2006 Legislative Session: Second 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)

THURSDAY, MAY 4, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Windermere Community Secondary School

and Reach for the Top

A. Dix

Indo-Canadian community in B.C.

D. Hayer

Central City Community Volunteer Patrol

S. Hammell

Dorothy Fleming

I. Black

Port Coquitlam and District Hunting and

Fishing Club

M. Farnworth

Thanks Mom marrow donor drive

S. Hawkins

Ministerial Statements

Kelowna accord

Hon. G.

Campbell

M. Farnworth

Oral Questions

Appointments to Agricultural Land

Commission

B. Ralston

Hon. M. de

Jong

M. Farnworth

Role of Kathryn Dawson in appointments

to Agricultural Land Commission

M. Karagianis

Hon. M. de

Jong

Child care action plan

D. Thorne

Hon. L. Reid

Funding for 2010 Olympic Games

H. Bains

Hon. C. Hansen

Emergency services at Ridge Meadows

Hospital

M. Sather

Hon. G. Abbott

Crystal meth protocol

R. Fleming

Hon. J. Les

A. Dix

Standing Order 35

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de

Jong

Second Reading of Bills

Education (Learning Enhancement)

Statutes Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 33) (continued)

S. Simpson

D. Routley

D. Thorne

D. Chudnovsky

A. Dix

B. Ralston

H. Bains

Hon. S. Bond

Standing Order 35 (Speaker's Ruling)

Debate under Standing Order 35

Kelowna accord

M. Farnworth

Hon. T. Christensen

Tabling Documents

First Ministers and National Aboriginal Leaders Strengthening Relationships and Closing the Gap

Debate under Standing Order 35 (continued)

Kelowna accord

Hon. T. Christensen

Tabling Documents

Transformative change accord

Debate under Standing Order 35 (continued)

Kelowna accord

Hon. T. Christensen

J. Horgan

Hon. M. de Jong

Tabling Documents

Document relating to transformative change accord

Debate under Standing Order 35 (continued)

Kelowna accord

Hon. M de Jong

D. Routley

C. Evans

G. Hogg

S. Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests and

Range and Minister Responsible for Housing (continued)

M. Karagianis

Hon. R.

Coleman

D. Routley

J. Kwan

R. Fleming

[ Page 4421 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 4, 2006

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Reid: I have the absolute pleasure today to welcome to this chamber the members of the Provincial Child Care Council. This is a council that gives tremendously informed advice to the ministry in terms of how we proceed.

I'm delighted to welcome today Wendy Cooper as the chair from Coquitlam, Donna Chang from Vancouver, Coco Schau from Terrace, Bruce Hallsor from Victoria, Betty Cleland from Kelowna, Amy Collum from Nanaimo, Darcelle Cottons from Vancouver, Dr. Hillel Goelman from Vancouver, Dr. Paul Kershaw from UBC, Kristi Miller from Vancouver and Christine MacLeod from Delta. I'd ask the House to please make them incredibly welcome.

[1405]

M. Karagianis: Today in the House we actually have a special guest here from Australia. Sandra Moait is currently the president of the Unions of New South Wales and the vice-president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Sandra was the general secretary of the New South Wales Nurses Association until August of 2002. She was also elected president of the Labour Council in February 2000 — the first time a female was elected president since the Labour Council was formed in 1871. I'd like the chamber to make her welcome and say "g'day" from here in Canada.

I. Black: I want to add the greetings to that of the Minister of State for Childcare to Wendy Cooper. She's a good friend, she's a constituent, and I'm so pleased that she could be here today. I can also say from the hours I've spent with her on the issues of child care that she is one of the biggest advocates I have come across in the area and truly an expert, and we're lucky to have her in our midst.

H. Bains: In the House today visiting us from the U.K. are Harbinder Grewal, his brother Gurjeet Grewal and Amrik Sandhu, accompanied by Inderbir Dosanjh from Surrey. Will the House please extend them a warm welcome to this House.

B. Lekstrom: It's my privilege today to stand and welcome a number of guests to our precinct, if they're in the gallery or in the buildings. Today we had the privilege of declaring May as Motorcycle Awareness Month. This is an event that is hosted by the British Columbia Coalition of Motorcyclists here.

Today all of the MLAs and the staff had the opportunity to go out and speak with the riders, had the opportunity to get a ride around on a beautiful day. Motorcycle Awareness Month is about making sure motorists in our province understand to watch out for motorcyclists. Many times a motorcyclist incurs an accident. The driver of another vehicle doesn't see them.

As well, they promote motorcycle safety in our province and do a wonderful job. Will the House please join me in welcoming all of the members here.

D. Thorne: Today I have the pleasure of welcoming a very good friend of mine and a very good friend of the official opposition to the House. Sharon Costello served as Emery Barnes's constituency assistant and ministerial assistant for many years when Emery was the MLA for Vancouver-Burrard and the Speaker of the House.

In that role, she and the late Emery Barnes provided a community-based office geared towards effectively serving the diversity of the constituents' issues and needs.

Sharon has with her today a friend from Australia. I guess this is the day for Australians visiting. We couldn't be offering a more beautiful day. I would like the House to welcome Sharon and Sam and give them our best.

H. Bloy: It gives me a privilege today to introduce a friend of mine from the riding of Burquitlam. He has been one of my best workers on my two elections, and he is a great community person. Would the House please join me in welcoming Joe Le Blanc.

D. Routley: Would the House help me welcome to our midst Dr. James Balderson and Mr. Rudy Eylmann, both members of COLCO, the Coalition of Leaky Condo Owners, who are tireless advocates for the rights of those who are experiencing the ongoing crisis of leaky condos in B.C.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 50 grade five students from Pacific Academy in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Half the class is sitting there; the other half is going to join us a little later on.

Joining are their teachers Mark Wirtz and Ms. Sharon Douglas, as well as many parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedules to accompany these students. These students are here to learn how our government works and how our system works. Would the House please make them very welcome.

[1410]

S. Hawkins: Visiting the Legislature today is a dear friend of mine from Kelowna, Dani Eisler. Dani is a fellow graduate of the bone marrow transplant program in VGH. Her sister Shelley Eisler — her life-saver — works for the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Also visiting with her today is her mother Elsie Eisler from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. I would ask everyone to make them welcome.

[ Page 4422 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) WINDERMERE COMMUNITY

SECONDARY SCHOOL

AND REACH FOR THE TOP

A. Dix: It is my honour to inform the House that Windermere Community Secondary School, a tremendous public school in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway located at 27th and Rupert — I know the Premier has been there — has won the provincial finals for Reach for the Top, defeating a school not in my constituency, called St. George's, in the final.

The team consists of George Hsi, Ricky Yap, Natasha D'Souza, Mo Chen, Phillip Jang, Andy Lei and Michelle Ta. Their coach and teacher Maggie Przyborowska — who has won, by the way, the Prime Minister's national award for teaching — said that in her years of coaching Reach for the Top, it is not only the best team she has ever coached but the best group of young people she has ever worked with. She says: "Coaching this team is truly a labour of love."

I think it shows the quality of education that many students receive in our public schools. Windermere Community Secondary School is proud of the more than 350 students every year who volunteer in neighbourhood elementary schools to support programs. They're proud because this year they organized a major beautification project in their community, and they were out this weekend planting trees and making a difference in their community.

This is an extraordinary school. I think it teaches us all a lesson to not rely on simplistic and poorly researched reports to judge the value of public schools, but to go to those schools to see the teachers and to see the students.

On behalf of the entire House, I want to congratulate this extraordinary team and wish them all the very best in Edmonton at the national finals.

INDO-CANADIAN COMMUNITY IN B.C.

D. Hayer: It is with sadness that I speak today on a dark period in the history of the South Asian community in British Columbia.

It was 92 years ago this month that the fateful decision was made to reject the landing in Vancouver of 376 South Asians, mostly Sikhs, from the Japanese freighter Komagata Maru . These people were seeking their hopes and dreams in a new homeland, and the freedom and success that Canada promised. Yet when the Komagata Maru reached our shores, those poor souls were rejected because of the racial prejudice that prevailed in British Columbia and Canada in 1914.

However, in the years since the widespread discrimination that cost the lives of so many passengers of the Komagata Maru , I am happy to say that such prejudice no longer exists in this province and in this country. Today British Columbians not only welcome new immigrants from India and other parts of the world; our government is going to great lengths to encourage them to pursue their cherished dreams in our province.

When our Premier was the mayor of Vancouver, he led the way for the Indo-Canadian community to develop the Punjabi Market and to place signs in the Punjabi language throughout the Punjabi Market area — the first in North America. Under our Premier's leadership, B.C. was the only province in Canada to pass a proclamation recognizing 400 years of Guru Granth Sahib Ji in the Golden Temple in Amritsar.

We have expanded and fast-tracked the provincial nominee program for immigration. We have expedited the credentialing of foreign-trained workers. We are investing $5 million to expand language training for Punjabi, Chinese, Korean and other languages. Through Skills Connect we are assisting with training and skills development.

Today British Columbia welcomes more than 30,000 immigrants each year. As an immigrant myself and as Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism and Immigration, it makes me very proud to see just how far we have come since those dark months of 1914.

[1415]

CENTRAL CITY

COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER PATROL

S. Hammell: I'd like to talk about a group of people who work in my constituency for free and have saved literally tens of millions of dollars in auto crime costs, not to mention the human cost of stress, inconvenience and bodily harm these crimes engender. I'm referring to the dedicated volunteers of the Central City community volunteer patrol, who work under the direction of the Surrey Crime Prevention Society and today boast a staff of 57.

I'm bringing this wonderful group of volunteers to your attention because this May marks the tenth anniversary of the Central City CVP, originally a foot patrol. In 1999 the bike patrol was added, and together these volunteers patrol the 625,000-square-foot Central City Mall. These volunteers receive extensive training. The bike patrol completes a 20-hour Can-Bike course. The Central City CVP patrols in pairs, and their mandate is auto crime. But they are also the eyes and ears of the mall and observe and report any suspicious activity back to their base.

Many volunteers are university students looking towards a career in the criminal justice system, but there are also seniors, high schoolers and parents who all contribute a minimum of 16 hours a month to the patrol. It is truly a community-based crime prevention initiative with participation from the RCMP, ICBC, the Central City Mall, the city of Surrey and other local organizations and individuals.

So to Becky Hendriks and Kanwar Bal and to the members of the Central City community volunteer patrol, I'd like to say thank you on behalf of myself and my constituents.

[ Page 4423 ]

DOROTHY FLEMING

I. Black: I rise today to celebrate and pay tribute to a remarkable life. A few weeks ago British Columbia lost one of its great citizens when Coquitlam's Dorothy Fleming died unexpectedly at 80 years of age.

It is a distinct understatement to refer to Mrs. Fleming as a pillar of our community. She was devoted to Coquitlam and is duly credited with being one of the driving forces behind Coquitlam's request for city status. She was given the highest honour of the city on October 4, 2004. As only one of seven in history, she was bestowed with the Freedom of the City. But it is her volunteerism and her lifelong giving to her community that make me pause to reflect with respect on her life.

While I suspect her outlook had its roots in her training as a nurse, her empathy seemed to really take flight after the hospital shifts were over, for this warm and graceful woman was a formidable force in her community when it came to looking out for the less fortunate. For literally decades Mrs. Fleming's efforts were focused on Meals on Wheels, the Crossroads Hospice Society and the Walk for Sight.

She was a founding organizer and 34-year volunteer for the Jimmy Christmas Hamper fund and a founder and lifelong volunteer for the Burquitlam Seniors Housing Society, the L.J. Christmas Manor. She was highly involved for decades with the Burquitlam Lions Club, earning the rare Judge Brian Stevenson Award, the highest achievement for Lions in all of Canada — an honour which was also bestowed on her husband of 51 years, Larry, who I understand is also watching today.

It has been said that volunteering is the ultimate exercise in democracy. You vote in elections but once a term. But when you volunteer, you vote every day about the type of community in which you want to live. Well, Dorothy Fleming voted every day for eight decades and, in doing so, exhibited not only extraordinary community leadership but also unwavering commitment to humanity itself. We need more Dorothy Flemings.

PORT COQUITLAM AND DISTRICT

HUNTING AND FISHING CLUB

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise today and make a member's statement in this House concerning an organization that has celebrated 50 years this past weekend in my community. In fact, it is a resource for the entire lower mainland. That is the 50th anniversary of the Port Coquitlam and District Hunting and Fishing Club.

[1420]

It resides on the Burke Mountain part of my constituency, which 50 years ago was probably as remote an area as one could find in the lower mainland. Yet today it rapidly faces the encroachment of increasing development — a sign of the growing number of people living in our province.

The hunting and fishing club in Port Coquitlam has been there for 50 years. Its membership is now some 1,300 people. They are engaged in activities related to hunting and educating people on the responsible use of firearms. Its members are engaged in the preservation and fight to ensure that the Coquitlam River will continue to maintain stocks of steelhead trout and salmon and to ensure that they're there for future generations.

Its members participate in activities that our community believes in strongly. So it was a pleasure to be there Saturday night with the members to celebrate that 50th anniversary and to look forward with them to another 50 years and to recognize that they face challenges — challenges which I hope this government is aware of — in the next few years as their lease comes up for renewal. I hope we can get a speedy resolution on that.

Most importantly, it was an opportunity to enjoy the fellowship of a club whose members, for 50 years, have been dedicated to making the outdoors more accessible to British Columbians, to protecting and ensuring the enhancement of the fish in our streams, and to ensuring opportunities to participate in the sports of hunting and fishing.

THANKS MOM MARROW DONOR DRIVE

S. Hawkins: As a former nurse who cared for patients with blood cancers and then recently in my own journey with leukemia, I've been touched by the efforts by individuals and groups to raise awareness and funds for cancer research and cancer care services. Together we have done a lot to save a lot of lives, but there's so much more to do.

In that light, the member for Vancouver-Burrard and I are starting the first annual Canadian Thanks Mom donor drive to help raise awareness of the need for bone marrow donors. We're working with Canadian Blood Services, the National Marrow Donor Program in the U.S.A. and Mr. Owen Wells from Milwaukee, the father of nine-year-old Kailee whose story will be profiled shortly in People magazine.

Kailee had a successful bone marrow transplant four months ago, after an international effort to find an unrelated donor to save her life. Kailee happily went back to school last week. The Thanks Mom donor drive event is in its fourth year in the U.S.A. and will be held in over 125 cities there.

The Premier and I are inviting all members, their families and friends, and all of our colleagues here in the House to join us on Sunday, May 14 in Stanley Park in Vancouver, next to the Vancouver Aquarium, to help raise awareness and to encourage many more people to become committed bone marrow donors. There will be music and entertainment and refreshments and, of course, lots of information on how you can become a bone marrow donor.

Why are we doing it on Mother's Day? Because all mothers want their children to live healthy, happy lives. This Mother's Day we're saying: instead of flowers or perfume or material gifts, let's honour all our

[ Page 4424 ]

mothers by encouraging others to give the gift of life to another mother's child. What could possibly be more significant as a Mother's Day gift than the gift of life for another mother's child?

Ministerial Statements

KELOWNA ACCORD

Hon. G. Campbell: I rise to present a ministerial statement.

We are privileged today to be joined by members of British Columbia's First Nations Leadership Council, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Chief Stewart Phillip, Chief Mike Retasket, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, Shawn A-in-chut Atleo, and First Nations Summit Grand Chief Edward John and Grand Chief Doug Kelly.

On behalf on all members of the House, I want to thank the Leadership Council and first nations elders and chiefs in communities across B.C. for helping to forge a new relationship with our government for the benefit of all British Columbians. I want to thank the Leadership Council for its dedication, resolve and perseverance in working to build a better British Columbia for all of our citizens. Together we're committed to building a constructive, new government-to-government relationship based on mutual respect, recognition and reconciliation.

We are working to build a new, vital and modern British Columbia — one that sees its true potential in the strength of its people, cultural diversity, common heritage, land and resources. We are committed to pursuing new horizons of hope and opportunity by moving beyond the barriers that have held us back for far too long.

We're committed to opening up new dialogue, new understanding and new access to resources to close the gaps in health, education, housing and economic opportunity that have failed aboriginal people throughout Canada's history.

[1425]

On Tuesday the new federal government tabled its first budget since that historic agreement. This government recognizes and appreciates that that budget includes a considerable amount of new funding in each of the next two years for improvements to housing and other services for aboriginal people. Indeed, the amount set aside for new housing, water and other infrastructure over the next two years is nearly half the amount that was anticipated within the next five years under the Kelowna agreements. It is also noteworthy that the federal government has reiterated its commitment to close the gaps in education, health care and economic opportunity.

It is difficult at this point to precisely quantify how much new funding is being budgeted pursuant to the agreements that were made in Kelowna, because it's nowhere identified under that moniker. However, it is undeniable — undeniable — that this effort will take a multi-year commitment that stretches beyond the next two years.

I understand that the new government may well have its own ideas on how to best advance the objectives set out in that document. It must be stated unequivocally that this will require significant financial resources beyond what is being committed today. After an 18-month cross-Canada collaborative effort to identify the amount for the next five years, a sum of $5 billion was arrived at.

The trust relationship that was the core of the Kelowna meeting demands decisive action and unflagging affirmation. As I said at that meeting, the honour of the Crown is at stake. The Crown, represented by its federal, provincial and territorial governments, must uphold that trust and act honourably. It must respect the letter, spirit and content of the undertaking of 14 of Canada's first ministers only five short months ago.

Today I want there to be no doubt where this Premier and this government stand. We stand behind our word. We stand firm on the commitment we made in Kelowna and to the transformative change accord we signed. We will stand up strongly to ensure that both of those documents are honoured in British Columbia.

We cannot stand passively by and let this product of unprecedented consensus and collaboration wither due to lack of long-term Crown commitments. This government will work with the federal government to achieve the goals set out in Kelowna. We will work with the Leadership Council and aboriginal people on and off reserve to ensure that the Crown's commitment of closing the gaps is met one way or another.

We know that will demand new approaches, new partnerships, new revenue-sharing and significant new, stable, long-term funding. I meant it when I said at the forum that our government will deliver on its promise to all British Columbians. While there may be disappointment in this particular part of the federal budget, there is significant room for hope.

The Prime Minister has reiterated his clear commitment to reform intergovernment fiscal relations that

[ Page 4425 ]

will ensure stable, long-term funding for all levels of government — mechanisms that will better serve all citizens. Municipal and first nations governments will need to be considered as part of that undertaking.

[1430]

British Columbia will put that issue squarely on the table in addressing fiscal imbalance at the first ministers meeting later this year. It will pursue new vehicles that are less susceptible to the uncertain winds of political change. Treaties can be instrumental in this regard, and this government will pursue them with renewed vigour and with new flexibility.

The future of first nations as a true partner in Canada, with constitutionally protected rights and title, warrants a fundamental rethinking of Confederation. All governments, including first nations governments, need to know they can count on stable revenue streams to provide the services that the people they serve deserve. That was implicit in the five-year commitment made in Kelowna. Long-term funding must be found, focused and committed if we are to meet the goal of closing the gaps for aboriginal people within the next decade.

I characterize that agreement in Kelowna as Canada's moment of truth. It was time to do something that had eluded our grasp as a nation for 138 years. It was our chance to end the disparities in health, education, housing and economic opportunities. All first ministers rose to that moment of truth, alongside Canada's aboriginal leaders, to undertake that challenge. Having made that extraordinary national commitment, any unilateral reversal will invite consequences that only make us poorer as a nation.

We have seen the consequences of Canada's political failure with regard to our first nations in the lives of first nations, Métis and Inuit people in our country. We know the toll it has taken on aboriginal children and families, and there are no more excuses. We've seen the consequences of shattered hopes spawned by over a century of betrayal, denial and negligence by governments of every stripe. There are no more excuses. We have seen the consequences of confrontation, litigation and lost opportunities. We know too well the consequences of frustration, anger, mistrust and despair, and there are no more excuses.

I say to the federal government: this is Canada's moment of truth. I believe the Prime Minister and his government are committed to closing the gaps identified in health, education, housing and economic opportunity. The Prime Minister and his government have committed to the objectives and principles of the agreement reached in Kelowna, and hundreds of millions of dollars have been earmarked to advance them in the next two years.

Let us now confirm the new partnerships that were promised. Let us now confirm the long-term funding, and let us find the strength and commitment to meet this challenge on behalf of all Canadians. Let us talk about how to invest the money to maximize the benefits for aboriginal people. Let us talk about the results we will see in the lives of aboriginal children — in their eyes, in their dreams — as they think about their future in Canada. Let us talk with aboriginal communities and with the federal government so that we can strengthen those communities and strengthen Canada in so doing.

In Kelowna first ministers from all the provinces, all the territories and the federal government came together. They lit a torch, and that was a torch of hope. It was a beacon that we should hold high. We should hold it together in our mutual commitment to making this country a better country for all Canadians in all parts of the country, aboriginal Canadians included.

[1435]

[Applause.]

M. Farnworth: I thank the Premier of British Columbia for his comments. He made some important remarks about what happened last November and what has happened since then and what must happen from now on forward. In November an agreement was signed between representatives of aboriginal people from across this country — ten provinces, three territories and one federal government. The entire people of our nation came together in what the Premier refers to as a moment of truth, and indeed it is. It was something that was supported by all of us in this chamber. Our leader, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, articulated our position as to how we as an opposition felt.

We look forward to seeing this agreement signed and implemented and to being able to address issues that have bedevilled and plagued this nation since its inception in 1867 and this province's entry into Confederation in 1871. It was seen as an opportunity to move forward, to deal with issues that had been outstanding, to ensure that aboriginal peoples fully participate in the nation of Canada that is home to all of us.

That's why the decisions that occurred yesterday give us great cause for concern. It is important that we in this province send a strong message to the federal government that it is the honour of Canada at stake, that it is the honour of ten provinces and three territories at stake, and that must not be allowed to fail. We must, as the Premier says, be unflagging in our affirmation in that regard.

For too long we have seen, in our province and our country, the disparity that first nations face — whether it's from life expectancy, where they can expect to live, on average, a decade less than non-aboriginal Canadians…. Native people not only die younger; they live with disabilities, on average, 12 years longer than other Canadians. The infant mortality rate is three times higher than for the rest of the population. In injuries and opportunity, they are at a significant disadvantage, and it will take the efforts of a tripartite agreement and the resources that came with that agreement to start to address that.

That was the hope of Kelowna, that was the substance of Kelowna, and that was the message of

[ Page 4426 ]

Kelowna to this province, to aboriginal people and to the people of Canada. We are extremely concerned by what has happened.

We agree with the Premier's comments. We would ask the Premier to recognize that we need to speak with one voice in this province, and we are prepared to do that. We want to support him to do that.

[1440]

I am taking this opportunity to let the Premier know that after question period, under Standing Order 35, I will be tabling a motion that will allow us to take this unique opportunity to send a message to the federal government — a strong bipartisan message — that we believe in the Kelowna accord, that we believe that the honour of Canada is at stake and that we will be unflagging in our affirmation of this agreement — that it is too important to the people of this province, it is too important to the people of Canada and, most importantly, it is too important to the aboriginal peoples of our great country.

With that, hon. Speaker, I will finish my response to the Premier of British Columbia and ask him later to seriously consider our motion.

Oral Questions

APPOINTMENTS TO

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION

B. Ralston: When John Tomlinson was elected president of the Fort Langley–Aldergrove B.C. Liberal riding association, he told the Aldergrove Star newspaper that it was a privilege to lead that group of "deeply committed B.C. Liberals." This is the same John Tomlinson, of course, who appeared in the 2005 Liberal campaign video and, together with his wife, donated more than $12,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party.

Now this deeply committed B.C. Liberal is the only current member of the agricultural land south coast panel. Can the Premier explain how Mr. Tomlinson's deeply committed Liberal pedigree and agriculturally skimpy résumé qualify him to make multimillion-dollar decisions about the long-term future of sensitive agricultural land in this province, such as Barnston Island?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member should just be upfront and clear. If it is his position, as apparently it is, that anyone who is politically supportive of the government that was re-elected to continue to make sure British Columbia was leading this country…. If he believes that disqualifies a member from making a contribution to public life, he should just say so.

We have a process in place that is the envy of governments across Canada. I could go through a list of appointments. I see there's one, a former member of the ALC. A Ms. Hunt, who I think works now with the NDP caucus, was a candidate for the NDP and was appointed to sit by a member of the present NDP opposition. Would I suggest that she was appointed because of some political connection as opposed to some expertise that she brought to the position? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey-Whalley has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: I'm glad to see I've drawn the minister responsible for patronage to his feet. As the minister knows, less than 1 percent of the population belongs to the B.C. Liberal Party — not 46 or 47 percent, as he cited. The act that governs the Land Commission states that commissioners must be "knowledgable in matters relating to agriculture, land use planning, local government or first nation government" — not deeply committed B.C. Liberals.

The commission's governance policy states that appointments should possess the "capability for a wider perspective on issues." That's because the work done by the ALC must be impartial and must be seen to be impartial to ensure public confidence. A deeply committed B.C. Liberal will not be perceived as impartial or able to consider wide perspectives.

Will the Premier admit that his government is doing a disservice to the reputation and functions of the commission by appointing such blatant B.C. Liberal insiders?

Hon. M. de Jong: I just want to make sure I understand this. I just want to make sure I understand that the member and the opposition are criticizing a process that has received endorsation from the Auditor General and that has been viewed as a model that other governments should follow. I also want to make sure I understand that he is being critical of that process in the face of the model that the NDP followed.

[1445]

I don't know for sure whether the NDP, when they were in government, actually had someone called a patronage czar. I'm not sure, and I would never make that allegation in the chamber, but maybe the member would like to ask the member for Surrey-Tynehead whether they had a patronage czar.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey-Whalley has a further supplemental.

B. Ralston: The future of places in British Columbia such as Barnston Island is at stake, and it's probably not a surprise…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: …that the minister mentions the member for Surrey-Tynehead. He has supported publicly the transition of this agricultural jewel in the Fraser River into an industrial park.

Earlier this week the minister bemoaned the fact that there wasn't a flood, at the Ministry of Agriculture

[ Page 4427 ]

and Lands, of qualified applicants for the commission. Perhaps there's a reason for this. Since 2001 the Agricultural Land Commission has lost 45 percent of its staff, and it's been without a CEO for over a year. The new regional structure clearly has made it much more susceptible to local political and development pressure. The commission needs support and leadership, not deeply committed Liberal appointees.

Will the Premier admit it's time for his government to actually support the Agricultural Land Commission and its staff? Maybe then he won't have to rely on partisan Liberals with no agricultural experience to sit as commissioners.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm still trying to come to terms with this analysis put forth before the House by this member, who says that somehow a process — that one which he defends and the one that we have created, which he criticizes — which gave rise to the NDP to release from the ALR far more land than is the case now…. Somehow that is a signal of a flawed system. In fact, this ALC structure has done far more to protect agricultural land than the one this member seeks to….

I know that those facts aren't helpful when the member is trying to spin this web of intrigue. Again, he can go to his colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers and get a primer on how the NDP did it when they were in government.

M. Farnworth: Perhaps I can give a primer to the member opposite on how the NDP did it. He just mentioned the name Christine Hunt. She was the first aboriginal person appointed to the Land Commission in British Columbia, and you — your government — fired her. Given the importance of the New Relationship to this government, can he inform this House when the next aboriginal person will be appointed to the Land Commission?

Hon. M. de Jong: Happily, we have an audience in this chamber today that is better positioned than that member or myself to pass judgment on the work this government, this Premier, has done to ensure that all British Columbians are treated with respect and dignity, and that historical injustices are corrected.

ROLE OF KATHRYN DAWSON

IN APPOINTMENTS TO

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION

M. Karagianis: Yesterday here in the chamber, the Minister of Citizens' Services celebrated the achievements of the board resourcing office. He didn't mention, however, that there's been a recent change in leadership.

[1450]

Let's talk about that change in leadership. Kathryn Dawson is a B.C. Liberal insider and a very, very political individual. She was the director of the Alberta government members' office. She's the former aide to Stockwell Day, and she was personally recruited by the Premier to become the Liberal caucus director of operations and, more recently, the assistant deputy minister of cabinet support.

Tomlinson and Jones were vetted and approved under her watch. Can the Minister of Citizens' Services explain why Elizabeth Watson, a very highly respected former director, was replaced with this Liberal insider — with only one month into the job, filling the Land Commission with her Liberal crony friends?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, history has been made on the floor of the B.C. Legislature. It's the first time I've heard anyone from Alberta referred to as a Liberal insider, but you never know what may happen.

Yesterday one of the members of the House referred to Ms. Dawson as the executive director of the B.C. Liberal Party. Incorrect. Wrong. Ms. Dawson has a record of public service in Alberta. She has come to British Columbia in recent years, worked with the government and worked with the caucus. Her performance as a dedicated public servant will withstand anyone's scrutiny anywhere, anytime, and she is doing a good job.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, let's be clear. The partisan patronage appointments to the Land Commission have occurred only since Kathryn Dawson took over. John Kendrew's questionable reappointment was also done after Elizabeth Watson's departure. If the minister is so proud of the resourcing office's performance, can he explain how deeply committed Liberals with no agricultural experience and development advocates are finding their way onto the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, far be it from me to be critical of the member's research. Ms. Dawson came to her present position only a matter of weeks ago. The member, before she and her colleagues malign an individual's character, might want to actually check their facts about when the appointment was made.

Ms. Watson left some time ago. I'm not going to sit in this House and comment on why an individual decided they wanted to seek additional challenges. But you know, this is not just about the games in here. We're talking about people who have dedicated themselves to public service. It may be a foreign notion to the New Democratic Party that people would acquire positions on the basis of merit, but that is the principle we have enshrined in a process that is the envy of governments across Canada.

CHILD CARE ACTION PLAN

D. Thorne: For months now we have all been listening to the Premier and the Minister of State for Childcare telling us that everything is just fine. They're

[ Page 4428 ]

talking directly to the Prime Minister about the federal child care plan, and they just know it's all going to work out.

Well, guess what. We know now that everything is not going to work out. Two days ago we heard the federal budget and the Prime Minister's plans for Canada. Those plans don't include very much for our children, at least not for children who have two parents working outside the home. We know that B.C. has lost, definitely lost, $463 million. Almost half a billion is gone — down the drain.

I would like to ask the Premier this afternoon if he is ready now to apologize to British Columbia families for not fighting harder for this child care plan that we so desperately needed.

[1455]

Hon. L. Reid: I'm pleased to respond to my reluctant questioner opposite. We expect to work with the federal government to have them deliver on the commitments they've made to this province. We are interested in deliverables. Indeed, there is $250 million on the table for the creation of child care space. I intend to see — this administration intends to see — that that dollar comes to British Columbia.

Creation of child care space requires innovation. It requires partnership. We, today, are partnered with municipalities, with agencies, with school districts, with young parent programs — people who want to work with us to build child care space. I welcome anyone in British Columbia to make that contact with me and begin that discussion.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Coquitlam-Maillardville has a supplemental.

D. Thorne: I appreciate the comments from the minister, and I look forward to seeing how British Columbia is going to be able to make up this almost half a billion dollars.

My supplementary question is to the Finance Minister, who has been quoted as saying that the federal budget takes very positive first steps for child care. Yet B.C. has just lost, as I have just commented, almost half a billion dollars. There is a desperate shortage of child care in this province. Already many families are waiting years to get their child into day care. Despite this, our Finance Minister is praising the new plan.

My question to the Finance Minister is this. Does she really stand by her comments that this federal budget takes positive steps for child care in the face of such a magnificent loss?

Hon. L. Reid: I am pleased to put on the record the accomplishments of this government on the child care file. Indeed, 641 new spaces in the last round of capital — that's the January announcement. There was an announcement in November. There was one in August. There are applications that are receiving favourable response today to build child care with the government in British Columbia. That work is ongoing.

We do not accept for a second that this work can be done in isolation. We have extraordinary child care providers in British Columbia. We have an extraordinary set of communities who are prepared to work with us. That work is underway. There are bursaries available today; there are supports available today. That work will continue in British Columbia.

FUNDING FOR 2010 OLYMPIC GAMES

H. Bains: Earlier this week the Minister of Economic Development assured this House that the federal government will come up with $55 million to cover half of the cost overrun for the Olympic venues. But when the budget was dropped, the Prime Minister snubbed this Premier and this government. There's no mention of this amount in that budget.

Will the minister assure B.C. taxpayers that they will not be on the hook for the entire Olympic cost overrun?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is not correct. I never made such a statement. I am not in any position to assure anybody that the federal government is going to make future announcements or future commitments.

What I said at the time, and I'll say again now, is that we have had some very positive discussions with the federal government — whether it's official-to-official level or whether it's actually from minister to minister. There is every indication that the federal government will live up to the commitments that it has made. We all signed on to a multiparty agreement with regard to the Olympics, and the federal government have indicated that they will live up to their obligations.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: There's no clause in the multiparty agreement that binds Ottawa to pay an extra dime for the Olympic cost overrun. Yet this government signed an agreement that potentially puts B.C. taxpayers entirely on the hook for the Olympic cost overrun.

[1500]

My question to the minister: why won't the minister admit that B.C. taxpayers are on the hook for the entire cost overrun for the Olympics because this government was asleep at the switch and failed to protect the taxpayers in that agreement?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is once again incorrect. The province is not on the hook for any increased costs. But let me just take us back a little ways. It was actually because of the leadership of the Premier of this province that we secured the right to host the Olympic Games in 2010. It's because of the leadership of the Premier that we put in place a $600 million commitment for the province as their share of the cost of staging the 2010 Winter Games in this province.

I can assure the member that we are working closely with VANOC as they develop their plans over

[ Page 4429 ]

these years. We are quite confident that with the obligations that are coming forward, the province will live within its $600 million commitment.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

AT RIDGE MEADOWS HOSPITAL

M. Sather: A recent revelation showed that the wait times at the emergency room at Ridge Meadows Hospital are among the longest in the Fraser Health Authority. Yet none of the money that the minister committed, the $7 million, towards emergency rooms is going towards Ridge Meadows Hospital. Why not?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. In fact, I answered a very similar question from another member of the opposition last day or the day before with respect to this, so I'm glad to repeat that answer.

What we learn from the work that we are doing with emergency department representatives — doctors, nurses, paramedics, health employers, health unions — at 15 of British Columbia's largest and busiest emergency departments will be transformed into changes at all emergency departments in all hospitals across British Columbia.

What we learn through the leadership teams that have been created at those 15 hospitals will be best practices that will be in place in all hospitals, and what we learn in terms of a model that will build an even stronger culture of cooperation between doctors and nurses and paramedics and others who work in emergency departments will be translated into better care for all British Columbians in every hospital across the province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows has a supplemental.

M. Sather: Well, we're still waiting for our transformation in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. Last fall it was shown that surgery wait times in Ridge Meadows were double most other cities in our region. Now the local doctors in Maple Ridge are saying that they're very frustrated, that the construction for the emergency room is still not underway.

Whether it's the emergency room waiting times, the wait-lists for surgery or the lousy food at our hospital, the citizens of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows are left to twist in the wind by this government. I would like to ask the minister if he would commit to making sure that some of the money that is going to other parts of the Fraser Health Authority will be directed to our hospital so that we can address the emergency wait times and get some construction going.

[1505]

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I thank the member for his questions. I can absolutely assure the member that the current initiative will benefit every hospital and every British Columbian as it comes into being.

I do want to advise the member of this, because this is critical, and this is a statistic that I have not provided to the House previously. I just received it yesterday. What this tells us is nurse vacancies in the health authorities. The member should know that the current nurse vacancy in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority is 772; in the Fraser Health Authority, 321. That is a big part of the challenge that our hospitals face today.

Thank goodness that our government initiated an unprecedented investment in new nursing spaces in this province. After a decade of neglect by that member's government, we have increased the number of nursing spaces by 62 percent — 2,511 new nurses every year in British Columbia.

CRYSTAL METH PROTOCOL

R. Fleming: There are many gaps in our province's strategy to combat the effects of crystal meth in our communities. Concerns have been specifically raised by foster parents in Victoria as to the effects of crystal meth on children and babies who are coming into care and being removed from homes where parents use or in some cases cook crystal meth. On checking with ministry officials, there is no joint protocol yet in place when these children are removed by police and social workers from these homes. Can the Solicitor General tell us when the crystal meth secretariat will have these protocols in place and coordinate a cross-ministry response?

Hon. J. Les: I am pleased that the members opposite are starting to display an interest in this very important topic. As the campaign last year unwound, for example, not once did we hear anything at all from the members opposite about the issue of crystal meth, while our government had been working for years in addressing the crystal meth issue and, in fact, have been recognized as national leaders in addressing the crystal meth issue.

That was led by the Premier in discussion with other Premiers across the country. Commitments were made to various communities across the province and funding provided, for example, through the Union of B.C. Municipalities. A lot of that funding, I'm happy to say, is flowing through aboriginal communities in British Columbia as well, as we address this very serious issue.

We're also going to make resources available to the school system throughout British Columbia because prevention, frankly, is a very important aspect of the fight against crystal meth in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Victoria-Hillside has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The Solicitor General should recall — back to the election almost a year ago — that this side of the House made a commitment five times in excess of the funding announcement that his government has

[ Page 4430 ]

announced to date. His government has the weakest laws on meth precursors in the country now. Again, on the issue of joint protocols, we're far behind the States and other jurisdictions.

In the United States there are joint protocols in place. They have passed legislation. A drug screen is obtained within 12 hours, and a full medical examination and interview by social workers are conducted within 24 hours. That doesn't occur in British Columbia.

It's crucial that a joint protocol be developed around apprehension of these children so that they can be assessed and decontaminated when there is evidence that crystal meth is being cooked or used in a household.

B.C.'s community crystal meth task forces are asking for this. The Solicitor General would be aware of that. He's had a letter to this effect. Will the minister commit to mobilizing the proper resources to coordinate the proper meth-specific response for front-line workers in this province?

Hon. J. Les: It's rather rich that that member purports to preach to us about commitments to funding for crystal meth. He might want to check with the members on either side of him when their previous government — I believe it was in the year 2001 — made commitments around mental health and addiction services. I believe the figure was some $125 million, and the then Minister of Health was finally forced to admit that not one dollar was actually funded of that commitment.

The programs we have in place today are in fact working well. This is a very serious challenge that affects every community in British Columbia, but today we have over $1 billion worth of resources — funded resources — available for mental health and addiction services across British Columbia. We have over 1,000 beds available for treatment for people who are afflicted by these drugs, and we're committed to doing more as resources permit.

[1510]

A. Dix: You know, I say to the Solicitor General: he's zero for two. We've asked the question twice, and he's failed to answer it twice. It's a very serious question. It's something that communities are asking about.

I'd like to ask him the question. It's very simple, not in a partisan way. He's the minister responsible. Can the Solicitor General tell us when the crystal meth secretariat will put those protocols in place to coordinate a cross-ministry response on this question?

That's the question the member for Victoria-Hillside asked. It's a very important question. The minister, rather than going on and giving partisan responses…. Can he just give us a simple response about where he is at on this question?

Hon. J. Les: Well, I know that the member opposite finds it difficult to listen to an enumeration of the lack of accomplishment of his previous government. I can understand that. But our government has been taking a leadership role in identifying crystal meth in various communities across the province. We have held community forums in I don't know how many communities so far, drawing hundreds of people to those evening forums. I am pleased to say that many of those attendees were, in fact, young people. I was really encouraged to see that.

Let there be no mistake. We are well aware that crystal meth is a challenge, and we are taking steps today to make sure that British Columbians are aware of this challenge and stop the use of crystal meth that is compromising their welfare.

[End of question period.]

Standing Order 35

M. Farnworth: I rise under provisions of Standing Order 35. I wish to raise a motion of urgent public importance — namely:

[That this House do now adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the federal government to honour its commitment to the Transformative Change Accord, known as the Kelowna Accord, abandoning the tri-partite agreement and action plan to improve the socio-economic conditions of Canada's Aboriginal peoples and, as a result, putting the honour of the Crown into disrepute.]

I have a motion to move if the Speaker finds it in order.

Hon. Speaker, this is a matter of great importance to the people of this province and of this country on an agreement that was signed by ten provinces, three territories and one federal government. This is the motion.

Hon. M. de Jong: I wonder if I might suggest this. I'm obliged to the member. I've just now received the motion. I know that pursuant to subsection (3) of the standing order, there is a written statement that the member is obligated to provide to the Speaker as well. I've not seen that. But I am happy to, and the member may be indicating that this is it. That may be so.

So whilst I don't doubt for a moment the sincerity of the application, I'm wondering if we might do this. I note that pursuant to subsection (6) of the standing order, the ordinary course of events would see a debate — were it to occur — begin at 4:30 or at a time designated by the Speaker. In the time that we have, I wonder if my friend the Opposition House Leader and I might have a discussion about the motion itself.

Again, whilst I don't dispute the sincerity with which it is put forward, we need to be guided by the rules governing the standing orders. I would like an opportunity to canvass that with him, and we could perhaps come before you again in short order and present our views — either by consensus or opposing, as they might be.

M. Farnworth: This side of the House is quite prepared to take that time and do that with the Government House Leader.

[ Page 4431 ]

[1515]

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Until such time as I hear from both the Opposition House Leader and the Government House Leader, I reserve my right. Then we'll make the decision.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber continued second reading debate on Bill 33, the Education (Learning Enhancement) Statutes Amendment Act — that's quite a title, Mr. Speaker — and in Committee A, continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Forests and Range.

Second Reading of Bills

EDUCATION (LEARNING ENHANCEMENT)

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

(continued)

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have an opportunity to get back to this debate now that we're back.

What we've seen with this legislation is a number of very positive things. We saw the placement here of a hard cap on class size in grades four through seven. That is a positive. We know that it's an important decision for children in British Columbia, and we know that it's a decision that will help ensure the quality of education for children in our province. We know, in fact, that guaranteeing limits on class sizes goes a long way for us to be able to ensure that teachers have the capacity and the ability to do their jobs better than in instances with a large class.

Unfortunately, there is a bit of a sad tale behind how we got to where we are today with this legislation. What we know is that, in fact, the situation that we found ourselves in a number of months ago with the teachers dispute was a situation that was precipitated by this government's actions. It was a situation where this government absolutely refused to deal with the question of class size and refused to acknowledge the challenges and issues that we have around class size. That was a very significant determinant in the conflict that was had between teachers and this government.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

Fortunately, the people of British Columbia…. Parents demanded that this government act responsibly and put pressure on. This opposition demanded it; teachers demanded it. Other educators demanded it. As a result, the government in fact came to its senses and did something on class size. The situation here is that it is important for the government to accept responsibility for that situation — responsibility for a situation that they very clearly created.

As we move past that, as we move on and engage in the discussion of the bill itself, let's talk a little bit about what these changes and what this bill will mean and what it actually does. What is key in this legislation is the support that does occur in grades four to seven. We do see that there is a consent requirement through grades four to seven for teachers. It is a requirement that will ensure that teachers, who are the key component in the education of our children, have some ability to protect the interests of those children in their classroom by schools being required to have their consent for adjustments around class size that go over and above 30.

Classroom teachers, we know, are those who best understand what's going on in our schools. They understand the educational system. They understand the delivery of learning, and they understand what's most important for our children when it comes to their education.

[1520]

Unfortunately, we're not going to see those same conditions in grades eight to 12. There isn't a consent requirement for teachers for these class sizes; rather, it is a condition of consultation. What we're going to see here is that teachers will be consulted, but there is no requirement in this legislation that teachers consent in grades eight to 12 on adjustments or changes in class size. What we see here is that we have one standard in grades four to seven; we have a very different standard in grades eight to 12.

One of the other things that the legislation does is acknowledge the linkage between class size and class composition. This is a good thing. While the legislation puts a limit of three children per class who require IEPs, it doesn't address the broader questions around special needs. There is no acknowledgment of the role and need for special education assistance in this legislation, and there certainly are no resources to ensure that those supports are in the classroom or that those supports will remain in the classroom after this legislation is passed.

There is no additional support to properly assess children to determine those kids who fall into that grey area, primarily around high-incidence. Those kids make up a significant part of the population of our schools. What we know is that the school system doesn't have the resources or the skills, necessarily, to do the assessments that need to be done.

We also know that because of the legislation, without additional resources here, there will be great pressures on those schools to make sure that, in fact, the number of kids in any given class with IEPs doesn't go over three. It could create great complications in our schools and great challenges for our schools and for our school districts. This is a very big concern.

[ Page 4432 ]

The most troubling piece of this legislation is the total lack of resources to ensure that the legislation can be implemented without significant negative impacts on other areas of our school districts and their budgets. It's unacceptable for us to see a piece of legislation put forward here by the ministry when there are no resources attached.

What's this going to mean in terms of non-enrolling teachers? Are we going to see those teachers being lost in our schools? What's it going to mean for counsellors and youth workers in inner-city schools, like the schools in my constituency? Does it mean that those services are going to have to be trimmed in order to make sure the dollars are there to meet the class size obligations? What will it mean for school support workers? What will it mean for special education assistance? We don't know.

What we do know is that school trustees in my district in Vancouver have been speaking to me. School districts from both sides of the political spectrum in Vancouver have been speaking to me and expressing a great degree of concern about what the impacts of this class size legislation will be without dollars and resources to support the legislation. They're concerned about whether they're going to be able to meet their legal obligations and, at the same time, deliver the breadth and the level of services and education that they desire to put in place.

[1525]

I've heard from parents who have had a chance to look at this, parents of special needs kids who are very concerned about the possibility that in school districts where the three IEPs in a classroom is the cap, there will be pressure where there are greater numbers of kids to in fact start to look again at warehousing kids with special needs. I don't think that's something that anybody wants to do, but it may very well be a result if we're not careful and if the resources aren't in place to ensure that we, in fact, can move forward with this legislation with a resource and a funding package behind it that allows it to be successful.

I pointed out that when we look at the dollars involved to meet the responsibilities of this legislation, the responsibilities this will put on school districts, we have issues around what happens when cuts have to be made. Is it non-enrolling teachers? Is it counsellors? Is it youth workers? Is it school support staff? Is it special education assistants who will fall by the wayside in order to meet budgetary responsibilities and to meet the terms of Bill 33? Will it mean that these positions will be sacrificed if necessary to meet those class size requirements? We don't know that, but should that occur, there is absolutely nothing positive about that circumstance.

We need to have funding in place to ensure that the conditions of Bill 33 can be met without substantive costs to other critical aspects of our public education system. This situation will be exacerbated even further when we look at the punitive powers of the special administrator who's identified in the legislation — an administrator who could have the ability to punish a school board up to and including the dismissal of the board itself if a district isn't in compliance, if schools aren't in compliance.

Like in so many other areas of public policy that this government has a practice around, it puts in place conditions. It puts in place demands. It doesn't put in place resources and capacity to meet those conditions, and then it walks away from its responsibility to ensure that they can be achieved in a reasonable way. The concern here is that by not putting funding on the table as part of Bill 33, this government has put conditions on the table and then said to school districts: "You need to meet those conditions, but there is no money to support your doing that." That's just wrong.

This means the pressure is on districts to reduce costs, including the potential elimination of key staff — again, like special education assistants, youth counsellors. That's important business in inner-city schools. The other option is, of course, not to identify students who are high-incidence, low-impact students. Districts will be compelled to not identify those kids' needs.

Trustees in my district, again, have spoken to me about these issues. They've told me that they don't know how they're going to meet the challenges of this legislation without additional resources and funding. They've told me that the government is creating more problems, potentially, than they're solving if they don't provide resources to implement Bill 33.

Everyone wants to address the issues of class size. Everybody understands the importance of having class sizes that allow teachers to optimize their skills and their commitment to children and to do the best for our children. We all agree that a legislative resolve to this is important. We all agree that putting a hard cap in place, which clearly identifies what the appropriate number of children is in any given class, is a good way to go, but it has to be complete legislation. It has to be complete with the resources to allow the implementation to go ahead in a way that will make it successful.

There is nothing here that says this legislation will be successful when there's no money to make it work.

Hopefully, the minister will further consult with districts and will consider these critical questions as this bill goes forward through committee stage. We'll see that happen over the next week or two. I would hope that the minister will take a little bit of that time, in fact, to be talking to some of those districts and talking to those trustees who are very concerned.

[1530]

Bill 33 has the potential to be an accomplishment that we could be very proud of in terms of how it deals with class size. It can be something that the minister and the government could be proud of in terms of how they deal with class size, but it will only be achieved if the strategy is complete. The strategy today in Bill 33, the comprehensiveness of this bill…. It fails in the class size component around the question of money.

It can't be complete without the money to make class size and class composition work. This is a challenge over the next stages of the bill. It's a challenge

[ Page 4433 ]

that we'll get an opportunity to discuss in committee stage, which I know the critic will discuss. It's a challenge that we need to fix, and I hope the minister is serious about wanting to resolve this. I hope the minister is serious about finding a solution that works, and I hope the minister is open to a discussion around how to fix this problem that is being identified across the province by school districts.

There are a number of other issues in this bill that I hope we'll get a chance to talk about in committee stage. They are other issues that are significant. But with my time, I was looking forward to the opportunity to talk about this question of class size, to talk about the question of the special needs children who make up a significant portion of the population of the schools in my constituency.

I know those schools work very hard. I know those educators and those principals work very, very hard to meet those kids' needs. They're very cognizant about making sure the resources are available and doing what they can do to ensure the resources are available to meet those kids' needs. I would hope that Bill 33 can come forward as a very positive tool to help accomplish the objectives that they aspire to and the objectives that I would hope most of us, if not all of us, in this House aspire to. But it does require resources.

It does require a commitment of resources by the government to make sure that those pieces can be put in place and they can move forward without jeopardizing many of the other critical services that are provided by our school districts across the province.

I do look forward to the discussion in committee stage. I'm hopeful that the minister will come to see the views that are being put forward from this side of the House on those questions around resources and around the question of consent, particularly in grades eight to 12, where we now have a consult model and not a consent model. I look forward to that discussion as we move ahead.

D. Routley: I rise to speak on Bill 33 out of a grave concern for teaching and learning conditions in our schools. Over the past four years, school districts across the province have reeled from the impact of Liberal cuts to public education funding and the inappropriateness of the per-student funding model in the B.C. public school system.

In the school district that I used to represent as a trustee, the current chair of that school district has written a letter. The letter goes out to all B.C. school boards. I'll read it into the record, if that's permissible.

To all B.C. school boards:

As school trustees, it is our right and our

obligation to serve those we represent. At a regular board meeting held on March 29, 2006, Cowichan Valley school board passed the following motion: "that the trustees of school district 79, Cowichan Valley, move to challenge the funding formula that is responsible for the current underfunding of public education and urge the government to provide funding that addresses the needs of all students in the public education system."

In light of ongoing cuts that continue despite small increases in per-student funding, it is clear that the current method of financing our public education system is not meeting the requirements of those who rely on it. For example, small projected declines in enrolment are used to excuse funding cuts.

The time has come for our school communities, led by our school boards, to insist that the Ministry of Education revisit the per-student funding formula which has created underfunding in our public schools. If we cannot sustain necessary programs and provide for the needs of our students and school staff, then reason dictates that the formula is wrong. Without proper resources, the power to manage the direction of public education is greatly diminished. Please join us in leading our communities to demand better.

Yours truly,

Wilma Rowbottom,

Board chair, Cowichan Valley school district

[1535]

Wilma and I sat on a board together. I have a great respect for Wilma Rowbottom, although we share quite differing political viewpoints, but we share those viewpoints in respect for each other and for the people we serve. Ms. Rowbottom was recognized just this past week for her 27 years of service as a school trustee. I have undying respect for her and all the trustees of the province, and I have a deep compassion and empathy for their struggle.

This government's funding formula has devastated classrooms. Their legislation that ended the last labour disruption in the school system and then their failure to fund that agreement led to the deep cuts in the classrooms. School districts and school trustees across the province do not trust the government to follow through on their word. They do not trust the government to stand up for children and fund those programs that they dictate to school districts.

Now the latest incarnation of this is Bill 33 as we see a dictate to school districts on class size limits and on IEP students per class, but no promise of funding. Trustees, teachers, students, special needs students and their parents shudder in anticipation of the cuts that will be necessary to fund the requirements of this bill.

The province rose up in support of the teachers last year because they recognized that conditions for their children's learning and teachers' working conditions were untenable. They accepted and they realized that smaller class sizes and support for those students who need it the most are necessary for all of our students to succeed to their best. This government has designated literacy as one of its great goals, and yet we see a disinvestment. We see a refusal to invest and to stand behind the commitments that the government makes.

Those parents who supported that job action — not because they wanted to take care of their children during the day when they would otherwise have been at school, but because they realized that the classroom conditions were unconscionable — can celebrate a victory in forcing this government to acknowledge that class sizes are a problem in this province. The teachers can celebrate a great victory, not on behalf of them-

[ Page 4434 ]

selves but on behalf of the children they serve, for forcing this government to realize its education policies and funding formula are flawed.

We as an opposition are happy to have stood by them and supported that effort to force the government to realize its inadequacies. But in that realization, the government has failed to do the most important thing, and that is to fund the necessary changes. The changes have been identified as necessary. The changes have now been accepted by the government as necessary. It would be cynical and inappropriate and hardly forthright for the government now to refuse to fund changes that they will dictate.

There is another aspect to this bill — the distributed learning that allows private schools to offer courses in public schools and vice versa. As a school trustee in Cowichan, we had pressure in certain courses — particularly physics 12 — to offer a full program to our graduating high school students. We were approached by a local college, and they offered to offer this course with joint college credits to those who completed.

[1540]

On the face of it, it might be a good thing that kids can advance quicker, that they can gain more credit for their effort. But how long would it be before our school district could no longer offer that course or any other course in which it's challenged by the funding formula of this government? How long will it be before those distributed learning courses take the place of core curriculum in rural schools?

These are the kinds of suspicions that people have. These are the kinds of cynicisms they hold of this government's promises because of its failure to fund its previous commitments. So we call on the government to stand up and fund what it promises; to stand up and be accountable for the conditions in the classroom; to not tell people that they have more when people know they have less; to not come to us and say: "Well, I know we put eight rocks in your shoes, but we're gonna take out four. Now shake our hand, because we're your best friend."

We know that's not true. We know that in our classrooms, the conditions have deteriorated. We know that special needs students' needs are going unmet.

I call on this government to stand up and fund its promises, live up to its commitments.

D. Thorne: I rise today in support of this bill in principle. I think this bill is a victory for students, for families and for teachers. I am very, very pleased that after years of denying that class size and class composition have an effect on learning conditions, this government has finally admitted that it made a mistake in removing limits, and they've re-established hard caps for all grade levels.

My biggest concern in this bill is the funding that is accompanying these limits. School boards may be forced to cut programs in order to meet these new caps. This government has a record of failing to fund important initiatives in education. Several years ago the biggest example, or the best example I can think of, was when there was a rise in wages to the teachers' salaries. There were no corresponding financial resources given to the school boards, and they in fact had to absorb the loss.

The impact on that certainly in all school districts, I would assume…. I can only speak specifically, personally, for my school district — school district 43. I think this bill is an important step, and I hope that if there are any funding shortages, we will be able, as this bill goes through the process, to work on this area.

Now, the biggest problem in my district that I have been hearing from parents, who have been phoning my office and sending e-mails and letters, has been from parents of special needs children who are quite concerned that this bill will produce a feeling of discrimination — actual discrimination — for students. They're afraid that with the current funding — as I was just mentioning — that is in place, there is no funding, really, for aides in the classroom. That funding has been removed by this government in the past four years.

They're very afraid that their children will end up being moved not only out of their classroom but out of their schools and perhaps even into some warehouse kind of situation. I'm using that word quite broadly. I'm not using it, obviously, as a warehouse.

That's what parents are concerned about. I see the minister is smiling as I say that. I want to assure the minister that the parents who I have talked to are very, very concerned and see this as a very serious situation. Staffing ratios are a real issue for teachers and for parents. Teachers' rights were taken away by this ministry, taken out of the collective agreement and not enshrined in the School Act. That's another issue that is a problem.

[1545]

My school district let the minister know two weeks before this bill was introduced that it is very concerned about finances. I'm sure that with the introduction of this bill, I will be meeting with them in the coming weeks and getting an update on exactly where we stand now in the Coquitlam school district. This letter to Hon. Bond states that….

Deputy Speaker: Member, no proper names.

D. Thorne: Sorry. I apologize. I withdraw. The minister.

The Coquitlam school board, like most other school districts, was expecting that the planned $20 million increase that was announced would result in an increase of about $36 per student. However, only about $13 million of the $20 million increase, which worked out to $24 a student, was allocated to all school districts for basic student allocation. The Coquitlam school district expected almost $1.1 million and received just over $700,000.

They have written to the minister saying that this is a very big problem in terms of class size and composition and that without any additional funding, any progress made in this area cannot continue. So the minister

[ Page 4435 ]

is already well aware that in Coquitlam, we have a huge problem. I would just like to reiterate that without sufficient funding to look after the new expectations of Bill 33, we are in trouble in Coquitlam — which, as most of the members know, is the third-largest school district in British Columbia.

I wanted to say a few things about inclusion and special needs students to point out the concerns of the parents from my riding who have contacted me and, I'm sure, many who have not yet contacted me but who will in the future. One of the biggest problems with having a special needs child is getting an assessment done, and the whole assessment capacity in the province in general.

This is how a student gets assessed in British Columbia. The parent or teacher sees a need. The student's case is raised with the school-based team and referred to the district resource office. The student is put on a wait-list. It can sometimes take years for this student to work their way through, because a district has to send a psychologist to assess the child. There are not enough psychologists, and the rules are very strict around these assessments. Ordinary parents, working parents, parents who don't have high income are at the low end of the scale when it comes to getting these assessments done.

Wealthy parents can pay $1,500. They can afford to do this. They can jump the queue, have their child assessed privately and get assessed as a special needs child, and have whatever comes after that done. For the ordinary child on this waiting list, sometimes up to three years is what I have been told. Eventually this child will get identified as a special needs student and will then qualify for ministry funding. Unfortunately, this funding is no longer targeted to the student, and school boards may or may not spend all of the money that the students need to generate services for that student. Unfortunately, this is what the ministry currently calls flexibility.

That, along with the fact that the teachers' collective agreements do not have the provisions for special needs students like having a cap, a formula for staffing and support. This bill has no provision for support, merely a cap. If we're not really, really careful and watch how we try and solve that problem, we could be creating another problem for school districts and for parents specifically of special needs children. If we're not careful, our whole ability to be inclusive could be at risk in British Columbia. I say that knowing that I will support this bill in principle at this reading. But I want us to be very, very careful that we're covering all of our bases in this area.

[1550]

I just wanted to also say something — it's been mentioned before, I think — about distributed learning. I find this a very interesting

section of this bill. It's certainly an area that I had not given much thought to before — unlike special needs. I certainly have been involved with many special needs children, because I've worked in community social services for most of my life and feel very strongly about that area.

With the introduction of Bill 33, with the class size limits for grades four to 12, in the

section that's included on distributed learning, references to distance education in the School Act have been removed and replaced with the term "distributed learning." The definition of distributed learning is a method of instruction that relies primarily on indirect communication between students and teachers, including Internet, other electronic-based delivery, teleconferencing and correspondence.

The minister must now approve distributed learning programs for public and independent schools. There is a

section on sharing student records to facilitate students from public schools taking distributed learning courses at independent schools. The ability of public school students to take courses from other districts and from private schools could make it difficult for school boards to determine staffing needs.

I think this is a huge potential problem in this particular

section of Bill 33, because there is no provision in the act to specify whether or how funding would move between public school districts or to and from independent schools. I hope that we will be discussing this further and that there will be more information forthcoming, because these changes are being introduced without any discussion with teachers. They leave a lot of questions unanswered for teachers as well as for members on this side of the House and, certainly, for parents.

I will watch the debate on this bill in the Legislature very closely, attempt to understand the implications of this legislation and see how we move through the committee stage of this bill with the concerns that I have stated.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm pleased to rise today to speak about Bill 33. I think there is good news in the province with respect to education this week, and I think that it's well worth our while to celebrate that good news.

The most important thing that we see in Bill 33 is a recognition that class sizes have to be limited in the province and that that limitation needs to be codified. There are those — among them, teachers — who think that that codification should be in collective agreements, but the teachers have compromised, the government has moved, and there will be a codification of class size limits in the act. That's useful and good, and it's good in several ways.

First, it's good news because it means that if the resources are available to school districts around the province, there will be hundreds and probably thousands of classes in schools across the province next September which will be smaller. That means tens of thousands of students in this province getting more individual attention from their teachers. That can only be good for the students and for our communities.

A second reason that we have good news is that we finally hear the government, this government, saying they will take responsibility for class sizes. They will step up to the plate. They will bring forward legislation that provides for class size limits at all levels in our

[ Page 4436 ]

public schools. That's a good thing. There are those who would argue, I guess, that we should focus on the fact that the government didn't take responsibility for those issues from 2001 to 2006. I would rather look at it the other way — that it's good news for the province that the government now comes to the conclusion that it needs to be responsible in those areas.

Another piece of good news is that those tens of thousands of teachers, hundreds of thousands of parents and communities across the province who stood together last fall and said that we needed limits on class sizes and additional services for students with special needs…. Those people are vindicated. The courage of the teachers, the support of the parents, the support of the students, the support of communities and school trustees…. The vast majority of British Columbians last fall stood together and had the courage to say to this government: "Something needs to be done." They are vindicated today, and that's a good thing. That's good news.

[1555]

There's more good news. That good news is that those people who stood together in the winter of 2002, when Bills 27 and 28 were introduced and when the cutbacks — yes, cutbacks, despite the attempt of the government to deny there were cutbacks — were planned which stripped our ability to control class sizes in this province…. That resulted in 120 schools being closed, which resulted in fewer services for students with special needs, which resulted in programs across the province being reduced. The people who stood up in 2002 when a former Minister of Education was saying, "It's all about flexibility.

It's all about choice. It's all about putting students first…." They don't say it anymore. That's good news, and those people who stood up against this government in 2002 are vindicated today as well.

There's good news. It's important that we look at the good news, and it's important that we be positive about what we can be positive about. But there are also concerns. We need to look at those concerns, and we need to look at them carefully.

First of all, we have a concern, and teachers have a concern, and we know we've begun to hear from parents about this concern — that the professional teachers in this province are being treated differently as a result of this bill. The professional teachers from kindergarten to grade seven will have to consent. If they believe that for educationally appropriate purposes, classes should be larger than the limits in the act, they will have to consent. The professional teachers from grades eight to 12 will only have to be consulted.

The question that needs to be asked of this government is…. Of course, the minister and others on the other side would like to ask a whole bunch of other questions, but we will ask the questions. We will stand for the children. We'll ask the questions that need to be asked in this House.

The question needs to be asked. Why is it that the professional prerogative, the professional responsibility, the professional ethics of K-to-seven teachers are being recognized in this act and teachers from grades eight to 12 aren't being recognized in this act? It's an important question. We'll continue to ask it, and we'll look at it in some detail during the committee stage of this bill.

Another concern that we need to look at in the midst of the good news is a concern about safety of students. There are home economics classes, labs. There are science labs. There are shops and technical education classes in secondary schools in this province.

There was a time, before 2002, when this government took precipitous action, which they have now begun to move away from, when students in those classes were protected. The class size limits in collective agreements meant that the number of students in those classes were no larger, in most cases, than the safe number, the number that the laboratory was built for. We need to look at adding those kinds of protections to this bill so that the students in our schools who take those very important courses are protected and that we have safety in those classrooms.

Another concern that we need to look at has to do with the implementation of the class size limits, because this isn't all brand-new. We have had, over the last 15 years — almost 20 years — in this province situations in which we've codified class sizes. They were in collective agreements. The processes were well-used — complicated, difficult, tedious. People had to work hard on them. But together — school districts, teachers, parents, students — we found solutions to the staffing and implementation processes that are necessary when you're going to limit class sizes.

As I look in the bill that's proposed in this House today, in

section 76 there's a process laid out which, frankly, gives me some concern, because the process begins in the fall. We who actually work in schools and worked in schools — the professionals, the administrators, the teachers, the other professionals who work in schools — whose responsibility it is to do planning and do implementation of class size limits know that you can't start in September.

[1600]

You can't start in September to set those class sizes. You can't start in September to fill those classes. You can't start in September to do that planning, because if you do, there'll be disruption for students, and the minister tells us over and over again that it's all about students — and she's right about that.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

We on this side certainly agree with that, and the parents, the teachers, the administrators and school trustees agree with that. If you care about the students, you can't be organizing classes and secondary blocks in September. You have to start way before that. You have to start in the spring.

There needs to be provision in the act. I think it's important that together we look for provisions and those provisions in the act that provide for processes that begin in the spring, so that the implementation of

[ Page 4437 ]

class size limits is real and not illusory; so that there isn't disruption; so that schools run smoothly so the students, who we're all there working for, have the best experience they can have.

Another concern that we need to talk about has to do with non-enrolling teachers and the important services that they provide to our students — ESL teachers, counsellors, school librarians. I don't think there is a member in this House who would say that the educational services provided to students by those professionals are unimportant. They're critical. They're critical to the success of students in our schools. There is no mention of those non-enrolling teachers.

Again, this is not brand-new. There used to be a time when there were ratios for those non-enrolling teachers, and they were in the collective agreements. They provided a guarantee that these necessary services would be available to students in our schools. Not there. We need to have a look at that — in the midst of the good news, have a look at these concerns and see if we can improve what has been put before us by the government.

Another concern, and it's been spoken to by some of my colleagues previously, is very, very important. It has to do with students with special needs. The government has brought forward a bill which talks about a maximum of three students with individual education plans in any one class. What's important for us to realize is that there are 11,000 classes in the province with more than three students with IEPs in the class.

The resources necessary to provide appropriate placements for those kids…. They're our kids, students with special needs. They're not somewhere else. They're not somebody else's kids. They're our kids, the students with special needs, and we need to make sure that there are appropriate placements available for those students. That takes resources. The resources have to be there for appropriate placements, for supports, for a process, for making sure that there are appropriate placements, or else we run the risk of moving back to the bad old days.

When I went to school — that would be the early 1830s; no, it was later than that — there was a special class, and everybody was shy about the special class. There was a kind of stigma attached to the special class. It was off in a corner in the basement of the school that I went to. Thankfully, we've moved away from those days.

We have over the last 20 years begun a process of inclusion and integration of students with special needs that enriches the lives of those students with special needs and the lives of the other students in our classes. But without the resources committed for appropriate placements for those students with special needs, I fear that we're going to move back to the bad old days.

I think it is the responsibility of this government and this minister to commit to the students with special needs in this province, and to the parents of those students, that no special needs student will be in an inappropriate placement in this province because the resources haven't been found to make sure they get the best education they can. That commitment has to come.

An additional concern that we have about this bill is that it sets up a dynamic which, I think, could be unhealthy in the schools, and it's this one. In looking at exceptions to the cap that has been put forward by the minister and this bill, the bill sets up a discussion between principals and teachers. Now, that's new and different.

In the days when class size limits were in the collective agreement, that was collective bargaining. It was a labour relations issue. If there was a situation in which a school district, a principal, a teacher believed that the limits should be exceeded, that was a labour relations issue. That was a good thing, because it took the discussion away from the individuals in the school. There is inevitable tension and conflict and complication around those issues.

[1605]

I believe that we move away from that situation at our peril. I think it's a mistake to set up a situation in schools where teachers and principals — who, after all, have to work together on a daily basis to do the best they can for students — are put into a situation where there's conflict and tension guaranteed. I think it's a mistake, and I think we can do better than what's in the act.

Let me conclude with a discussion of resources. I want to talk about resources. I think it's important that we not have a situation next fall as a result of this good news…. We've taken some steps together here and we need to be together — government, opposition, students, parents, teachers, school trustees. All of us need to look at this carefully and see that we've taken some steps together here. But we risk a situation in the fall where, if the proper resources are not available to implement appropriately the steps that have been taken in Bill 33, we're going to be in trouble.

I fear a chaotic situation in the fall. I fear a situation where, because there aren't the resources that there should be for implementation of these steps that we've taken, we'll have a chaotic situation, a situation which will not be good for kids, will not be good for their education. I think it's important that we say today that if that is the case, it won't be the fault of those who pressed for class size limits in the face of a government that for many, many years said no. It will be the responsibility of the government.

If there aren't the resources, and we have a situation where parents are complaining next fall that there is disruption as a result of Bill 33, it won't be those parents' fault — those parents who demanded improved learning conditions for their kids. It won't be their fault. It will be the responsibility of government if they don't provide the resources.

If we have a situation in the fall where there is disruption and lack of stability and tension in schools because the resources aren't there for implementation of Bill 33, don't blame the school trustees for that. Our school trustees are doing the best they can with the resources that have been made available. All of the

[ Page 4438 ]

members in this House know there are school trustees with whom I disagree about a whole lot of stuff, and I have been not very shy about that over many years. Nevertheless, don't blame the school trustees in the fall if the resources haven't been made available for implementation of Bill 33 and there's tension and disruption and lack of stability.

I think we have to look carefully at what's liable to happen. We've been through this movie before. This is a nicer version of it, a better version of it, a version based on what the government has learned over the last five or six years. But we've been through this movie where the government brings in a law and downloads responsibility for the resources to somebody else. What were the results of it the last time? A hundred and twenty closed schools, cuts in programs across the province, larger class sizes across the province.

There were some other results that we don't talk about as much, but we'd better talk about them now. Art and music and drama classes were cut across the province as a result of the cuts that had to come with the decisions of this government in 2002. We don't want that again. Schools were closed. We don't want that again.

An Hon. Member: Thirty-eight thousand fewer students.

D. Chudnovsky: Well, I hear from a member of the government once again…. I guess maybe they haven't learned. Maybe there wasn't a problem with class size and composition. After all, it's the bill that came from the government. Maybe Bill 33 is an aberration, a mistake. Shouldn't have done it; there really wasn't a problem.

Perhaps the member of the government should talk to the minister. She and the Premier at least have come to the conclusion, after several years of denying it, that there is a problem with class size and composition. The member denies it. They've said that there is a problem. Bill 33 begins to deal with it. Good for them. They've begun to deal with it.

[1610]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Let's not download the problem on our neighbours who clean the schools, who provide a healthy place for our students to go to learn in. Let's not download the problem onto the clerical support in the schools — those people who make sure that the schools run smoothly. Let's not download the problem onto the teacher assistants and educational assistants in the schools. Let's not close schools. Let's make sure that we provide the resources — that the government is responsible and accountable for providing the resources — that can make this beginning step a step that we can all be proud of.

Hon. M. de Jong: To members, with reference to the matter that was discussed just after question period, I've had an opportunity to have a discussion with my friend, the Opposition House Leader, with respect to that proposal and that submission.

I can say to the House that as a result of that discussion, though I'm not entirely convinced that Standing Order 35 applies, that is perhaps moot, because the member and I have agreed that it is an important matter and that with the unanimous consent of the House, the matter could be put for and should be put for discussion and debate in this House at five to five for debate, to conclude at or prior to the time for adjournment today.

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

A. Dix: I think it is fair to say that I often rise to speak in this House with a song in my heart.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

But today, especially, I feel like it's a good day, because earlier today, as members of the House will know, the Attorney General introduced legislation that will restore an independent officer of the Legislature to deal with the important issues of children and family development in British Columbia.

This had been an issue that people had worked on for years — that members of this House have raised. After months and months and months of effort and debate, a major report by the hon. Ted Hughes, we had introduced in this House today Bill 34. We will be, I'm sure, debating that in the next couple of weeks.

I rise with a song in my heart, because we're also debating this bill. You'll recall it has some similarities with the process involved in the bill to create a children's representative in this sense. For years since this government got rid of limits on class size and the provisions of collective agreements on class composition, parents and children and young people and teachers and support workers and communities and school boards have fought to see those limits placed back in the law.

You know, last fall we had a major debate in this Legislature. There were two sides in the debate. There was one side, the opposition side, which advocated strongly for limits in class size — raised the issues of class composition. There was one side that supported that, and there was a government side that refused to listen, refused to deal with those important issues of class size and class composition, and voted down our efforts to hoist that legislation, Bill 12, last fall — refused, in fact, to negotiate or deal with those issues during that major disruption we had in our province with respect to teachers.

So I feel like we've come a long way. We've come a distance here. The government has finally recognized the strong arguments put forward, in particular, by my colleague the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, who has argued consistently in the last election campaign, prior to the election and since being named Education critic. He has put issues of class size and class composi-

[ Page 4439 ]

tion to the forefront of debate in this House, and I want to congratulate the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca for his extraordinary….

[1615]

Interjection.

A. Dix: The Minister of Education, because I wanted to also…. The Minister of Education had been distracted during my earlier remarks when I referred to the song in my heart, and when I praised the government for the legislation introduced today on a child representative, when I praised the fact that government has recognized the need for limits on class size and class composition. Our graciousness goes wide today. I am pleased and honoured….

Interjection.

A. Dix: The Minister of Children and Families thinks I haven't mentioned him today, so I want to thank him because he and I worked hard together over the past six months. We're making progress. He is coming on board. One day…. I want to tell him that in spite of all the things that have happened in the past, if he wants to come all the way over, he'd be welcomed over here, I'm sure.

H. Bains: He's starting.

A. Dix: He is starting; he wants to move.

The government on these vital questions of public policy has moved, and they're very seriously important questions. We had a disruption last fall, and I want to actually cite one other group which played a critical role in this and has fought for this, and that is the British Columbia Teachers Federation.

I think it's fair to say that the B.C. Teachers Federation and its courageous leadership have worked hard on these questions. Many of those efforts are reflected in some of the provisions of this bill. I think it is an important thing today to recognize the critical role that the trade union movement, in particular, and the B.C. Teachers Federation and their teachers and members have played in raising these issues in British Columbia.

It shows the courage that people can show, and it shows the importance of opposition, the importance of an active citizenry, the importance of people who say: "It doesn't matter that the government has a majority in the Legislature. Other voices have to be heard, and you can convince by making a strong case."

Certainly, over the past several years, the leadership of the B.C. Teachers Federation, which has argued again and again and again for limits on class size and changes to the provision around class composition, deserve a great deal of credit for their efforts. I think they're well reflected in parts of this legislation.

Having said all of that, having expressed the positive wishes, I think we need to recognize, as well, the considerable victory that teachers have had in this province. I don't think…. You know, when I toured around British Columbia when I was executive director of Canadian Parents for French…. I know that the Minister of Education shares this view that every day in classrooms across British Columbia teachers do extraordinary work, that students do extraordinary work.

I talked to Windermere School in my constituency today where students working with teachers have taken the lead. This year 350 of them are volunteering in elementary schools in their community, showing leadership to younger students — inspired by teachers, by principals, by the circumstances in the community they've developed at Windermere. A similar thing is happening in Gladstone School in my constituency. Sometimes as a society, we in our political debates get too personal, I think, and we don't recognize together the extraordinary things that are happening in our public schools.

I talked a little bit today in members' statements about students at Windermere School, about their extraordinary success at Reach for the Top where they defeated a team from St. George's and how important it is to recognize all of the work they've done.

The students at Windermere School have worked on a beautification project on 27th Avenue, supported by teachers. It is changing that neighbourhood, transforming that neighbourhood. Students are doing it, supported by teachers. It is an extraordinary thing.

One of the things it says to me is that efforts in this province by some groups…. If I might digress for a moment. In particular, the Fraser Institute, which has targeted schools like Windermere for criticism…. What it says to them is that they need to visit those schools. They need to see those teachers. They need to see those students before they draw conclusions poorly developed and researched, which lead to misleading conclusions and which have put a slur, frankly, on schools in my community and the east side of Vancouver.

[1620]

That's what it says. It says teachers and the work they do need to be respected and that their work for students will improve if there are fewer students in every classroom. That is the case that the British Columbia Teachers Federation, the official opposition, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, parents from across British Columbia and students have been making for years.

This legislation, after four years of wait, after four years since the dark days of 2002…. We're at the anniversary of those dark days, the dark days when the Children's Commission was eliminated, and the dark days when class size limits were eliminated in British Columbia. Those days are over. It's a tribute to the work of those people. I want to send my congratulations to Jinny Sims and all teachers in British Columbia for their extraordinary contribution.

I think sometimes when we debate bills in the House, we talk about what's in the legislation and then we talk about what's not in the legislation. I don't expect every bill to deal with every issue in a given area. The bill that was introduced today only deals with part of the problem, as the Minister of Children and Family

[ Page 4440 ]

Development knows, in developing a truly outstanding system of protection of children and family services. It's not just about a children's representative; it is about many more things.

The challenges of our education system are not just about class size and class composition; they're about many other things. Some of the things that this bill doesn't deal with are the issues of non-enrolling teachers. There are schools in my constituency with more than 600 students that have a half-time teacher-librarian. That's not good enough. That is an issue of funding.

I know a little bit about language education. I worked in this area for a while. We have what we call French immersion programs in British Columbia which we fund for 12 years, in fact for 13 years, from K-to-12, and which seek to develop fluency in the French language. You can see that fluency develop. I've visited and worked with students at every level, and you can see that fluency develop over time in the French language.

The fact of the matter is that under very special circumstances one can reach a functional level in a language in two to five years, but that's not the circumstance for everyone. That can be the circumstance when there are other advantages — such as parents who speak the language; good home conditions, economic conditions; coming to Canada from countries with an established education system, not ravaged by war. That's not the case for everybody, and that five-year limit has really presented an enormous challenge to teachers and schools across British Columbia.

There is also, of course, the issue of students with special needs. This is an issue that goes across ministries of government and is a fundamental issue for our society. The Minister of Children and Families and I had discussed this many times, this issue. There is, in fact, a very significant wait-list for young children waiting for infant development programs that hopefully as a province we can address in the next number of years.

[1625]

We know from experience that investment in those programs for students from zero to three…. We know there are people in British Columbia who wait on those wait-lists from zero to three, and then there's another wait-list from three to five, and what they do is transfer from one wait-list to another.

We know that investment in that area pays enormous dividends for our entire system of public service — that if, in fact, we can eliminate that wait-list, we will see the benefits of it throughout the K-to-12 education system. We will see the benefits of it throughout our society. We will see the benefits of it for our community living sector. We need that investment.

Equally, the need to fund the changes being made here on the issue of…. Students with special needs need to be funded. People say that it costs money. People say that we always want to spend money. I know the Minister of Education agrees with this, because she, like I, has been in classrooms, and we know what can happen when students with special needs get the support they need in classrooms with active teachers and supports. Inside of the school population, we know what can happen, that positive things can happen in that environment when students are properly supported.

We know that if the government finds it in its heart to fund this legislation, to provide adequate funding for students with special needs, it will pay benefits for generations in this province. We will save money in this province. We will save it in public services later on if we provide the resources to students that they need right now. They don't have years to wait. You only get to go to public school once, and we need to get those resources in place for September 2006. We can't wait for September 2007.

As I say, I want to return to a positive note at the end of this speech. I think that this week…. Today has been a very positive day. These have been issues that the opposition has raised in British Columbia. There are some people who think, you know…. There is somebody else who represents a riding called Vancouver-Kingsway who has suggested that you can't get things done on the opposition side. I believe you can. I believe that if you fight and you have the arguments and you develop public support, you can make changes. We have seen that.

We have seen it in the complete reversal of the government on this issue of class size and class composition. We have seen it on its complete reversal on the issues of children and family services, and so it gives me hope.

It gives me hope that in a whole myriad of other areas, when we argue that this bill should be funded, the government will listen. When parents argue that this bill should be funded, the government will listen. When students argue that this bill be fully funded, the government will listen. You cannot, by legislation, dictate improvements in the classroom. You need resources as well.

[ Page 4441 ]

With the song in my heart that I spoke of at the beginning of the speech, I want to say that I believe the government should listen to the many voices in British Columbia who support this legislation but are calling on the government to give our classrooms the resources and the funding they need so that we can fully realize the benefits of smaller class size and better class composition arrangements.

B. Ralston: I rise in this debate to speak to Bill 33. Like my colleagues, I want to acknowledge the distance the government has moved on this particular issue. I would compare it, although other comparisons have been made, to the fundamental change that we saw in the Premier in dealing with first nations in this province from his time in opposition when the implementation of the Nisga'a treaty in this Legislature was bitterly contested and resisted, resulting in even the then Leader of the Opposition, now Premier, proceeding to court to institute litigation to have the legislation declared unconstitutional. It was a bitter, protracted and nasty fight.

However, fortunately, the legislation establishing the self-government regime for the Nisga'a people was implemented. I would expect that now, given the Premier's change of heart — I give him full credit for that, having perhaps studied the legislation and consulted more widely and examined his own views rationally and critically and changed his mind — he would acknowledge it as one of the triumphant achievements of this Legislature in the last 25 years, a major step forward in this province and in this country.

[1630]

Similarly, this particular piece of legislation is an acknowledgment by the government of a change of heart. Everyone perhaps knows intuitively that smaller class sizes mean that teachers have the opportunity to pay more attention to individual students, simply because there are fewer of them in the class. What I had the opportunity to do during the lengthy debates that took place here during the labour dispute in the fall of last year was to examine in a way I hadn't before, although I'd heard the arguments, but examine personally the arguments that are advanced by academic researchers about the importance of class size and its link with academic achievement and social well-being.

A plethora of academic research — United States, Canada and throughout the world — has, particularly in the elementary years and particularly in smaller and rural schools but also in urban centres and larger schools, demonstrated that there's a clear link between smaller class size and better academic and personal outcomes for all students involved in the education process.

It was that concern and that issue that motivated much of the debate here in the fall and, indeed, much of the debate in the province. I hope the Minister of Education will receive this tribute graciously, and I'm sure she will: I'm pleased that she was able to convince her cabinet colleagues to move in this direction. It is, indeed, a step forward and the province, the province's education system and students will be better for it.

Now no change comes without consequences. Like any other change, there are challenges of implementation. There are other aspects to the bill that I want to briefly touch upon. My colleague, the member for Vancouver-Kensington, has stressed — properly, in my view — the fact that the implementation of this legislation will require a lead-in time. I would invite the government to take that advice solemnly and seriously, and I'm sure they will, in order that the advance that's made with this legislation not be marred by difficulties in implementing it smoothly and efficiently.

Doubtlessly, it won't be entirely smooth and efficient, but a number of steps could be taken now that would ease the transition into this system in the fall. As the member for Vancouver-Kensington has pointed out, there were a series of procedures to deal with class size prior to 2002. The government, in its first term, stripped those limits out of contracts, but prior to that there was a system at the school level and at the district level that sought to implement those provisions in as efficient a way as possible and with the best educational outcomes of the students concerned in mind. Those steps, I would submit, need to be taken. I'm sure the government is going to consider that.

The other aspect of the legislation that I await, and perhaps we will debate this at the committee stage — that's the debate where we, in the Legislature, move from clause to clause, and there's opportunity for more specific debate on the specific provisions of the legislation — is the distinction that's drawn between the requirement for consent for grades four to seven to class size and to consult for grades eight to 12. Obviously, there's a distinction there. Arbiters and judges have often debated and written decisions about the meaning of those particular words and just how that will work. I'm sure that if there's a spirit of cooperation and goodwill, those difficulties can be overcome.

[1635]

Personally, I await some further clarification from the minister at the committee stage as to whether or not I'm convinced by the arguments that the minister advances in respect to how those clauses will work in practice. It's obviously a distinction drawn by the drafters and clearly a distinction in purpose. Just how that will take place, I await that debate at that stage.

The other issue that has been raised here, and I join with my colleagues in debating that, is the issue of what the implications will be for special needs students. During the British Columbia Teachers Federation lobby days I was invited to have lunch with a teacher who taught in Vancouver. Her specialty was dealing with special needs students.

She pointed out to me the concern of the school system — teachers; parents of these children; administrators; indeed, of the whole system — for students who are described as being in the grey area — in other words, not the most pronounced learning disabilities but difficulties that would perhaps require more at