gripped my hand.

Less than three days before his death Dave Pendray was still

working for farmers. On May 3 there was a very well-attended memorial for Dave

Pendray on the Saanich Peninsula. I was pleased to be able to tell his wife

Linda and their family and friends that the Pendray amendment would be presented

to the Legislature in this session.

I sincerely want to thank the minister and his staff on their

behalf. I know that it continues to be important to the Pendray family and their

friends, many of whom have asked me about it since that time. So on behalf of

the family, thank you to the minister and this House for considering this

amendment to give more flexibility in the terms of owner-built homes on farms in

British Columbia.

C. Puchmayr: Well, we've come a long way with homeowner

protection over the years. I remember that at one time people were purchasing

homes that had no protection from liability. We had a Homeowner Protection Act

that really wasn't protecting people who owned homes.

If we go back a little ways and look at some of the changes that

were made, certainly the Homeowner Protection Office has been a very positive

change. It probably hasn't gone far enough in the eyes of some people, but it

certainly has gone in a direction that has created a little more confidence in

the building market and in the market for the buyers.

Prior to regulations that came in with that office, there was an

inquiry into some of the building that was going on in this province. It was

called the Barrett inquiry. It held many meetings all over the province. One of

the things that came up over and over again at these meetings was the ability of

companies and developers to hide behind numbered companies — registered

companies but companies that had limited liability, if any liability whatsoever.

Some of those companies, once they completed the projects, had

absolutely zero assets. There was sometimes a minimal insurance put on the

project, sometimes a two-year insurance on structure. When those failures

happened after that, there was no insurance that was able to come into play to

assist people who put their life savings into some of these buildings, their

investments into their homes — a lot of times young people with their first

homes.

[1030]

In my community we saw, with the lack of homeowner protection, a

development that cost $8 million to remediate. It was built by a fairly renowned

developer at the time, Andre Molnar, who had a history of building some

attractive-looking buildings.

The engineer who looked at that project and analyzed it after the

failures…. They did a report, and I was given a copy of the report when I was on

city council. It identified 426 potential code violations.

If you look at a company that's building a project, a development

that has zero liability, a limited liability, a numbered company…. At the end of

that project all you can go after is that numbered company, and the developer is

able to walk away without having any accountability to those who purchased their

homes.

People lost their life savings. People sold their homes in New

Westminster. In areas they sold their single-family homes and decided to move

down to the waterfront, which was a good development on the Westminster Quay.

They purchased what they thought were well-built, attractive homes and found out

that they were a crisis and a nightmare of leaky condos.

People did lose. Some people walked away from their mortgages,

which exposed them to an inability to purchase further on down the road. Some

continued to be assessed, and they were assessed over and over again to such a

degree that they basically purchased those homes more than once.

In one of these developments that I was trying to assist the

homeowners with…. For it to cost more to remediate a development than it did to

build is alarming in this day and age. So I really commend the government of the

day, and I'm not taking credit for it because I wasn't in that government. But I

really commend the government of the day that actually went into the

[ Page 7973 ]

communities and not only spoke to homeowners or people that were being

exposed to some of the fraudulent practices in that industry but also spoke to

some of the builders.

We found that there were some good builders out there. There were

some builders that took pride in what they built. There were some builders that

went the extra mile and made sure that the buildings they were building were of

a high degree of quality. People who were purchasing those buildings were

purchasing a good investment that had a resale value at the end of the day,

which they either could leave to their children or could resell and not lose

their assets.

It was good to see the industry…. The inquiry was certainly

important and timely, because some of the development community was putting out

information blaming the building code. I still talk to people today who say the

building code was to blame. They're blaming the building code and saying that

it's the R-2000, I think it was called…. The homes are too well insulated, and

the moisture is happening from the inside.

Well, during the inquiry — and I read the two reports — there

wasn't one example of a house or condominium that failed where water actually

came from the inside and damaged the building from the inside out. It was all

water coming in from the outside. Issues with flashing, issues with poor

craftsmanship, poor workmanship…. Over and over and over again we saw the

examples of that.

I remember going to the UBCM convention back in the late '80s.

There was a letter from the Urban Development Institute, when we came into the

conference hall, that was put on everyone's chair. It was blaming the building

code for the leaky-condo crisis, and it was trying to make a significant

argument that the code was to blame.

Here we have some developers that are taking shortcuts and are

building buildings very quickly and selling them at a high profit, but not

putting the craftsmanship into those buildings. They're failing, and people are

losing their investments and losing their life savings. Then you have an

industry that's saying it's the building code that's to blame.

[1035]

Homeowner protection is a very important component that certainly

has shown there needs to be some government regulation when it comes to

homeowner protection. There needs to be the provision that now exists, where you

can't have a numbered company. The company that's being insured has to meet

certain criteria. There's a ten-year insurance. There are different insurances

that are available. It's created a lot of security and confidence in the condo

market.

At one time nobody was buying condos, and they weren't buying

condos because the chances were that you were going to buy a property that was a

leaky property. There was a really high risk of purchasing a condominium that

was a leaky property. So people had no confidence in that industry.

We didn't see condominiums built for a considerable period of

time, and we actually saw the increase…. You know, people talk about the cranes.

Well, the cranes started coming up as the confidence started building in that

market. People started going back into condominium purchases once they started

getting some comfort that the government of the day put in some regulations that

made builders more accountable.

Again, it's not all the builders that were causing the issue; it

was certain builders that were building buildings that weren't up to standard.

There were some municipalities that waived their rights to inspect. What they

did was they passed bylaws that gave the rights to inspection over to a code

consultant. A code consultant was merely someone that was authorized to go in

and say, "Yes, this meets the code," and sign off on it and put their stamp on

it. It was found that there were violations by the code consultants as well.

Some of the code consultants lost their bonding, and they lost their bonds.

But again, the code consultants were numbered companies in some

cases as well, so there was no more liability. So then what happened with the

law of joint and several liability was that the municipalities ended up being

the ones with the deep pockets. When the lawsuits came through some

municipalities, the municipality paid, which again means the taxpayer was paying

the brunt of a crisis that was created because an industry was allowed to

regulate itself to a very high degree.

If all builders built with a high standard and a high moral

standard and a high ethical standard, you could probably make an argument that

they could regulate themselves. But it certainly wasn't shown in the situation,

in the crisis that we experienced in British Columbia.

Frankly, other countries are experiencing this as well. I met with

a political figure from Taiwan, and they're having that same crisis right now in

other countries, where they're looking at our models to see what they need to

implement so that they can get a better quality of building.

I look forward to my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville going

through the committee stage of this bill and addressing it. I certainly look

forward to ensuring that we have a strengthened, good, positive working

relationship with the builders, so they know where they stand when it comes to

building.

I praise the government in the '90s for having the foresight to

bring in homeowner protection legislation so that we could build confidence in

this community again. We're seeing the effects of that today, where young people

are now buying their first homes, condominiums and apartments. They know when

they're buying brand-new homes that they're buying them with a certain amount of

security and a certain amount of liability protection.

Those are my comments, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of

Forests and Range closes debate.

Hon. R. Coleman: Interesting, listening to the member for New

Westminster. There was nobody without blame on the leaky-condo issue back in the

1990s, and I think we are all aware of that. There was no specific thing that

was done that anybody can point to specifically that was the issue.

[ Page 7974 ]

There were planning departments. It took changes to how they

calculated FSR from the footing to the overhang, which created no overhangs on

buildings in a wet coastal climate. We had planning departments that would

actually tell people how to build, when the architect and the engineer were

saying that probably wouldn't work. We had inspections — a lack of them at some

municipal levels. We had all kinds of issues, including, frankly, the builders

and the industry and all the rest of it.

[1040]

But we're not going to get into a debate about leaky condos today.

If the member wants to find my opinions on those in my Hansard debates

from about 1996 through about 2001, you can find in housing debates what those

comments were, in the discussions back with various ministers under the former

government with regard to it.

I'm just going to close with a couple of quick comments. I think

it's important for the House to understand: in order for legislation to have

enough flexibility to work on the ground, sometimes you do have to do things by

regulation. It would be ludicrous to think that we would come to the Legislature

to change fees every time you want to change a fee and spend two years drafting

a piece of legislation to do that.

Those mistakes have been made on legislation over the years, and I

think we've all learned from that — that in actual fact you can consult on

regulation, you can make it work with legislation. It does allow you the ability

to have more flexibility and to move with the law so the legislation doesn't

become something redundant but can become something flexible and adaptable to a

marketplace.

I think it's important to realize that we consult on most

regulations that go out with regard to industry, including the issues that are

going forward. With regard to Raising the Bar and to the modernization

strategy, I understand we'll be doing estimates debates later this week. I'm

sure we can spend some time on that particular side of things, and we'll deal

with it.

I do believe that these amendments are timely. They're the ones

that I felt needed to be done, on advice from the Homeowner Protection Office

and extensive consultation. I think that we will move forward on these.

I should advise the member, although she may want to debate this

in committee stage, that there is no drafting taking place on any more stuff on

the Homeowner Protection Office, so don't expect anything coming out the pipe

real quick. The time it takes for legislation to be done is very extensive. It

can be up to a two-year process to get it to the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I close debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 34, Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2007, 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. Abbott: I call committee stage debate on Bill 21,

Teaching Profession (Teacher Registration) Amendment Act, 2007.

Committee of the Whole House

TEACHING PROFESSION (TEACHER

REGISTRATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 21; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 10:45 a.m.

section 1.

D. Cubberley: I wanted to begin by just asking in a general

sense if the minister could clarify the difference between the status quo in

terms of practices currently for maintaining an employers list at the college

and what this legislation is going to mandate. Where do the changes lie here,

and what is there that's being captured that isn't currently captured?

Hon. S. Bond: The college is not currently required by

legislation to keep an employers registry.

D. Cubberley: Can the minister clarify whether the college

does, in fact, collect this information currently and whether employers have the

practice of going to the college for the information?

Hon. S. Bond: Employers do not go to the college for

employment information.

D. Cubberley: Are they prevented from going to the college

for employer information?

Hon. S. Bond: I am advised that the college actually

doesn't collect employment information for that purpose.

D. Cubberley: That's interesting, Madam Chair, because in

my conversations with people at the college, my understanding is that they do in

fact collect this information and that it is available.

I'm interested in knowing if there is an employer practice

currently. Is the minister aware if there's an employer practice of going to the

college for that information, or not?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm advised that while that information in

some form may be collected by the college, they would have difficulty releasing

that information. They do not provide that service to employers.

D. Cubberley: I'd just like to explore that a little

further. It would be interesting to know why they have difficulty releasing that

information.

Hon. S. Bond: It's because that's not the purpose for which

that information was collected.

[ Page 7975 ]

D. Cubberley: I'm having some difficulty again. If they

maintain this information, if they do collect this information, is there

anything in current practice or in legislation that prevents them from making

that information available to employers or that prevents employers from

consulting the college in order to get that information?

Hon. S. Bond: The role of the College of Teachers is not to

create an employment registry. While they may have information about an

employee's current history, it is very unlikely that they would have the

historical past of a teacher. Their role and function is not currently, and

certainly no legislation would require them, to provide employment information

to school districts.

D. Cubberley: It doesn't require them. What I'm hearing is

that what changes in here is that there is a requirement that they supply this

information if they're asked. This would be comprehensive — where the minister

senses that currently they either couldn't or wouldn't do this and that the

information isn't actually kept, isn't available to employers regarding

prospective employees.

Hon. S. Bond: An employment registry is of value to school

districts because it provides the historical path of where a teacher has been

employed, so that if they move from one part of the province to another, we

could actually have a sense of knowing what happened in the previous district.

If the member opposite has other information that suggests that the College of

Teachers collects historical data about previous employment records, we'd be

happy to hear that and to have that information verified.

[1050]

To our knowledge, they do not have historical employment records.

The benefit of an employment registry is to allow school districts to check

where teachers have been, so that we can ensure that our schools are safe places

for our children.

D. Cubberley: I think we all have a strong commitment to

making our schools safe places for children. The challenge is to ensure that we

do it in a manner that's expeditious and that's comprehensive and that if we do

make change, it will actually result in improvements to safety on the ground.

That really will be the tenor of all of the questions that I ask today and that

we ask on this side.

I guess one of the things that are important in this is whether

the design of this and the way it is set up in fact captures that history

comprehensively. One of the things I wanted to ask about is whether the minister

sees the registry as being rolling, in that it captures things as they happen,

or whether the registry, as it appears to, has a fail-safe date of October 15.

Then until such time as we hit the subsequent fail-safe date, anything that

happens, happens and isn't reported for a year.

Let me just ask whether that was the intent — to allow the

registry to run for a year and then to update it. Or did you consider that it

might need to be a rolling registry?

Hon. S. Bond: At this point the intent is that it would be

done yearly. We have set a date which we believe that staff and districts are

able to work toward.

D. Cubberley: That means, I just would note, that for that

period of one year each year the registry would not be contemporary, the way

it's currently designed. That may be something we want to consider further,

because it would have been possible to simply design this to require that as

information changed, information would be reported. Where new employees were

retained, at whatever time that occurred, that information could be required to

be supplied to the college as easily as by having a one-year lag in the

reporting. I would be interested to know why that choice was made.

Hon. S. Bond: We understand the member opposite's point.

Our point is to move to start an employment registry in the province for the

first time. I would assume that as we implement, we will be monitoring. I think

it's fair to say that the vast majority of teachers, once they're placed, are

there for the balance of a year. But as we implement, we will evaluate.

We also need this to be manageable. The member opposite is well

aware that this is the first time this has actually been contemplated. It's

essential that we move it forward, and we certainly will be looking at what

types of adjustments may be necessary as we move forward. Our goal is to get one

underway, which would be leading-edge in the country, in fact.

D. Cubberley: I'd like to ask what the status of teachers

on call is under this. Are they captured by this? If they are captured, how are

they captured? Are they defined as employees? Are they defined as employees by

school boards under collective agreements? Or do they in some way have potential

to slip through the net?

Hon. S. Bond: Teachers on call are members of the College

of Teachers, for the vast majority. And yes, they would be captured with this

legislation.

[1055]

D. Cubberley: So would each of their displacements then be

captured on the registry? Because they're moving around.

Hon. S. Bond: As they're placed on an on call list, they

would obviously be added to the employment registry, which would mean that some

teachers on call would be reported by more than one school district.

D. Cubberley: One of the things that's a key issue in

making this work is for employers to use it. The way that this is set up, as far

as we can see from the legislation, it's entirely optional as to whether an

employer does or doesn't consult the employment registry. So my question

[ Page 7976 ]

would be: is that the case? If that is the case, why is it the case?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, it was school boards that

asked for this tool. School trustees, in particular, have been eager to see this

tool in place. We certainly believe that those who are in the significant role

of being responsible for hiring individuals to work with children would not need

to be told to use a tool that's this essential. In fact, they asked us to make

sure that we moved forward with this type of tool.

D. Cubberley: Well typically, when we legislate, we don't

legislate for those who are going to do what we're legislating in any case,

whether it's good behaviour or attaching their seatbelts when they get in the

automobile or the like. We typically legislate for those who may not take that

step. I would like to hear more on why the assumption is that all school

districts and all prospective employers will know to consult this list without

placing any obligation on them to do it.

I would say most school districts would know to send information

to the college about discipline, but we're not leaving that to chance. So the

question is: why would we leave it to chance? When this is the vehicle for

guaranteeing the safety of kids, why would we leave it to chance as to whether

employers do or don't consult the list?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, first of all, we believe that school

boards asked us to work with them to create this tool. We believe that they

completely understand the importance of making sure that children are safe in

their classrooms and that they, in fact, will use this. We simply don't feel

that it's necessary to mandate the use of an employment registry which boards

have requested that we create.

D. Cubberley: Well, I just want to speak to that a little

bit because this sounds really like creating a power tool and then simply

assuming that everyone will know how to operate it, will know to operate it and

to consult the employment registry. You know, I don't see anything else being

left to chance within the bill. So I have some difficulty understanding why we

wouldn't put this in, essentially because it costs nothing to place this

obligation on the employer and it sends a message.

If one is looking for — and I think that one always is, as a

legislator — a sense of balance in these kinds of matters, one would not simply

place obligations on the college, on principals, on superintendents and on

others around reporting, then place no obligation on employers to consult the

material pulled together by that reporting.

So I ask once again. I think taking it on trust is an unusual

approach in a bill which is being explicit about not taking things on trust. So

I'd like a further response on that, and then I might try an amendment.

Hon. S. Bond: I guess, from our perspective on this side of

the House, we might agree to disagree with school trustees and school boards on

some issues, but one thing that I do know is that the issue of safety in

classrooms is paramount to school trustees across this province.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

They have requested that this tool be created through legislation,

and we are confident that this tool will be utilized in the due diligence of

hiring employees in school districts across the province. We actually believe

that school districts will do just that.

[1100]

D. Cubberley: I would respectfully submit that most of the

information that is going to be contained in this employment registry is

currently available at the college on request. School districts who do due

diligence go to the college — principals and others — to access the information.

I think the legislation intends to make it systematic and to

create a registry that will be comprehensive. We support that. We think that's a

good idea. But I do not understand why we would not, at the same time, place an

obligation upon employers to consult the registry being created.

In that regard, with the assistance of the Clerk, I'm going

to attempt to move an amendment to the section. I'll try to do it to this

section, although if it were successful — which it may or may not be — we would

also have to apply it to the

section covering the inspector of independent

schools.

I will move an amendment. The process is that I offer the Clerk

and the minister a copy of the amendment. If it can be made acceptable, I'll

speak to it.

[ To amend

section 1 to add the following

section

25.1

(5) A prospective employer of teachers must consult the

employer registries maintained by the college and by the inspector of

independent schools before hiring a teacher. ]

The Chair: The member may proceed.

On the amendment.

D. Cubberley: I just want to reiterate, because I do think

this is important. I don't think this in any way tampers with the spirit and

intent of this legislation, which is to try to create a comprehensive employment

history for teachers and for those who are teaching under a letter of permission

and not members of the college in a separate registry.

One might wish to consider in this regard that we are not simply

dealing with school districts, which have long histories of employment

relationships and very structured relations of collective bargaining and work

with their teaching and other labour forces on an ongoing basis where they have

standards of practice and the like.

We are also legislating for the independent school sector, which

falls directly under the authority of the minister. In many cases they may have

very, very high

[ Page 7977 ]

standards — indeed analogous standards — of discipline and structured

relationships with employees. But in other cases they will not have those and

will not necessarily have the habit of consulting registries. They may in fact

be dealing with people who — to use as neutral a term as possible — are less

credentialed than those who teach in the public school system by dint of not

being members of the college and not having the kinds of disciplines placed on

them that come with holding a professional certification.

They may be enabled to teach under the inspector of independent

schools. That sector equally requires, I believe, a message being sent to

employers that, having created this repository of information — which is

comprehensive, which is intended to support student safety and which we

support…. There should in fact be an obligation placed on employers to consult

the registry before making a hire.

I don't believe that tampers in any way, shape or form with the

spirit and intent of the bill. I do believe that it adds an element of balance

to the bill and sends a message to those whose practice is affected by this that

the obligations apply all around. I think it's consistent with the bill and that

it would improve it. I would therefore urge that the government support the

amendment.

Hon. S. Bond: We will not be supporting the amendment. I

would really hope that as we move forward…. First of all, a couple of things.

The B.C. School Trustees Association has been supportive of the employment

registry, and I can assure you that we have faith that trustees across this

province will utilize this tool.

[1105]

Secondly, I am not certain that the member's comments about access

to the College of Teachers information, assuming that boards can actually access

that now, are accurate. In fact, the information that's collected by the College

of Teachers is unlikely to be able to be distributed based on a request about an

employment history. Freedom of information would very much be clear about the

purpose of the collection of that material and information, and that would not

be related to an employment history.

Finally, I simply must make comment on the member's comments about

independent school teachers and professionals. The vast majority of teachers

that teach in the independent school system are credentialed by the College of

Teachers, and if they are not, they are highly qualified, incredible individuals

who teach in that system as well.

So, hon. Chair, with those comments, we will not be supporting the

amendment.

D. Cubberley: I must respond to that a little bit. I don't

believe that in attempting to move in the direction that the government is

attempting to move in, there is any slight intended towards teachers who teach

under a certificate from the college. I don't take that from what the government

says.

Certainly, I think it would be inappropriate and wrong to infer

from my comments that I'm making suggestions about people who are approved to

teach under other than a college certificate. That's hardly the point. I mean,

the college certificate is not what's at issue.

The minister is the one who referred to the request coming from

school boards and school districts. Many independent schools are not in a

relationship with school boards and school districts that's analogous to that in

the public system.

My comments simply applied to the entire group of people teaching

in schools, no matter what kind, and that whoever hires them be obliged to

consult the consolidation of information that this registry is creating. Once

again, I did not hear the minister speak to the fact that that doesn't conflict

with the spirit and intent of the bill.

What I'm coming to understand is that it's a choice of the

minister. I don't believe I have heard anything that would suggest that it in

any way conflicts with the intent, which is to improve safety in the classroom.

Amendment negatived.

section 1 ( continued ).

D. Cubberley: I believe that we're fairly close on

section

1. I think we covered off teachers on call.

Interjection.

D. Cubberley: The member beside me asked me about costs,

and I think that there are issues of costs relating to the creation of the

registries. I think that I would like to reserve those for a later point when we

can canvass that around, probably, the more expensive registries which are the

on-line registries. So I will hold those comments.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

D. Cubberley: I would just like to open this up a little

bit, because this is for the public school

section of the bill, which is the

smallest part of the bill. The largest part of this bill is making changes to

the Independent School Act.

This is a very significant

section of the bill. It essentially is

the part that captures conduct that needs to be reported publicly. There is,

therefore, a very high onus on us to get this part of it right and certainly to

make sure it does what's intended and not other things.

One of the questions that I have in this regard, and I think it's

an important one, is a distinction between…. I mentioned this in my

second-reading comments. In

section (

d) the mandatory reporting provisions are

explicitly applied to three areas — (A), (

B) and (C) — which are broken out as

being mandatory. Then they

[ Page 7978 ]

are followed by a Roman numeral, a provision which provides for additional

reporting. In looking at this, it was a little bit confusing, and I called

attention to this in the second reading comments.

[1110]

Inasmuch as (A), (

B) and (

C) capture the things that are

mandatory, (ii) then goes on to make everything mandatory. It's a very curious

way to set a bill up — to break out three areas for attention that are arguably

the most significant and are certainly things that you would want reported and

made public, and then to have a kind of catch-all at the end that says "and

everything else." So I would just ask for some comment on the design of that

from the minister.

Hon. S. Bond: We want to make sure this is very clear.

There are a number of screens throughout this process, the first of which is the

school board. The school board will be required to report those issues which are

extremely egregious in nature: physical harm to a student or minor, sexual abuse

or sexual exploitation and significant emotional harm to a student or minor.

Then there is the clause that adds conduct or competence that

breached the council's standards. There is a phrase attached to that piece,

which is referred to as "in the public interest."

The first screen is what the school board actually chooses —

outside of what they are required to report — to pass on to the College of

Teachers.

Secondly, what is reported publicly is the discipline that the

College of Teachers actually brings to bear. So in fact, the college may discuss

a number of issues. They may not discipline a teacher. If that is the case, that

is not made public. What's made public is discipline in those areas.

We want to be very clear here that whatever is reported to the

College of Teachers must be significant and in the public interest to do so.

Three items are highlighted that are specific and egregious in nature, and the

first screen is actually at the school board level.

D. Cubberley: I do recognize all of that and that the first

screen is at the school board level. But I still…. We're looking at a

section

which is dealing with obligations that are placed on the council of the College

of Teachers. It applies to the record of disciplinary action taken by the

council. It gives three things explicitly that the minister described as

egregious and around which there would be no issue.

Then it gives a clause which, by its nature and sweep, includes

those three things. It says "all other things." So one of the questions — and I

didn't hear it answered — was why you would need to break out three areas and

then have a residual clause that covered all areas. What was the purpose of that

design?

I want to come back eventually to the minister's comments on

second reading.

[1115]

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, if we look at what the standards of

professional conduct for educators are, there are things that are listed there

that may not result in the physical activity that's contained in the first three

items.

Let me give the member opposite an example. A pretty critical

piece, 11.4 in those standards, says that professional educators have a

responsibility to students to "establish and maintain the boundaries of a

professional relationship."

There may be instances where it does not in fact result in the

specific descriptions of that particular type of behaviour. We're simply saying

that in the case that a school district or school board has a professional

educator that exceeds those boundaries, we needed to be able to find a place to

capture that kind of behaviour as well.

But let's be clear. This isn't about being late for school. This

is about those behaviours which are in the public's interest and, most

importantly, in the interest of children in this province and would be

designated by a school board as outside of the three issues but related to the

standards of conduct that say this is unacceptable and needs to move forward.

D. Cubberley: I appreciate the comments from the minister.

I just want to come back to the way that this was set up on second reading, and

I'll quote the minister's comments from the record. At that time the minister

said:

"The amendments define discipline that must be reported as

any discipline for misconduct that involves physical harm, sexual abuse, sexual

exploitation or significant emotional harm to a student or a minor. In addition,

a breach of the college's professional standards of conduct or competence must

be reported when it is in the public interest to do so."

Now, the point that I'm trying to get at is that in this

section,

section 2 is not dependent on the phrase "when it is in the public

interest to do so." That phrase is missing. It does appear at other points in

the bill. That power is actually conferred, I believe, upon principals or

superintendents at some point in the bill, but it isn't conferred upon the

college at this point in the bill.

I took the minister's remarks because we are, after all, talking

about the on-line registry here and what will appear publicly. I took the

minister's remarks to imply that there was a judgment to be made, a residual

judgment to be made about whether something was or wasn't in the public

interest. There is some considerable significance to this matter.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, it does reference it. It is not in

this

section of the bill because this

section of the bill is talking about the

on-line registry and the requirements related to that. If the member opposite

looks to the

section which talks about amending the School Act — to the

section

which talks about the superintendent of schools, who in fact must actually make

the report to the College of Teachers in

section 6 — it says: "If the

superintendent of schools considers any conduct by or competence of an

applicable person to be in breach of the college's standards of professional

conduct or competence, the superintendent must send to the council of

[ Page 7979 ]

the college a report, in writing, regarding that conduct or competence if it

is in the public interest to do so."

[1120]

In fact, it's very clear that the reporting screen which takes

place at the school board level is related to the professional standards of

conduct and if it is in the public interest to do so. So there is a filter

there.

D. Cubberley: I quite agree, and I think that was the point

that I was making. There is a filter at that level, but we are dealing with it

at the level of the college in this section. There is no filter at that level.

The reason that I come to rest at this point is…. I go back to comments that I

made in second reading.

I think that we have to be aware, when we're doing this, of the

power of visibility on the Internet. This is going to be an on-line registry.

One of the questions that I think it behooves us as legislators to ask ourselves

is whether it is our intent, in each and every case where there is a breach of

conduct of the council standards of professional conduct or competence and

whatever discipline was assessed from it — I'm not talking about the majority of

cases; I'm talking about in every case — to end a teacher's career, because it

will. When it appears on the Net, that will be the end of it.

So my question is about whether it is appropriate at that level to

have absolutely no power under public interest to consider whether it should or

shouldn't. Obviously, it should not in the case of the identified areas and,

obviously, it should not in the majority of cases where discipline is assessed.

I think that we cannot be naive about the potency of making this

kind of material available. It leaves cause for concern that the college has

absolutely no power under the way this is constructed to make any determination

relative to the public interest.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, moving forward with something

like this is a matter of balance. But the priority is the safety of children in

British Columbia. I know the member opposite doesn't disagree with that, but

let's be clear here. There are two levels of the public interest test.

First of all, that is at the school district level, and I would

assume and believe that superintendents are going to take that pretty seriously.

I'm pretty concerned when one of the professional conduct issues in the code of

conduct is about establishing and maintaining the boundaries of a professional

relationship. If for some reason that's not captured in (A), (

B) or (C), I want

it captured in the bullet that follows if it's in the public interest to do

that. So first of all, the test is that the superintendent has to believe it's

serious enough and that it is in the public interest to report.

Secondly, the College of Teachers must then believe it's in the

public interest to, first of all, issue discipline and, also, to make that

public. We believe that this represents a balance.

No one in this House is interested in ruining the career of a

teacher. But I can assure you of this: teachers themselves want to ensure that

their profession is held in the highest regard. In fact, many teachers have said

to us they want to be sure that teachers who abuse and take advantage of their

privilege are absolutely disciplined and that people are made aware of that.

We believe there are appropriate tests in place that ensure that

there is a balance between the privacy and integrity of teachers but, most

importantly, the safety of our children.

D. Cubberley: Listening to what the minister had to say,

there are two things. First, she chose an example around conduct that in all

likelihood would, even under a public interest test, automatically lead to

posting material on an on-line registry of this kind. I'm not concerned with

that. In fact, I'm not concerned to specify which particular interest might be

outside of it.

The challenge that I see we have is that in any case where a

conduct or competence violation is determined, that it is…. If posting is

automatic in each and every case…. I'm not talking about the areas that have

been broken out specifically, and I am not talking about the area that the

minister raised in here.

[1125]

The professional code of conduct covers a lot of things. If each

and every case requires posting, I think we simply do not want to be naive about

what that means. That means that discipline assessed at this level is only for

punitive purposes. It's never for corrective purposes — never for corrective

purposes — because once it is posted on the Web, it's all over.

That's the point I'm trying to bring to bear on this. We're

allowing a power of discretion to choose at other levels, but at this level

there is no ability around the public interest for the college to make a

determination. I think that's as far as I can go in making that point.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, I can only reiterate the fact that

there are two tests. The first test is at the school district level, and a

superintendent would have to clearly believe that it is in the public interest —

or if we were to characterize that in the life of a student, that it's in a

student's best interest — to actually report something. It would be a very

serious first-of-all step for the superintendent to make. So the first test of

public interest takes place at the local level.

The fact of the matter is that the standards and expectations for

professional conduct were actually created by teachers, and the College of

Teachers itself is already based on the principle of the public interest. In

fact, I read into the record the object of the College of Teachers in terms of

their expectations: "It is the object of the college to establish, having regard

to the public interest, standards for the education, professional responsibility

and competence of certificate holders and applicants…consistent with that

object, to encourage the professional interest of certificate holders…."

So the college's object is very clear, and we believe that there

are two tests in place that would provide the balance between the protection of

privacy…. And we're very cognizant of how significant that is, that when

discipline is handed out and it becomes a public matter, of course that's going

to have an impact on a

[ Page 7980 ]

person's life, and we expect it to be done from a professional perspective,

with boards and with the College of Teachers.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for the comments. I

think that we're dancing around nuance here. But there is an important point to

it all, and that is that in all employee-employer relations, there are two

elements to discipline. One is a punitive element which inflicts a punishment of

some kind on a person for an offence that should be proportionate to the

offence. The other is an attempt within the framework of what is permissible,

which clearly (A), (

B) and (

C) are not, to correct the behaviour of the person.

So my point — and I will let go after saying this one more time —

is that we are dealing with a form of visibility which is public, and it is more

public than running an ad in a newspaper or any other kind of thing that we have

done in the past. You don't have to look very far on a Google search to

find out what happens when a piece of information shows up on the Internet. If

it goes up on the Internet, it will be widely circulated.

My point is simply this. We are eliminating — and perhaps that is

the intent, to entirely eliminate at the level of discipline we're talking about

— the corrective function, because this is the end of careers when it becomes

visible at this level. So if I'm sounding a note of caution, it's a note of

caution for those who are assessed discipline by people whose intent was yes, to

punish, but, as importantly, to try to correct and to bring them back to a high

professional standard because they felt that they could rescue them as teachers.

So I raise it in that regard and out of concern for us batting the thing out of

the park.

I would say as an aside that one of the unintended consequences of

something like this is that all actors within the system will look at the

decisions that they are making around discipline differently because of the

finality of it, because it has a finality now, which it may not have had in the

past. I will rest my comments there.

Hon. S. Bond: I simply have to fundamentally disagree with

that. I would expect that the behaviour of the people in the decision-making

process about these kinds of matters would put children's safety at the

priority. In fact….

[1130]

D. Cubberley: I'm uncomfortable….

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the member opposite can be

uncomfortable with my response to that, but the fact of the matter is that this

is a plan and strategy to provide balance. Of course we care about the integrity

of people's reputations, but at the end of the day…. The member opposite made

the point that if it made it to a registry, think about how awful that would be

if it were a mistake.

Let's think about what would happen if for some reason the

information about a situation was not dealt with through an employee registry.

Think about the potential impact on children, which we've actually seen in

British Columbia.

In fact, this is an attempt to find balance, to protect the

privacy and integrity of teachers but making paramount the safety of children in

classrooms.

N. Macdonald: The minister talks about balance. The

question I have then is, of course, if you're going to do this, as the critic

has very clearly said, you're finishing a career. So there is a need for

balance, and the minister has said that she recognizes the need.

It comes to the point about the grievance procedure. In this, in

putting people onto the Internet, you are essentially finishing their career.

What balance does the minister see to make sure that people are correctly

identified? What you've set up is something that is going to put them on the

Internet forever, if they do not have the ability to remove themselves.

The ability to remove themselves after five years says: "…if it is

in the public interest to do so." There are many, many cases where a person will

be deemed to be in a place where they will not be removed.

Now, the minister will say that that's appropriate, if the person

has done what I would expect to be something serious. No teacher is going to

disagree with that. I am a member of the College of Teachers. We have extremely

high standards, and there should be extremely high standards. I also recognize

that there needs to be a system that works and that is fair so that the people

who are penalized are people who deserve to be penalized. The minister cannot be

cavalier about that.

I would like her to explain how she has certainty that the system

will work in a way that is going to identify those who need to be identified.

Hon. S. Bond: I should say to the member opposite that the

minister is not being cavalier about anything. This matter is incredibly serious

both for teachers and for students, and also for families in this province. We

have been asked by partners in education to actually move forward with this

initiative.

I have repeatedly mentioned to the critic the fact that there are

two tests in place before a person's name makes it onto the registry. In fact,

one is at the school level, where the superintendent must think very carefully

about, first of all, what behaviour took place. Does it fit under the three

categories, or does it actually breach professional conduct, such as the example

I have given?

Of course there are high standards. The member opposite, as a

member of the college, identifies that. Of course there are. Teachers are in

positions of incredible trust with our children, and the vast majority of them

honour and respect that every day.

The second test, as I've mentioned to the member opposite, is that

before this were ever to occur, a process takes place at the College of

Teachers. By the way, to remind the member, the majority of positions are held

by teaching professionals in the province. A process is underway when that takes

place. Again, the test is: is it in the public interest?

[ Page 7981 ]

There are two tests, and in fact at the end of that process, if

the College of Teachers says that a person will be disciplined, only then will

that name become public. In essence, there is a place where a group of people

make that decision, and at the end of those two tests and that process, the name

may become public.

I absolutely understand the challenge of making sure that the

process is right, but at the end of the day, we also need to be sure that we are

going to put children's safety at the front of that list.

N. Macdonald: The point would be that the children's safety

has in the past and always will be at the top of the list, so that exists now.

This government has changed the College of Teachers. That's for a different

discussion, but it is not the same college that I joined originally.

[1135]

Secondly, the minister points to two levels. Let's go back to the

first level, the level that has discipline coming through at the board level.

Does the minister intend to honour the grievance system that's in place, which

is the system that provides due diligence for the individuals that are dealing

with accusations? Does the minister intend to honour that system and allow that

due diligence, that process, to take place? Or is the intention to change that

with this legislation?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, there are two avenues of discipline.

One is employment discipline, and with that comes a grievance process. Of

course, that will continue.

We are talking about professional misconduct of an egregious

nature. In fact, we've had partners, including parents and trustees and even

educators, saying: "We need to make sure that our children are safe in schools.

If that means a process that would identify those individuals who choose to

sexually exploit our children or to behave in some other way that's completely

unacceptable, we should put a process in place."

There are two streams of discipline. One is employment; one is

professional misconduct. Of course, the grievance procedure on the employment

side will continue.

N. Macdonald: That's a very nuanced answer, because of

course we are talking about not only the reputation of an individual. We agree

that children need to be safe, but in doing that, you have a tremendous

responsibility to have a process that deals properly with individuals. I'm sure

the minister agrees that you want a proper process in there.

The minister split hairs around the grievance procedure. The

grievance procedure is the due process that is in place at the board level. Is

the minister saying that for all issues dealing with teaching professionals, due

process is going to remain in place?

If the minister jumps ahead and puts forward a process that puts

somebody on the Internet before the grievance procedure is completed, in essence

you have undercut that fair process. Especially when such serious charges are

made, there is an onus on the government to make sure that they are setting up

something that is going to be fair for the individuals that are charged.

The question is…. The minister was nuanced in her answer at the

board level. Do all people being disciplined at the board level have the

opportunity to fully go through the grievance procedure?

Hon. S. Bond: I didn't think that was nuanced, but we'll

try it again.

In fact, if you are disciplined by the board today, there is a

grievance procedure. That will continue. If you're disciplined, you may not

proceed through to the College of Teachers. That also happens today.

This legislation says that if you decide you're going to actually

physically harm, sexually abuse or sexually exploit children or significantly

cause emotional harm to a student or minor, those behaviours will be reported.

The regular process that deals with employment discipline will continue, and

there will be all of the processes in place to deal with those board

disciplinary processes.

We certainly have thought a lot about the balance between

protecting a reputation and at the same time assuring British Columbians that

our children are safe. It is a very significant decision, but we're committed to

moving forward with what we believe is a balanced approach to protecting

children and making sure that there are two places of test, in the public

interest, to ensure that there is that protection of integrity for teachers as

well.

N. Macdonald: Just so that I understand. Before the report

is made by the school board, which is sent to the college to deal with, the

minister is saying that a full due process will take place, which includes

grievances. If the minister is saying that something different should happen or

does happen with this legislation, then there is a problem with it, because one

process should be completed before the next one begins.

[1140]

In terms of safety with children, what the minister will know is

that if there is even the slightest concern, that safety issue will be dealt

with immediately. A principal would do that immediately. So we're not talking

about an issue around safety for children. What we're talking about is arriving

at the truth as to what happened.

To arrive at the truth, there is a due process. The due process

that is in place now is to have a grievance procedure. If the minister is

suggesting that that grievance procedure can be ignored and that it moves

directly to the college, then that's a problem. That is something that is not

completely thought through.

The question for the minister: is she saying that the grievance

procedure will be completed at the board level before it goes to the college? If

not, then what's the thinking on that?

Hon. S. Bond: On the regular employment side, grievances

continue. In fact, an employee can grieve anything. To answer the member's

question, though, the individual can launch a grievance. It may not be complete

before the process moves on to the College of Teachers. Criminal charges and

procedures may also be taking place at the same time.

[ Page 7982 ]

Yes, they can launch a grievance. There is no guarantee that that

grievance would be completed or heard before the…. In fact, it will move on to

the College of Teachers, and criminal proceedings would also, potentially, take

place at the same time.

N. Macdonald: I just want to understand how that makes

sense.

You have, immediately, the children's safety taken care of.

Immediately, if there is a concern, the principal will have the accused person

out of the system. They are not going to be there; that's the fact. That's what

has existed. You have educators around you who will tell you that that is

absolutely what's going to happen, so we're not talking about safety of

children. We're talking about due process.

Then you have an issue that not only will be career-ending but

will put a person in a place in the public where they would be extremely

uncomfortable. Now, if they have done what they're accused of, that discomfort

is well earned. But if they have not, then the minister would I'm sure agree

that they have been treated extremely unfairly.

We are not talking about a need to rush through processes. There

is no reason why one process could not…. The process that this legislation would

control could be finished before you move on to the next step. What the minister

is suggesting makes no sense to me at all.

In terms of criminal action, that's completely separate. That will

proceed at its own pace. But here you finish first with the process at the board

level. To skip over it, to get rid of the grievance procedure and to say, "Well,

let's move on. Let's get them on the Internet…." It makes no sense to me.

It is not a safety issue for the children. It is absolutely not

that. It is a skipping of the system that guarantees that the person accused has

some due process. If the minister can explain that there is some other process

she has in mind, then explain it. Otherwise, the logic of skipping and putting

them through to the college before the system allows the professional to have

due process at the local level makes no sense to me.

The minister can explain how that's supposed to work.

Hon. S. Bond: There have been grievances in British

Columbia that have lasted over eight years. During that period of time, the

member remains a member in good standing at the College of Teachers.

[1145]

This is not about rushing to get anyone on the Internet. This is

about ensuring that we have a practice and a process that prevents examples that

have happened in recent history in this province, where individuals who choose

to abuse and take advantage of children have somehow managed to have that happen

more than once.

We are putting in place a system which we believe is balanced,

obviously, and that takes into consideration the rights of the person who is

implicated in this process. There are two tests. It begins at the school level.

This doesn't even begin to move beyond the school level unless the

superintendent of schools, the educational leader in a school district, decides

that it's in the public interest to do so.

There will be the ability for that individual to launch a

grievance, but simultaneously that information will move forward to the College

of Teachers, where other professionals will look at the merits of that case.

Before anything is rushed to the Internet, there will be a process that takes

place that considers, very seriously and most importantly, what's in the public

interest.

We have canvassed this question numerous times about the balance

between an individual's reputation and the safety of children. We believe that

the legislation and the process that's inherent in this legislation provides

that balance.

N. Macdonald: Well, you've done nothing to convince me that

this is properly thought through, and I wouldn't expect that the minister would

be able to. We have due process because you have things at stake that are

important. We're dealing with the Basi-Virk trial, and it's — what? — three

years to get in because there is a process. There is a process that is put in

place, and it takes time to make sure that you deal with things properly.

With teachers' reputations and with their jobs, there is a way

that you immediately get the children safe. That happens immediately. Based on

an accusation, there is no principal that leaves any children with somebody

who's accused. Then there is a requirement for the government not to put in

something that politically sounds good so that you can go and brag about it on

the hustings.

There is a responsibility to treat the people that this minister

is responsible for in a proper way, with a proper process, so that you do not

end up with somebody's career and reputation ruined simply because there is a

rush to get things done.

Now, if there is a grievance procedure that takes eight years, I'm

not aware of it. The grievance procedures that I was involved with moved along

at a reasonable pace. If there are problems with that process, then fix those

problems.

But the idea that you would move through at the board level….

The Chair: Member, could you please direct all comments

through the Chair.

N. Macdonald: The minister would move through at the board

level, cut that process short and then move immediately to some other process

that has no impact on children's safety and that makes no difference. The end

result…. Once the teacher is on the Internet, then they're finished.

It seems very clear to me that the intention is to get rid of the

process at the board level and to make sure that it is not as onerous as it

should be. I do not accept the argument that the minister has put forward — that

this in any way has anything to do with children's safety.

[ Page 7983 ]

The question that I would ask the minister is around that website,

and I'll ask one more question on that. Once the website has a teacher on it, it

says that they are able to come off after five years if it is in the public

interest. Could the minister define how she would define "public interest" in

terms of removing people from this on-line registry? What is "the public

interest" as she would define it?

[1150]

Hon. S. Bond: It is the College of Teachers that will make

that determination, and it will be based on the object which I read into the

record previously. They are very familiar and have a test which is in the public

interest. It's the College of Teachers that would make that determination, not

the minister.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

N. Macdonald:

Section 3 is where the grievance procedure is

removed. I would like the minister to explain why you are removing the grievance

procedure.

Hon. S. Bond: This doesn't remove the grievance process,

and we want to be very clear about that. What it does allow is for the grievance

to proceed at the same time as the College of Teachers is working on the

determination in terms of their process. So it doesn't remove the grievance

procedure. It allows them to continue simultaneously.

N. Macdonald: Well, this comes to the College of Teachers

based on what the board decides. What the board decides — that information is

tested through the grievance procedure. So I cannot see the logic in this, where

you do not allow a proper process at the board level before it proceeds untested

to the College of Teachers.

That makes no sense to me at all, nor do I think it would make

sense to any thinking person. It does not make sense that you do not finish the

process at the board level before you send it up to the college, because it has

not been tested. To remove that puts teachers and other educators in potentially

a very difficult place.

It does nothing to help keep children safe. It does everything to

weaken a process that is necessary. Let's be clear. A person who hurts a child

not only does not deserve to be a teacher; they deserve the harsh judgment of

people in the public.

If you're going to subject somebody to that, you better make sure

that you have a fair process. What this does is weaken that. I see no benefit,

because I do not accept that in any way it makes any child safer. But what it

does do…. Perhaps in a simplistic way it scores some political points, and it

makes things potentially more difficult for an educator.

Potentially, you get to a place where you may harm somebody

unintentionally. I know that's not the minister's intention, so this needs to be

thought through. You have a grievance procedure. Why would the minister get rid

of that due process, and what is she going to replace it with?

Hon. S. Bond: Let's be clear. We're not replacing due

process. Due process will continue.

It's interesting, because the member opposite is a member of the

College of Teachers. I'm wondering if he's questioning the validity of the

College of Teachers' process in terms of the success that it has in actually

looking at disciplinary procedures.

I can tell the member opposite this. We are concerned about the

credibility and integrity of teachers in this province, and we're concerned of

course that no one be inadvertently impacted by this bill. But I can tell the

member opposite this. What we're concerned about on this side of the House is

that inadvertently, because of a process that is not in place, children in

British Columbia are put at jeopardy. We're going to make sure that we move

forward and put children at the top of our agenda.

N. Macdonald: There is nothing about that which I find

accurate in any way. Children are protected now; they've been protected in the

past. They are protected by having the right person there at the right time.

This is not going to change, in any substantial way, anything to

do with children's safety. This is nothing but a political stunt. It is public

relations and nothing else. There is a need for due process.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. All members of the House, could we

please allow the speaker to have the floor. Would everyone please address their

remarks through the Chair.

[1155]

N. Macdonald: There is a need for due process. To score

political stunts, you want to get rid of due process. I see no logic in that,

nor do I see that in any way as acceptable. You have a grievance system. The

grievance system provides the due process for individuals that are accused, and

then you step into the next step.

Once it is established at the board level that the individual has

indeed done what they have been accused of, it makes sense then to send the

report to the college for that process. That is a sensible way to proceed.

The minister likes to stand up and give speeches about protecting

kids — great politics. She can stand up and say that I'm against it. The

minister can stand up and say that, but it is cheap politics. There is a process

that should be followed. Once that process is finished, then you move on to the

next step.

The idea that you get rid of the grievance procedure…. Then what

does the minister think is going to make sure that individuals are not falsely

accused, that the evidence is not…? In every other case you're going to

[ Page 7984 ]

test evidence, but here you're not. You're going to just move straight along

to the next step.

The minister says that this is protective of teachers. She says

that that balance is there. I would like her to explain where the balance is.

Where does she make sure that she has set up a process that will ensure that

people are treated fairly?

What I would remind her is that children are looked after now in

the process that we have. Even the slightest allegation means that that teacher

is out of the class, and it's investigated fully. The suggestion from her that

anything different would be the case is simply wrong. The suggestion that things

that have gone wrong in the past are going to be corrected by this is wrong.

The only thing that keeps children safe is having the right

teacher in the right place with the right support and training, and for parents

to be vigilant. That will not change with this. Parents have to be vigilant. And

teaching professionals have to be the right ones at the right place, and they

have to be properly trained and supported.

The question I have is: how does she ensure that she has a process

in place that is going to make sure that teaching professionals are treated

properly, which is how they deserve to be treated?

Hon. S. Bond: I'd be most interested in the member

opposite's reaction to the fact that in 2005 hundreds of people — parents,

trustees, administrators — across this province said: "We want to make sure that

there is a process in place that protects kids, that looks at the employment

registry and the discipline registry." Hundreds of people across this province

have been waiting for this piece of legislation. It's really interesting how

they're going to feel today when the member opposite refers to it as a cheap

political stunt to protect kids in British Columbia.

Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:59 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTER

RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); B. Lekstrom in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:07 a.m..

On Vote 16: ministry operations, $419,487,000 (continued).

N. Simons: I thought I'd just pick up where we left off

yesterday. The questions had turned to the issue of Bountiful, the polygamous

community in the Creston Valley area. I'm wondering if the Attorney General

could just remind us what the status of his ministry's involvement is with the

community.

Hon. W. Oppal: The investigation has been completed as far

as the police are concerned, and they have filed a report with the criminal

justice branch. The criminal justice branch has come to a conclusion. The file

is now with me, and I have to review that decision.

N. Simons: When the criminal justice branch arrives at a

conclusion, is that a conclusion as to whether to formally lay charges? Or is

that one of the considerations that they would have? What role does the Attorney

General play in that particular process?

Hon. W. Oppal: The procedure is as follows. The criminal

justice branch, under the Crown Counsel Act, independently of the Attorney

General determines whether in any given case there is sufficient evidence to lay

charges. In this case the criminal justice branch has done that. Now, I as the

Attorney General have the authority to either agree with or differ or overrule

the criminal justice branch, but if I do that, my decision has to be in writing,

and it has to be gazetted.

N. Simons: Does the public have any advanced…? Will the

public know when such a decision would be made? Is it entirely up to the

Attorney General now as to whether or not charges, for example, will go forward?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is yes, and the public will know

in due course.

[1010]

The Chair: Member.

[ Page 7985 ]

N. Simons: Thank you again. I appreciate every time you

acknowledge my standing up.

I just wonder if it's possible to explain how this differs from

other cases, as obviously there are a number of…. The Crown has information laid

before it all the time. He would be an even busier Attorney General were he to

approve each case. What makes this particular case any different?

Hon. W. Oppal: I could start out by answering — and I don't

mean to be flippant — that the fact that you're asking about it indicates that

it's different.

Seriously, it's a case that has attracted a lot of public

attention, not only here in this province but across the country. I can say that

I've had in the last year and a half many, many letters and many, many

communications and emails from persons who want to know what the progress of the

case is. So there is a large amount of interest in the case.

Your question was: do we do this? I think it is implicit in your

question whether we do this in every case, and the answer is no. Of all cases,

99.9 percent are handled by the criminal justice branch, independently of the

Attorney General.

N. Simons: If I have this clear, the Attorney General is

involved in this particular case because of public pressure, public involvement

and public interest. I am wondering whether or not the statement that the

Attorney General doesn't get involved in criminal justice investigations, and

yet at the same time he tells us that it is up to him whether or not charges go

forward…. Is that a contradiction? Am I missing something in that?

Hon. W. Oppal: No, it's not a contradiction. The Crown

Counsel Act was passed some years ago so as to remove any political interference

or any suggestion that politics plays a role in determining whether in any given

case charges ought to be laid. It is for that reason that the criminal justice

branch, of which Mr. Gillen is the head, operates independently of the Attorney

General.

However, the Attorney General as the chief law officer of the

province has a residual discretion to overrule a decision of the criminal

justice branch. But if that's done, then it has to be done in a transparent

manner, done openly in writing and be gazetted.

N. Simons: The situation as we have it now is that in the

0.1 percent of the cases where the Attorney General does get involved…. Is there

consequently a political involvement in this case?

Hon. W. Oppal: I wouldn't consider it a political

involvement. I would not consider the authorizing or laying of charges based on

political considerations…. It would mean that I would look at the evidence and

determine from the evidence, in an objective way, whether or not charges ought

to be laid given the preconditions that I alluded to yesterday.

N. Simons: I believe that the preconditions you alluded to

yesterday had to do with the likelihood of conviction and the likelihood of

successful prosecution, as well as the general interest of the community, if

it's in the best interest of the criminal justice system, etc.

Now, those two considerations, I would presume, are separated by

the fact that the Attorney General hasn't done the investigation himself,

leaving the other issue to be the only one for his consideration — that is, is

it in the best interests of the community? I'm wondering if in fact the decision

points are on likelihood of successful conviction or the public interest, for

lack of a better term.

[1015]

Hon. W. Oppal: I would consider both the public interest as

well as whether or not there is a substantial likelihood for a conviction.

N. Simons: I think this probably exemplifies what maybe is

underlying some of the issues in this particular case, and that is that we're

using a very blunt instrument, the criminal law, to try to address what could be

considered on a larger scale a broader social issue of importance to British

Columbians.

My question to the Attorney General: is there anywhere in the

service plan which indicates that there is a coordination of efforts between the

Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Ministry of Income Assistance,

the Ministry of Education — or the other ministries that have had interaction

with the Bountiful community — in a way that could actually try and coordinate

responses and maybe assist the community in some of the challenges that it

faces?

Hon. W. Oppal: As a matter of fact, the Community Services

Ministry has been involved, and they have done some investigation and/or work in

the community with respect to the children in the community. I'm unable to say

exactly what was done and what the results were. I'm told the Ministry of

Education has been involved as well.

N. Simons: I think that does confirm to a certain degree

what my concern is and the conclusion I've come to. That is that there is no

coordinating body for the various ministries — and we all know that there are

many ministries involved — to coordinate the activities of the social workers

and the school inspectors, to ensure that we're getting a full picture and to

ensure that the children and families and community members in Bountiful do not

feel like they are somehow being targeted, but perhaps feel more that they can

be part of a process of finding a solution. There seems to be a lack of a

coordinating position, which I would suspect would best be served in the

Ministry of the Attorney General.

Hon. W. Oppal: Community Services is coordinating some of the

services regarding the social issues that are involved. However, that's not

really the role of the Attorney General's ministry. Our role here is to

determine whether or not criminal charges ought to be laid. So there is a

difference in distinction in the roles.

[ Page 7986 ]

N. Simons: There is a distinction in the roles between the

Attorney General and the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General would be

responsible for the actual investigation, as far as I understand it, and the

Attorney General, apparently, now is in charge of whether or not the

investigation of the Solicitor General is going to go the direction that they

have recommended. So we already have two ministries involved on the criminal

side of the issues which, I might add, will have very little impact on the

overall problems that have been identified by outside community agencies. We

would simply have a criminal case — a one-off, as it were.

In this particular circumstance, when we're looking at a community

where we have some concerns about various social issues, a criminal charge,

although promoted with letters to the minister, perhaps, will in fact leave a

number of unresolved issues in the community that would become the subject of

the next batch of letters.

I'm wondering if it would be within the minister's mandate or even

within his, possibly…. Looking at solutions to the issue, would the minister

consider having somebody available in his ministry to coordinate some of the

responses to the issues that it seems the Attorney General's umbrella ministry

is looking after?

Hon. W. Oppal: Just to correct a statement made by the

member. It's not the Solicitor General who does the investigation; rather, it's

the police. Now, the Solicitor General is responsible for policing. Having said

that, it is not our role to coordinate any government resources. Rather,

Community Services is involved in those.

[1020]

My understanding is that they have done something in that area,

but our role simply is to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence

to lay charges.

N. Simons: I would disagree, just based on what would appear

to be the commonsense approach, which is: okay, if the Ministry of Education

can't coordinate responses, and if the ministry of child and family services or

the Ministry of Health isn't going to coordinate the response to the community's

issues, then where else in the government…? Is it not the government's mandate

to try and address problems as they exist in communities?

If there's no particular position for that exact problem, would it

not be appropriate to consider the challenges that have faced British Columbian

Attorneys General over the last 20 years — as I think the minister said

yesterday — to find an imaginative or an off-the-beaten-path resolution to this

issue? Otherwise, it's going to continue.

Last year, charges were two weeks away. Two years ago, charges

were two weeks away. Neither of those would have resolved the issue anyway. So

is it this government's position that as long as the Attorney General and the

Solicitor General are involved, nothing else needs to happen?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think maybe I didn't make myself clear.

That coordination is being done by the Ministry of Community Services. They're

doing that. It simply is not our role to do it. The Attorney General has a

specific role in government as a chief law officer, and it's not to get involved

in matters relating to social services, education or any of those issues that

the member has alluded to.

Those matters are being now looked at by the Ministry of Community

Services, and they have nothing at all to do with whether or not criminal

charges are laid. So there's a distinct role for the Attorney General to play,

as well as a role for other ministries to play, and that's being addressed.

N. Simons: My presumption was that as a member of cabinet,

as a member of government, the minister would have some influence over how to

address a particular problem that has plagued — I think, as stated by the

Attorney General yesterday — Attorneys General throughout recent British

Columbia history. I don't believe that the Ministry of Community Services has

any more or less of a mandate to coordinate multi-agency responses to an issue.

We have issues about immigration. We have issues about possibly

under-age sexual activity. I think that there are issues in education. There are

a huge number of issues, and for each one of those, I don't believe that the

Ministry of Community Services is the…. I've asked this before and never before

has there been any indication whatsoever that there's anybody coordinating the

responses.

I don't want to presume or jump to conclusions either. May I ask

the Attorney General if the charges now being contemplated relate to polygamy or

relate to crimes of a sexual nature, sexual interference or what have you?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll reiterate. The Ministry of Community

Services is involved. They are coordinating and have been involved in

coordinating services where and if needed.

It is our job to determine whether or not charges ought to be

laid. I'm not really in a position at this stage to say whether or not charges

would be laid as far as sexual assaults or sexual exploitation are concerned or

whether the charge alleging polygamy would be preferred. Those are matters that

we're still contemplating, and it would not really be proper for me to make any

comment at this stage.

N. Simons: What we have is that three or four years ago

people in the community were expecting charges within two weeks. Two years ago

they were expecting charges. Two weeks ago the Attorney General mentioned that

more charges were being contemplated.

I think that this is an issue of fairness, quite frankly. I think

this comes down to the fact that the Attorney General has a problem on his

hands, and he's trying to deal with it the same way other Attorneys General have

tried to do.

[1025]

We know that it's difficult to prosecute if there are no witnesses

to come forward. I have no problem; I

[ Page 7987 ]

understand the criminal justice system. I understand that there are some

challenges. Because of that — not despite that, because of that — I would

suggest that we have an issue that relates to many areas of provincial

government jurisdiction and that if we expect the issues that are of concern to

the community are going to be alleviated by the laying of charges, I think that

we might be mistaken. I believe that the cabinet needs to address this issue in

a way that actually looks for solutions and doesn't make it a political issue.

I find it sort of strange, quite frankly, that we can talk about a

fixed-number community, talk about charges about to be laid against certain

people, and yet not say what the charges are. I mean, I find this very selective

in terms of what can and can't be said. I would be personally affronted if I was

told year after year after year that criminal charges are about to be laid.

We have to think about the welfare of the children and of the

mothers and of the boys and of the fathers — of the families there. I think that

this is an issue of fairness. We have a criminal justice system. We have a

number of provincial government agencies that are assigned to ensure that

children are safe, that they are learning what they need to in school, that they

have enough food on their plates and that they are not living in abject poverty.

What I find, through listening to the responses, is that in fact

we have a one-track silo effect. We're looking for the criminal justice system

to solve the problem that has been a political nightmare for Attorneys General

in the past. I say it's time to start looking at some other solutions. It's time

to enter into some dialogue, perhaps, to discuss some of the issues that we find

most concerning in the outside community.

Once again my question would be to the Attorney General: has

anything been put in place to ensure that those who are interested in leaving or

those who have chosen not to remain in Bountiful have supports necessary for

their successful reintegration or integration into the outside community?

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. W. Oppal: I have to correct the member wherein he

stated that successive Attorneys General have said that charges are about to be

laid. I don't think anybody said, to my knowledge, that charges are about to be

laid. At least, I've been very careful. What I have said is that we expect to

have a decision soon and that this is a matter of some priority. That's the most

that I have said, not that charges are about to be laid.

As far as the social issues that the member has raised, I can say

that the Ministry of Community Services has had a social worker there to assist,

and that's the most that I can say. That's not something that's within the

purview of my ministry.

I would point out that the Attorney General has a distinct role to

play in government. As such, I don't always get involved in some of the other

issues that have been referred to by the member.

N. Simons: There are obviously media reports that indicate

that not only are charges forthcoming, but they'll be substantive polygamy

charges. I don't know whether the Attorney General wants to comment on the

media's comments, but those seem to be quotes from fairly reputable news

agencies.

Can the Attorney General enlighten the community as to whether or

not letters to his office actually end up…? How will they know if letters to his

office end up having any influence over the decisions that his ministry makes?

[1030]

Hon. W. Oppal: Letters to my office do not influence me or

anyone else as to whether or not charges are laid — unless a letter contains

some relevant evidence, and we haven't seen that yet.

N. Simons: I'm curious as to how it is…. How can the public

ensure that the Attorney General pays attention to the particular issues of

their concern the way that the Attorney General is paying attention to the issue

facing the community in Bountiful?

Hon. W. Oppal: I pay attention to what the public tells me.

I am accountable to the public, but some decisions have to be made in a

clinical, objective manner. We assess the evidence in a clinical way. We don't

do that by gauging public opinion.

The public, I can say, has very strong views on this, and those

views are appreciated. I appreciate that the public has an interest in the

matter. But we have a different role to play.

N. Simons: I just might have been confused by the reference

to the substantial number of letters that the Attorney General received, in the

same breath as why the Attorney General is making this unusual step of becoming

involved — which apparently doesn't happen in 99.9 percent of the cases.

This is one of those cases where there is involvement of the

Attorney General. The Attorney General explained that this was of great

importance to the public and that the public had written a number of letters. I

was simply following up on that and making, perhaps, an inaccurate supposition

that those two were actually related when they in fact were not.

If I may just turn to issues unrelated to Bountiful. To go back to

yesterday's subject and the Human Rights Tribunal, the question arose from the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds about the issue around veterinarians. It was a case

that we were not able to talk about, which is fine.

In this particular circumstance, it was before the tribunal.

However, the substantive question that was asked at the time related to the

backlog of hearings and the pressure on the Human Rights Tribunal to do what it

is mandated to do with the resources that it has.

Can the minister enlighten us as to whether or not there has been

any increase of funding or resources to that particular branch?

[ Page 7988 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: There is no backlog. The Human Rights

Tribunal is able to take complaints immediately. The only delay is occasioned by

the availability of counsel.

N. Simons: Hon. Chair, I'm looking forward to finding out

what the answer was in Hansard , but it's okay.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll repeat it. There is no backlog. If a

person feels aggrieved, they can go before the tribunal and usually get a

hearing date within a number of months. The only delay that is occasioned

results from the availability of lawyers.

N. Simons: When the response yesterday was that because it

was before, I think, the tribunal or the Supreme Court, the Attorney General was

unable to respond on that basis…. I'm just concerned. I suppose it's an issue of

semantics. Is there a backlog? Is there a waiting list? Or are there people

waiting for the date that has already been set?

I think if my date for a hearing is set for next June…. I'll

figure that that's not just a backlog; that's a delay. I'm wondering if there

can be a delineation between what community members feel is a delay and what

they might perhaps consider a backlog.

[1035]

Hon. W. Oppal: Most cases can be dealt with within seven

months. Cases can be dealt with earlier than that because mediation is

available. If you get willing parties who appear before the tribunal and they're

prepared to go to mediation, they will achieve early results.

If you want a hearing date, the hearing date can be accommodated

within seven months. That's efficient work — when the tribunal has done a good

job in a direct-access model in that it is able to accommodate members of the

public in a timely way.

N. Simons: Have there been any audits of the work by the

ministry in terms of satisfaction with the process and maybe an explanation of

some of the delays or waiting times or whatever the minister wants to call them?

That's in terms of evaluating independently and objectively the efficiencies of

the tribunal.

Hon. W. Oppal: There has been no audit done of the Human

Rights Tribunal.

N. Simons: I was not suggesting there is a desperate need

for it. However, when there are statements of fact that indicate things are

going well and that they are better and more efficient than ever, I'm just

wondering what data might be available to share so that we can all celebrate the

successes.

Hon. W. Oppal: I think you can celebrate the success when

persons who have disputes can go before either a court or a tribunal, an

administrative tribunal, and achieve fair and just results in a timely manner.

As a person who has been in the justice system for many years, I can say that

achieving a result for a complaint within seven months is something that we can

all be proud of.

N. Simons: Far be it from me to suggest in any way that

there might be some sort of political expediency in a response like that. I

understand the ability of the member to be objective on issues such as this.

However, I'm just wondering if we are to take the Attorney General's word for it

that everything is fine. I don't think we would do the same kind of auditing

systems in any other ministry or for any other program: "Trust me. It's all

right."

I wonder if there is some way that maybe we can analyze how many

cases came before, how many were resolved before, how many take a certain amount

of time to complete, what types of programs need more support, what resources

are missing. I would probably want to have some awareness of a number of factors

in order to make sure the programs under my purview were run in an

administratively fair and an efficient manner.

Hon. W. Oppal: I would welcome any scrutiny or any comments

by the member opposite. In the meantime, I can recommend that he avail himself

of the annual report that the tribunal files. That would be a good starting

point. The numbers are all there.

If there's any other information that the member requires, we're

more than prepared to share the information with him. It's in our best interests

to see that the tribunal operates effectively and in a just manner.

N. Simons: I agree that it is in the best interest of all

of us that we have all sorts of systems that are run in a fair and effective

manner. I don't know whether the annual report would contain responses from

community outreach agencies and services and whether their level of satisfaction

has remained constant, or if they have some concerns and if those are being

addressed.

Can the minister identify for us where the systemic problems were

identified and how they've been resolved?

[1040]

Hon. W. Oppal: Maybe this will help. I receive a lot of

letters complaining about the functioning of the courts. I receive virtually no

letters about the functioning of the Human Rights Tribunal. As a matter of fact,

I'm trying to think if I've…. I don't recall receiving a letter. I may have read

one in the last year and a half, but I specifically can't recall receiving a

letter about anything that the tribunal may have done.

Come to think of it, I received a couple of letters where the

tribunal refused to deal with the issue and thought it wasn't a meritorious

issue. Those are the only complaints that I've ever received.

N. Simons : Perhaps you didn't receive any letters about

specific findings, nor would the minister likely

[ Page 7989 ]

respond to those in particular. So in terms of the functioning of the

tribunal, there have been no complaints from the public?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think it's a fair answer that there

haven't been. I might add that I respond to all mail that comes to me.

N. Simons: I would expect nothing less. I didn't mean to

imply in any way that you weren't responding to letters sent to you. But thank

you for the clarification for those among us who might think otherwise.

May I turn, if possible, to the issue of refugees again, which we

touched on yesterday? As you know, the MLA for Burnaby-Edmonds and other MLAs in

the lower mainland are facing an influx of refugees in numbers that we haven't

seen.

The proportion of refugees coming to Canada, arriving in British

Columbia, seems to be growing. The challenges that face our communities in

making sure these people are treated well and supported and encouraged to become

full and active participants in our communities' activities and functioning….

Has the Ministry of Attorney General made special provisions for

this new demographic shift that is hitting lower mainland communities — Burnaby

in particular — very hard?

Hon. W. Oppal: We really haven't been receiving any extra

requests, but I can say that the ministry staff has been meeting with the

Burnaby Interagency Council — Burnaby Family Life is included in that — about

issues regarding Burnaby's refugee issues. They have a meeting scheduled again

for June 12.

Through a request for information, the ministry has requested

input from the community regarding outstanding issues. I can say that $250,000

has been budgeted initially for Burnaby. The ministry staff has also met with

the Burnaby school district and community service providers about how best to

utilize the services of the settlement workers.

We're alive to the issue. We're quite prepared to work with the

community. Our staff has been working with the community. A further meeting is

set for June 12.

[1045]

N. Simons: I'm pleased that the ministry's alive to the

issue. I wouldn't want to contemplate the alternative. I'm quite aware that the

ministry is responding to some issues. My responsibility as a member of Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition is to nudge and push and prod as I can to ensure that

certain issues receive the attention that they need.

In this particular case, we're looking at a group of people who

have arrived in British Columbia, some of whom are not prepared even to enter

the school system — families that are living in poverty, families with very few

According to 2003-2004 figures, almost 20 percent of the Burnaby

school district consists of ESL students. I think that's probably where a lot of

resources need to be geared, as well as the issues of child care and affordable

housing.

Once again we have a situation where the Attorney General is

responsible for immigration and multiculturalism. We presume that that includes

ensuring that citizens in this province have access to the benefits and programs

available to everyone.

I'm just wondering if requests for additional support in terms of

funding or resources or both have been made by community agency groups in

Burnaby and whether or not the ministry is contemplating some response that can

meet the urgency of the situation.

Hon. W. Oppal: We have been working with the schools. Our

staff has been working with the schools. In fact, $250,000 has been budgeted for

Burnaby for workers who go into schools and work with refugee children.

As well, the current funding services for Burnaby include ELSA

'06-07, and that's up from $1.7 million the previous year. In '04-05 it was $1.5

adults, many of whom are refugees in Burnaby.

We are, as I said, meeting continually with people from the

Burnaby social service agencies in order to assist them in the ongoing issues.

N. Simons: Can the minister confirm or deny that B.C. is

the only province that doesn't channel 100 percent of funds received from the

federal government directly to service providers?

[1050]

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer to your question is no, we're not

the only province that executes the duties in that particular way. Pursuant to

our agreement with the federal government we contract services through community

colleges, through schools, through NGOs and through private companies. That's a

condition that we have agreed to with the federal government. I think that

answers a concern that's raised by the member.

N. Simons: Yesterday I was canvassing the issue of the

federal transfers and where that money would end up going. The minister was

clear that the money only went to the Attorney General's office and to the

Minister of Economic Development. The response that the Attorney General just

gave says that in fact money is going to community colleges, schools, NGOs and

private companies.

I understand that obviously there are some private companies and

NGOs that do provide services in the community. Schools and community colleges

were wh