2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 1

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Food Safety Act (Bill 37)

Hon. C. Hansen

Legal Services Society Act (Bill 45)

Hon. G. Plant

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Hepatitis Awareness Month

S. Brice

Bullying

B. Locke

Asian Heritage Month

I. Chong

Oral Questions

Lobbyists registry

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Plant

Lobbying by Liberal MLA

J. Kwan

Hon. J. Murray

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Campbell

Opposition leader's letter to seniors

K. Krueger

Hon. C. Hansen

BCGEU actions and reputation of civil service

R. Stewart

Hon. S. Santori

J. MacPhail

Kimberley Hospital

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Tabling Documents

J. MacPhail

Petitions

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt

B. Suffredine

H. Bloy

Second Reading of Bills

Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (Bill 23)

Hon. G. Plant

McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 10)

Hon. G. Plant

Trustee Investment Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 30)

Hon. G. Plant

Committee of the Whole House

School Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 34) (continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Clark

J. Kwan

Second Reading of Bills

Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 35)

Hon. K. Falcon

B. Locke

Waste Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 32)

Hon. J. Murray

J. Kwan

B. Bennett

B. Suffredine

B. Penner

B. Locke

Committee of the Whole House

Environment Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 31)

Hon. J. Murray

J. Kwan

Reporting of Bills

Environment Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 31)

Third Reading of Bills

Environment Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 31)

Hon. J. Murray

Committee of the Whole House

Degree Authorization Act (Bill 15)

Hon. S. Bond

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Degree Authorization Act (Bill 15)

[ Page 3091 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 2002

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

[1405]

Hon.

G. Hogg: Last fall a number of lower mainland shopping malls coordinated a

campaign against bullying, entitled Bullying Bites It is my pleasure today to

introduce three of the marketing directors of three of those malls: Bonnie

Rimple from Lougheed Mall, Jennifer Priest from Semiahmoo Centre and Karen

Pilkington from Scottsdale Mall. Would the House please make them all most

welcome.

Hon. G.

Campbell: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a group of very

special visitors to the House. In the members' gallery this afternoon is the

Order of British Columbia Advisory Council. These men and women have gathered in

Victoria today to review this year's nominations for the order and select

recipients for the June investiture. I understand that there are 143 nominations

this year, with many submitted by members on both sides of the House from all

political parties in the House and from every corner of the province.

The Order

of British Columbia Advisory Council is chaired by the Hon. Lance Finch, the

Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal for B.C. It includes, of course, our

Speaker; the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Hans Cunningham; the

president of the University of Victoria, Dr. David Turpin; Andrew Wilkinson, the

Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations; and two members of the order,

Judith Forst of Port Moody and Beverly Nann of Vancouver.

Would the

House please make the advisory council welcome.

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 27 grade 5 students visiting

from Pacific Academy in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them is

their teacher, Mr. Buzza, as well as several parent volunteers. Would the House

please make them very welcome.

Hon. G.

Plant: I have two sets of introductions.

I am told

that we are enjoying today in the House the Richmond Seniors Advisory Council

and a number of hard-working members of that council who work to make Richmond a

better place for everybody. The people who are here include Olive Bassett, Lois

Carson Boyce, Aileen Cormack, Angela Gauld, Mohinder Grewal, Susan Higginbottom,

Shams Jilani, Carol Smith, Barbara Angus, George Atkinson, Dorothy Brown, Diane

Eward, Jean Fay, Olga Friedman, Georgina Hamilton, Joyce Johnston, Dorothy Koch,

Al Martin, Joyce Reddin, Bill Sorrenson, Melvina Sorrenson and Lenore Armstrong.

Would the

House please make all of these very hard-working volunteers from the great

community of Richmond welcome.

We also

have joining us today some hard-working lawyers from the Minister of Attorney

General, who have come here today for a tour and a lunch with one of the staff

in the Clerk's office, telling the lawyers in my ministry what really goes on

here, which is a frightening prospect. I'd like the House to please welcome

Corinne Swystun, Catherine Alexander, Rodney Fehr, Noah Ries, Dawn Leroy,

Melaney Murray and Christine Owen.

R. Masi:

I'm very pleased today to introduce 60 students from North Delta Senior

Secondary School. They're accompanied by their teacher, Brian Nixon, and student

teacher Ryan Evans. Would the House please make them welcome.

P. Wong:

As British Columbians, we see untold riches added to our lives every day by the

diversity of the people who make up our communities. It is these riches that we

celebrate in British Columbia during the month of May, Vancouver Asian Heritage

Month. This time it's under the festival banner "Exploration 2002:

Exploring the Canadian Asian Experience," organized by the Vancouver Asian

Heritage Month Society. I'm pleased to introduce in the gallery the president of

the society, also last year's recipient of the Order of British Columbia, Ms.

Beverly Nann. Will the House please make her most welcome.

[1410]

Chong: In the gallery today is a person who is no stranger to these

precincts. He's a longtime B.C. Liberal member and supporter. He has volunteered

in key positions in my campaigns in 1996 and 2001. Presently, he is the

president of the Oak Bay–Gordon Head riding executive. I would ask the House

to please welcome Mr. Paul McKivett.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

FOOD SAFETY ACT

Hon. C.

Hansen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Food Safety Act.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I move that Bill 37 be read a first time.

Motion

approved.

Hon. C.

Hansen: The Food Safety Act consolidates and updates the food safety provisions

of existing legislation so that licensing, inspection and standard-

[ Page 3092 ]

setting are combined into one statute that covers food at every level from

production to food service and retail outlets. As a consequence, the Meat

Inspection Act and the food safety aspects of the Milk Industry Act and the Fish

Inspection Act will be repealed.

The current

legislation governing the food industry sets out regulations that are antiquated

and overly prescriptive. In some cases, the way standards have been applied has

not been changed in over 60 years despite significant advances in the way that

food is processed. This administrative lag prevents the food industry from

keeping up with modern practices. As a result, British Columbia's food safety

system continues to operate in a fractured, outdated legislative framework.

The new

consolidated act enables government to set outcome-based standards that focus on

the safety of food, not the methods to achieve it. Outcome-based regulations

provide industry with the flexibility to meet the food safety standards using

modern technology and a variety of methods. The standards will continue to be

set by government, and inspection systems will ensure compliance with standards.

Consolidating

these acts into one unified statute eliminates unnecessary regulation and, by

allowing outcome-based regulations, will reduce the cost of doing business while

continuing to ensure high standards for food safety for B.C. consumers.

The

Ministry of Health has been assigned the responsibility for provincial food

safety since 1988, and we will be looking to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food

and Fisheries to assist the Ministry of Health Services by continuing to

administer dairy farm licensing and inspection under an agreement with the

Ministry of Health Services.

I move that

the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Bill 37

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

LEGAL SERVICES SOCIETY ACT

Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Legal Services Society Act.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 45, the Legal Services Society Act. Members

are aware of the need to amend the Legal Services Society Act — that is the

act that governs the Legal Services Society — to implement the core review

service changes announced last year and to enhance the efficiency,

accountability and flexibility of the society.

This act

provides new or amended provisions in four main areas: the mandate of the

society, the society's governance model, the society's revenue-generating

capacity and the relationship between the society and government.

[1415]

This reform

of British Columbia's legal aid legislation is designed to promote greater

efficiency, effectiveness and innovation in the delivery of legal aid services

while emphasizing the following principles: (1) to provide for good governance

through a clear statement of the society's purposes, objectives and powers;

(2) to create a real and substantial partnership between government, the Legal

Services Society and the legal profession through a new board structure; (3) to

develop a new working relationship between the society and government, who will

enter into a memorandum of understanding every three years, dealing with such

things as the types of legal matters in relation to which the society will

provide legal aid and the priority to be accorded to types of legal matters;

(4) to incorporate public perspectives and professional skills in the governance of

the organization; (5) to ensure fiscal accountability through the memorandum of

understanding and an annual budget approval process; (6) to maintain the

independence of the society in administering legal aid in British Columbia;

(7) to provide the society with the means and capacity to raise revenue.

This bill

provides an opportunity for significant changes to the way in which the Legal

Services Society operates in British Columbia. We have drawn on experiences

elsewhere to inform us of the best ways to modernize the statute to provide the

society with the flexibility it requires to run an effective and innovative

system. I would be pleased to elaborate on the details of this during second

reading.

I move that

the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Bill 45

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) HEPATITIS AWARENESS MONTH

S. Brice:

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to announce that May has been

proclaimed by the government of British Columbia to be Hepatitis Awareness

Month. Currently in B.C., more than 80,000 people are infected by various forms

of hepatitis.

Hepatitis

is a treatable and preventable illness. Early detection and awareness are vital

in reducing harm to those already infected. It is in the interests of all

British Columbians to heighten awareness and understanding of the problems

connected with all forms of hepatitis and to reduce the stigma often associated

[ Page 3093 ]

with this disease. It is in the best interests of British Columbians to

increase the quality of life of those infected with hepatitis by supporting

research, delivering better treatments and finding a cure for all forms of

hepatitis.

Today

begins Hepatitis Awareness Month, and several B.C. communities are marking both

this day and the month of May with awareness events. Today also marks the third

annual hepatitis C candlelight memorial ceremony, which originated right here in

British Columbia. Now thousands of people across North America gather annually

to share and remember loved ones who have succumbed to this disease of the

blood.

The

province of B.C. is a leader with its provincial strategy on hepatitis. In fact,

we are working nationally to share our knowledge with other provinces across

Canada. Admittedly, we still have a long way to go, but I believe — and I

think the other members of this House will agree — that this proclamation is

another step in the right direction.

BULLYING

B. Locke:

Mr. Speaker, last September I was involved in an anti-bullying campaign with the

Minister of Children and Family Development. Lower mainland mall marketing

directors collected pledges from young people and presented them to local MLAs

to raise awareness about bullying.

As a mother

of two school-age children, I know that bullying is a problem in B.C. schools.

My own children tell me of bullying stories in their school. There are simply

too many instances of bullying. Tragic stories of children like Hamed Nastoh,

Reena Virk and Dawn-Marie Wesley are too often part of the 6 o'clock news.

These

instances are so very sad, because they don't have to happen. Bullying is

something that we can prevent. In order to combat bullying, we need the support

of all sectors of the community. The mall campaign is an excellent example of

how the business community can play an important role, shedding light on this

issue.

[1420]

Bullying is

a lifelong stigma for both the victim and the bully — a sad legacy they carry

all their lives. I am sure that even within our own Legislature, there are

hidden personal stories. I stand behind anti-bullying campaigns that help break

through that strong code of silence. As an MLA and as a parent, I recognize that

bullying deserves our attention. We owe it to our children.

ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

I. Chong:

Today being the first day of May, there are several acknowledgments occurring

this month and throughout the province. British Columbians can participate in

Child Care Month, Cystic Fibrosis Month, Hepatitis Awareness Month and Hospice

Palliative Care Month. In addition, people of Asian descent will be able to,

during May, celebrate Asian Heritage Month.

British

Columbia is home to many diverse cultures where individuals, families and

communities can freely enjoy and share their beliefs and customs with their

neighbours. Nowhere is this more evident than in the lower mainland region. I

take this opportunity to highlight Asian Heritage Month.

Every year

Canadians are invited to take

part in the festivities that commemorate the

legacy of Asian Canadians, past and present, during this month. This year the

encouraged us to recognize the contributions of the Asian community of British

Columbia and to thank all those who have dedicated years to preserving and

reviving the stories of the past.

From the

early days of Confederation, British Columbia has been able to depend upon

Chinese immigrants. Not only have they been integral in the building of a

national railway, indeed, they have helped to build our country and our province

alongside pioneers from many different places and origins. The oldest Chinatown

in British Columbia — in fact, the first in Canada — exists right here in

the capital region, in the riding of Victoria-Hillside. As the historical

contributions of Asian Canadians are becoming more well known, there is

increasing awareness of the tremendous role the Asian community plays in the

growing prosperity and diversity of this country and our economies.

While our

Asian community is not exceptionally large here in Victoria, I do understand

that in Vancouver there will be many opportunities to celebrate and support

Asian Canadian artistic-cultural practices. Asian Heritage Month is an ideal

occasion to remember the legacies of past generations and to acknowledge the

committed, hard-working individuals who have contributed to the settlement,

growth and development of this province.

Oral Questions

LOBBYISTS REGISTRY

J. Kwan:

Yesterday the Attorney General was asked about the lobbying efforts of Bruce

Clark. The Attorney General may have misunderstood, but the Bruce Clark to whom

we refer is not a lawyer but a well-known lobbyist and a very well connected

Liberal insider. This government promised a registration system to keep

lobbyists from operating in secret, but the Attorney General has not followed

through on that promise. So, as was said yesterday, we have to ask about

lobbyists on a case-by-case basis.

Again, to

the Attorney General: can he tell the House whether or not ministers have met

with the organizations represented by Bruce Clark, the well-known,

well-connected Liberal lobbyist?

Hon. G.

Plant: I thought about this issue yesterday, and I wanted to be sure I could

make the following

[ Page 3094 ]

commitment to the members opposite. It is this: this government will

implement and proclaim the Lobbyists Registration Act in a much shorter time

frame than was involved in relation to their former government's implementation

of the mental health action plan.

Deputy

Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a supplemental question.

LOBBYING BY LIBERAL MLA

J. Kwan:

should note that the Attorney General did not answer my question. It is not just

well-known and well-connected insiders who are lobbying the government behind

closed doors. Liberal backbenchers are joining in as well.

To the

Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection: is she aware that the member for

East Kootenay has been lobbying her ministry officials, on behalf of a close

friend and a former client, to direct government business to his helifishing

operation?

Hon. J.

Murray: I expect that every MLA is representing the interests of their

constituents to government.

Deputy

Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a final supplemental.

[1425]

J. Kwan:

Well, a couple of months ago the member for East Kootenay sent an e-mail from

his Legislature account to officials in her ministry and three others. In that

note, the member for East Kootenay encouraged civil servants to hire out the

helicopter service provided by his close friend and former client, Barry Scott,

for government charters. Does the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection

agree that the member's efforts to pressure her officials are completely

inappropriate? Can she tell this House whether the member personally had been

approached by her member on this issue in an effort to guide the government's

business his friend's way?

Hon. J.

Murray: I'll just repeat my first statement, and that is that each and every MLA

in this government has the job to do of listening to their constituents and

representing their interests to government.

MacPhail: Well, Mr. Speaker, we've had zero answers today on lobbyists with this

government.

First of

all, when the member for East Kootenay was a candidate, he told his local

newspaper that one of the reasons he was running was to "get the politics

out of the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation and the Ministry of

Environment." Yet now the same member is using his political influence to

apply pressure to public servants in those very same ministries to hire his

friend.

Just this

morning in the committee on reform the member for East Kootenay, the same

member, talked about the need to send a clear message to MLAs with respect to

ethical conduct. So given that the member's own views on this matter are that he

needs to be reprimanded, what action is the Premier planning on taking to

discipline the member for East Kootenay that will send a message to the rest of

his backbench that this is completely unacceptable behaviour?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Let me say that this government's commitment to a lobbyists

registration act remains firm. We will bring it in, and we will bring it in, in

a way that is proper so that it works for all British Columbians. We believe in

doing that, because it's in the interests of all British Columbians.

But we also

say to the member opposite, hon. Speaker, that if she has concerns, if she feels

there is a fact base there that creates problems for her and she wants to have

them reviewed, she can take them to the commissioner. She knows that, and she's

welcome to do that.

Deputy

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition with a supplemental.

MacPhail: Well, it's so unfortunate that neither the Attorney General nor the

Premier gets how serious this matter is. It is very unfortunate. In fact, the

details have been outlined for it. The Premier knows very well that this is

similar to an event a couple of years ago when a Liberal MLA was caught lobbying

on behalf of a family member. At that time the Premier kicked the member out of

the Liberal caucus, and everyone agreed it was the right thing to do.

To the

Premier: will the Premier apply the same standard today and throw the member for

East Kootenay out of the Liberal caucus for lobbying the civil service on behalf

of a close friend and a former client? Will he agree to do an investigation to

determine how widespread this kind of behaviour is among his MLAs?

Hon. G.

Campbell: In terms of this specific case, I am glad for the member opposite to

give me the details of this specific case, but let me tell you who I'll throw

out of caucus. I will throw out of caucus people who do not stand up for their

constituents, who do not speak for their constituents throughout government.

That's what their job is, hon. Speaker.

OPPOSITION LEADER'S LETTER TO SENIORS

K. Krueger:

I believe, and I know that this government believes…

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, members.

K. Krueger:

…that it is the responsibility of every member of this assembly to protect

vulnerable British

[ Page 3095 ]

Columbians. We want seniors, in particular, to feel secure and happy and well

supported.

[1430]

I have in

my hand a letter sent out last Thursday by the leader of the NDP. This letter

falsely accuses the government of slashing health care and kicking seniors out

of long-term care facilities, and then shamefully begs: "Please, if you can

spare any money at all, you can make a big difference."

To the

Minister of Health Services: what is the consequence of the Leader of the

Opposition frightening senior citizens in order to make a few bucks to pay down

the debts of the NDP?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I think that is the kind of rhetoric that is so terribly unfortunate,

because it is such a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. What we have

said to seniors throughout this province from day one is that we will ensure

that there is a care plan in place for every senior in this province who may be

moved as a result of the change of facilities. We want to make sure that their

interests are protected, that we consult with the families and that their needs

are put first and foremost before any such move would take place.

Deputy

Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson with a supplemental.

Interjection.

K. Krueger:

I hear the minister being heckled by the queen of credibility, who says in the

same letter…. The leader of the NDP says in this letter: "I also need

your help in another way. We have to start campaigning right now, and that's

going to require money." Having done her best to frighten senior citizens

and vulnerable people around this province, she's begging for money like a

television huckster. Would the minister comment on the likely effect on seniors

of the stress caused by the NDP's cynical fundraising efforts?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on that kind of

misrepresentation, but I will say that this is a government that puts the

interests of seniors first. This is an interest that will put the interest of

all British Columbians first, ahead of any political considerations and ahead of

any fundraising considerations, which is probably the most cynical approach that

anyone could expect.

BCGEU ACTIONS AND

REPUTATION OF CIVIL SERVICE

R. Stewart:

My question is to the Minister of Management Services. The B.C. Government and

Service Employees Union has been circulating a memo to its members entitled

"It's Time to Walk the Walk." In it the union asks whether its members

are interested in taking long lunches with co-workers, occupying an MLA's

office, participating in a long general strike or joining in a community-wide

walkout.

To the

Minister of Management Services: does the minister consider it appropriate for

the BCGEU to be organizing things like the occupation of an MLA's office?

Hon. S.

Santori: This government totally condemns and deplores such tactics. It is

contemptible for the leadership of the B.C. Government and Service Employees

Union to instigate such behaviour. Should this call to do battle escalate,

government won't stand idly by and let the law be broken and the well-being of

the people of this province be threatened.

There are

many avenues available in a civilized society to make one's voice heard.

Crippling the delivery of vital public service isn't one of them. Actions that

include intimidation and abuse are not democratic rights; they are anarchy. Such

actions that are destructive and dangerous shouldn't and won't be tolerated.

MacPhail: Are you going to legislate them out of existence? Is that what you do?

That's what this government does — legislate….

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, members. Order, members. Let's hear the question.

R. Stewart:

I believe strongly in our civil service, in the value of a truly professional

civil service. I've heard from a number of civil servants who are concerned that

these partisan activities, these partisan campaigns, are damaging the reputation

of B.C.'s public service.

To the

Minister of Management Services: what is he going to do to protect and improve

the image of the public service in British Columbia?

Hon. S.

Santori: I can't believe the member opposite would sit there and condone the

behaviour that the president of the BCGEU is asking their employees to do.

Interjection.

[1435]

Hon. S.

Santori: Exactly. That's exactly….

Mr.

Speaker, as the minister responsible for the public service, I firmly believe

that the B.C. public service is the best in this country. I do. They are

hard-working, diligent and innovative. They provide excellent service to the

people of this province. We are not going to destroy the morale of the public

service like you and your party did in the last term that you were there.

I would

suggest that the member opposite read the AG's report on the morale in the

public service when her party was in government.

Deputy

Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. S.

Santori: This government is 100 percent behind our public service. We have

reinforced the support by mounting a far-reaching campaign of continu-

[ Page 3096 ]

ing renewal in the public service. This campaign is being spearheaded by the

Public Service Employee Relations Commission and is ongoing as we speak.

KIMBERLEY HOSPITAL

MacPhail: Let's just talk about what the reality of health care is in this

province. Last week I was in Kimberley, and 300 residents came out to a meeting

to talk about the closure of their hospitals. The member representing Kimberley

was not present, and the community told me she rarely is.

In many

ways Kimberley has been a success story. It's been working hard to move from a

resource-dependent economy to a new economy based on recreation and tourism. But

it needs to have a hospital to make the new economy exist.

The people

in the community need to be listened to and supported. Instead, their hospital

is closing while the minister is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars

telling Kimberley why their hospital needs to be closed — a big ad campaign to

say: "We needed to close your hospital."

Will the

Minister of Health Services commit today to actually meeting with the people of

Kimberley to find an acceptable alternative to closing this hospital, or is he

too busy paying off ad companies to tell Kimberley how wrong they are?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Actually, the member may not be aware, but I was in Kimberley five weeks

ago with the member from Kimberley. I had a very good meeting with officials in

the town. I had good meetings in the hospital with doctors and other front-line

workers in that community. I can also tell you that the work that has been done

by the member for that constituency in advocating for that constituency and

making sure that those interests are being met…

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, members. Order.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …are far in excess of anything that I ever heard coming out of private

members in the previous government.

[End of

question period.]

Tabling Documents

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to table an e-mail from the member for East

Kootenay to various ministries.

Leave

granted.

Petitions

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: I would like to table a petition signed by approximately 900

persons regarding the palliative care unit and the subacute care program of

Richmond General Hospital.

Suffredine: I have the honour to table a petition on behalf of 3,070 residents

of British Columbia expressing concerns over proposed changes to the Arrow Lakes

ferry system.

H. Bloy: I

ask leave to present two petitions.

Deputy

Speaker: Proceed.

[1440]

H. Bloy:

I'd like to present one signed by 98 names in the lower mainland pertaining to

health care, and I would like to present a petition pertaining to Bills 26 and

27 signed by 15 residents of my riding.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading on Bill 23.

Second Reading of Bills

INTERJURISDICTIONAL

SUPPORT ORDERS ACT

Hon. G.

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

The purpose

of Bill 23 is to make it easier for families to get support orders in

interjurisdictional cases — that is, cases where one of the parties lives in

British Columbia and another party lives in another jurisdiction. This kind of

process — the process contemplated by and brought into force by Bill 23 — is

particularly important, given our increasingly mobile population.

For many

years

part 8 of the Family Relations Act has governed the process for obtaining

and varying a support order if only one of the parties lives in British

Columbia.

Part 8 of the Family Relations Act, which will be replaced by Bill 23,

also sets out the process for registering a support order made in another part

of Canada or in a country with which British Columbia has reciprocal

arrangements covering support orders.

British

Columbia currently has reciprocal arrangements with all of the provinces and

territories of Canada as well as with all of the United States and a number of

other countries, including Germany, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and

Australia. Between July 2000 and June 2001, I'm told that British Columbia

handled almost 2,600 interjurisdictional support cases.

Bill 23

will repeal

part 8 of the Family Relations Act and replace the mechanisms and

the processes in

part 8 with a new streamlined process for obtaining and varying

support orders — that is, for getting the initial order and for varying it

subsequently. Again, under the old

part 8 of the Family Relations Act, two

hearings are needed to obtain or vary a support order.

At the

first court hearing, held in the jurisdiction where the applicant lives, the

judge considers the applicant's evidence and makes a provisional order,

[ Page 3097 ]

which is an order that has no effect until it is confirmed by a judge in the

reciprocating jurisdiction where the respondent lives. At the second hearing

under the existing process, held where the respondent lives, the judge looks at

and considers the provisional order and the transcript of the evidence on which

it was based, as well as the respondent's evidence, and makes a binding order.

That is an overview of the existing process under

part 8 of the Family Relations

Act.

[1445]

Bill 23

will simplify this process by eliminating the first hearing and replacing it

with an administrative step. Instead of going to court, the applicant for

support will submit an application, including a sworn statement setting out the

details of the claim, to something called a designated authority. That authority

will, in turn, send the application on to the other jurisdiction, the

reciprocating jurisdiction where the respondent lives. A judge in that

reciprocating jurisdiction will then make a binding order based on the

information in the application and on any evidence provided by the respondent.

In effect, a process that today requires two separate court hearings in two

different jurisdictions will be simplified and streamlined so that there will

now be only one actual court hearing in the jurisdiction where the respondent

lives.

The bill

also simplifies the process for registering support orders made in other parts

of Canada. Once an order from another part of Canada is registered here in

British Columbia, that order will have the same effect as an order made in

British Columbia. This means, for example, that it will be able to be enforced

in B.C. just like a B.C. order.

Bill 23 is

based on a model act developed by an interprovincial committee. It is part of

the province's overall commitment to the harmonization of important aspects of

civil law. At the annual Premiers' conference last August, the Premier of

British Columbia and the other provincial Premiers made a commitment jointly to

introduce legislation based on this model by the summer of 2002. With the

introduction and, hopefully, the enactment of Bill 23, Mr. Speaker, the

government is following through on the commitment made last summer. The goal

here is to ensure and work towards a system of family law that protects the

rights of parties and partners to obtain support orders and enforce them in the

most efficient and least burdensome manner possible. I believe that Bill 23

makes important steps towards that goal.

Deputy

Speaker: Seeing no further speakers to second reading of Bill 23….

Hon. G.

Plant: I look forward to discussion about some of the details of this bill when

we get to committee stage. It's a fairly complex piece of legislation, although

the basic process that it brings into force is fairly straightforward. I look

forward to committee stage debate.

I close

debate in second reading by once again moving second reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be

considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 23,

Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, read a second time and referred to a

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

after today.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call second reading of Bill 10.

McLEOD LAKE INDIAN BAND TREATY No. 8

ADHESION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. G.

Plant: I move second reading of Bill 10, which is an important step in the

implementation of the McLeod Lake Indian band Treaty No. 8 adhesion and

settlement agreement. In fact, Bill 10 will permit the fulfilment by the

province of land transfer obligations in the adhesion and settlement agreement.

As you may

be aware, the McLeod Lake Indian band agreement was brought into effect on March

27, 2000. The agreement settles longstanding litigation commenced by the McLeod

Lake Indian band against British Columbia and Canada concerning the desire by

the McLeod Lake Indian band to adhere to — that is, to join — Treaty No. 8.

British Columbia implemented aspects of the agreement through the McLeod Lake

Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act.

[1450]

What the

amendment does — that is, the bill that is now before the House — is this.

It will remove a requirement that

section 70 of the Land Act applies to such

Crown land, under the McLeod Lake Indian band Treaty No. 8 adhesion agreement,

as has been, must be or may be the subject of a transfer of Crown land to

Canada.

There are

provisions in the Land Act that limit the size of district lots for certain

purposes. Those provisions are found in

section 70 of the Land Act. The

prescribed limit on the size of district lots in

section 70 is 520 hectares,

with some exceptions.

In the

situation concerning the implementation of the McLeod Lake Indian band Treaty

No. 8 adhesion and settlement agreement, there are a number of Crown land

district parcels that will be transferred to Canada that are larger than the 520

hectare limit. This amendment to the provision of the Land Act will provide an

explicit legislative basis for the confirmation of surveys by the surveyor

general of British Columbia, which in turn will lead to the transfer of these

parcels to Canada for the purposes of implementing the agreement.

This bill,

though relatively minor and technical in nature, affirms government's commitment

to negotiate workable, affordable settlements that provide certainty, finality

and equality to aboriginal people. The work to

[ Page 3098 ]

implement the McLeod Lake Indian band Treaty No. 8 adhesion and settlement

agreement continues. It's important work, and we as a government are committed

to seeing our obligations through. This bill is another step in the fulfilment

of that undertaking.

Deputy

Speaker: Seeing no further speakers to Bill 10, Attorney General.

Hon. G.

Plant: The provisions of the bill may be examined in some detail during

committee stage, although it's a fairly straightforward bill, but I'm delighted

to see that the bill will enjoy the support of the House.

Once again,

I move second reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10,

McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Amendment

Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call second reading debate on Bill 30.

TRUSTEE INVESTMENT STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that Bill 30 be now read a second time.

Mr.

Speaker, the purpose of Bill 30 is to modernize and enhance trustee investment

powers to allow trustees who are not operating under what might be described as

a sophisticated trust instrument to invest effectively and productively under

modern conditions. Bill 30 will also allow the standard of performance that the

law requires of trustees to better reflect modern standards and circumstances.

In particular, these amendments will allow trustees to be evaluated on the

performance of the trust portfolio as a whole.

This is a

change from the existing law. The bill will repeal and replace

section 15 of the

Trustee Act, which provides for a very limited statutory list of prescribed

investments that a trustee is authorized to make if a trust instrument does not

contain express investment powers.

There are

also amendments in this bill to other statutes to ensure that any provisions in

those statutes that refer to trustee investment powers are brought into accord

with the approach taken by the amendments to the Trustee Act.

[1455]

particular, at the heart of the bill — that is, the change to

section 15 and

the list of authorized trustee investments — the list that is now in

section

15 will be replaced with a general provision that says trustees are permitted to

invest generally, subject to the terms of the particular trust. In so doing, a

trustee will be required to exercise the care, skill, diligence and judgment

that a prudent investor would exercise in making investments.

The current

section 15 — that is, the existing

section 15 — no longer accords with

modern circumstances. It is heavily weighted towards government fixed-rate

bonds, and it imposes severe restrictions on investment in equities. Mutual

funds, for example — a practical investment vehicle, especially for trusts of

moderate size — are not mentioned in the current

section 15 and therefore are

an investment that the law currently does not permit in circumstances where the

trust instrument does not contain other express investment powers that would

permit such investments.

The

amendments in this bill will permit trustees to delegate authority with respect

to the investment of trust property that a prudent investor might delegate. This

will enable trustees to have access to professional fund management, as do other

prudent investors. In delegating authority with respect to investment, a trustee

will be required to determine the investment objectives of the trust and to

exercise prudence in selecting an agent, establishing the terms and limits of

the authority to be delegated, acquainting the agent with the investment

objectives and monitoring the performance of the agent to ensure compliance with

the terms of the trust.

This bill

is based upon a report of the British Columbia Law Institute on trustee

investment powers which was released in 1999. That report was prepared by the

B.C. Law Institute's committee on the modernization of the Trustee Act. In

introducing this bill and, hopefully, moving forward to its enactment, I want to

repeat once again that this government is committed to the modernization of

civil law, to the reform of civil law and to the reform and modernization of

private law. This bill provides a good illustration of the important task that

government has of ensuring that its private and civil law is kept relevant, is

kept up to date, is kept responsive to the public interest.

The Law

Institute has done good work here and elsewhere. In the months to come, I hope

government will have an opportunity to continue to look to the Law Institute —

both in terms of its existing body of reports and perhaps also in relation to

future work — as a source of ideas and solutions to the challenge of ensuring

that our private and civil law are kept up to date.

I'm

delighted that we have been able to bring this particular initiative forward in

this session. I hope that it enjoys the support of members and that we will all

be able to move forward together as members to look for and advance other

initiatives for the modernization of our civil law.

Deputy

Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Attorney General.

Hon. G.

Plant: It appears that this initiative will obtain the support of the House, and

for that I'm grate-

[ Page 3099 ]

ful. There may be some discussion at committee stage, and I certainly look

forward to that. At this time I would simply repeat the motion of second

reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be

considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 30,

Trustee Investment Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred

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

House after today.

[1500]

Hon. G.

Plant: I call committee stage on Bill 34.

Committee of the Whole House

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

(continued)

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 34; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 3 p.m.

section

1 (continued) .

MacPhail: I want to thank the officials from the Ministry of Education for

sending out the Revised Statutes of British Columbia contents, updating it until

these changes.

For some

reason we haven't been able to find — if it was sent, my apologies — the

requirements for annual report. They weren't in the package with this. Thank you

for this, and if we can have that sent again, we'd much appreciate it.

We are on

the

definitions. I want to ask about the issue around repealing

"administrative officer." I've had some interesting discussions with

people within the system about that.

This

definition of administrative officer was introduced in 1989. There was quite a

bit of discussion around it at the time. There's at least four now Liberal

caucus members who were part of that change when it was the Social Credit

government that made the change from principal to vice-principal. The then

Social Credit government decided to change it to administrative officer.

From what I

was told at the time, that change was a cutting–red tape change. The Social

Credit government at that time said: "We're going to cut red tape, and so

the people encompassed in this definition will now be called administrative

officers." Was the minister aware of that history?

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm not sure that history is really necessarily relevant to the changes

we're making today.

We've

certainly seen that over the last ten years, principals and vice-principals have

felt as though their role as leaders in their schools has been diminished. It

was certainly a sense that they had from government and from stakeholders

throughout the system. We wanted, with this legislation, to ensure that the fact

that we respect principals and vice-principals, and the fact that we expect them

to provide leadership in their schools, was reflected in the School Act.

Principals and vice-principals asked for this change. They've lobbied for it for

quite a long time.

I'm not

sure that the change will have a whole lot of impact on red tape, but it

certainly will, I think, have an impact on the morale that those very important

leaders in our schools need to have in order to be able to do their jobs as well

as they can.

MacPhail: Just for the record, Mr. Chair, at the time the then NDP opposition

thought it was a silly change. It's got absolutely nothing to do with this

political party's view on it. But it was at least four members of the current

government who brought in the change, and it was on the basis of red tape. Of

course, I expect that the principals and vice-principals are saying today that

perhaps the government putting the money where their mouth is, as opposed to

this kind of change, would make more sense.

There will

be quite a substantial amount of change required throughout the system to change

this definition to the broader and to change all of the titles. So there is a

addition of red tape, and the minister is well aware of it. I just wondered

whether there had been any…. Did the minister discuss this in caucus or

cabinet with any of her colleagues who were part of the government that actually

made this change?

[1505]

Hon. C.

Clark: I think it is fair to say that my colleagues are delighted with this

change. Certainly I'll let them speak for themselves through the course of this

debate, but I know that when we've talked about it, there has been a great deal

of support for it. People throughout the system recognize how important

principals and vice-principals are in our schools. We expect them to lead a

team, to build a team and to create a vision. If we want to do that and if we

expect that of them, we should show them the respect they deserve. They told me

that the title of administrative officer did not adequately reflect what they

did during the day. They told me they would like to see the title changed back

to ensure that the respect that they think they are due, and that I think they

are due, is reflected in our legislation.

It's a name

change; it's a title change. It's certainly something that the principals and

vice-principals association spoke to me about the very first time I met with

them. Yeah, they're only words, but language is very important, and the language

we use in this legislation should reflect our view of the role that each

component part plays in the system. I think it's time we recognized as a

government that principals and vice-principals

[ Page 3100 ]

play an absolutely critical role as educational leaders in every single

school in our province.

MacPhail: Well, that was exactly the debate that went on when the then Social

Credit government changed the definition from principal and vice-principal to

admin officer.

What's the

practical or legal consequence of this change?

Hon. C.

Clark: This isn't intended to have a legal effect. It's not intended to reduce

or increase the amount of red tape that's attached to the job. As I said, it's

language. We can minimize that and say: "Well, it's only a word." But

language is important, and the labels we use are important. So that was why we

decided to accept the principals' and vice-principals' call to change the title

in the legislation.

I take the

member at her word when she says she opposed this when the Social Credit was in

government. She had ten years in government to change it; they didn't. We

thought it was certainly time that we did.

MacPhail: Always interesting to debate the minister where she tries to make

something partisan at this current opposition where none exists. I guess it's

her own colleagues that forgot to mention to her that it was them that brought

in the words "administrative officer."

Certainly

language is extremely important. Of course, real support is even more important,

to allow principals and vice-principals to do their jobs. I expect that those

are the questions that will arise now.

Catchment

area. Can the minister tell me how many school districts have legally defined

catchment areas now in existence?

Hon. C.

Clark: Most districts do have catchment areas, although different districts

apply those catchment areas differently. In some districts they will have very

strict catchment area limitations that pretty much require students to go to the

school they live nearest to. Some districts have a very open catchment area

policy and allow children to go about almost anywhere in the district with very

few questions asked.

MacPhail: It's my information that not all districts have catchment areas

defined, legally or otherwise. The minister did say "most." How many

don't?

Hon. C.

Clark: We haven't surveyed the districts to ask them how many don't. We know

that the big majority certainly do. If she'd like a quantifiable number, we

could certainly canvass the districts for her.

MacPhail: I'll just tell the minister where I'm going on this, because it will

be relevant in the debate later on as well.

Catchment

areas take on a new significance, because with the changes to the School Act,

knowing what one's catchment area is, is very important, to get a right to

attend the neighbourhood school. Districts that don't have catchment areas now

are going to be spending a lot of time putting those in place, I would expect,

because there's a huge amount of interest on ensuring that one is able to attend

one's neighbourhood school, community-located school. Every district is going to

have to define a catchment area, because certain things flow from that. What

will be the guidelines for defining catchment area?

[1510]

Hon. C.

Clark: The guidelines won't change from our current guidelines, which rely on

school districts to set their catchment areas.

One of the

things we wanted to achieve in this legislation, as I've said a number of times,

is to provide kids with choice so that they can attend any school anywhere in

the province, if it fits their needs, based on space available. At the same time

we wanted to ensure that every child had a guaranteed right to attend their

neighbourhood school. That's the balance we found in this legislation. Those

minority of districts that don't have defined catchment areas will draw those

catchment areas based on the population in their districts, as the vast majority

of districts do in British Columbia today.

MacPhail: I've had personal experience with catchment areas in my district.

They're very controversial. They're very important to parents. The consequences

of inappropriate catchment areas create huge problems for families.

The school

boards are going to have to spend a lot of time on this issue. While the

minister may think that this is just an easy task of defining a catchment area,

and then beyond that it's wide open for anybody to go to, parents have a very

different view of catchment areas. For instance, the issue of French immersion

in a district and a catchment area for French immersion programs versus

non–French immersion catchment areas is very key in urban areas.

The ability

to have catchment areas that may change and affect children that are going to

high school or elementary school has a big effect. The best example that I can

think of about this is that in the last couple of years, the Vancouver school

board opened up the process to change its catchment areas. It was very

controversial. The school board, to its credit, listened to the parents and paid

heed to parents' concerns.

Let me ask

this: what's the time line for school boards to have defined catchment areas in

place?

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Hon. C.

Clark: Starting July 1, school districts will be required to start setting up

their catchment areas. That will come into effect for next September. That's a

year from this coming September. Starting July 1, parents will have the right to

decide where they want to

[ Page 3101 ]

send their child for the coming school year. Districts will have a year.

understand what the member is suggesting. Setting up catchment areas is

sometimes controversial. That's certainly why we want to give school districts

some time to be able to do that.

[1515]

MacPhail: If I could just get the time line for this. On July 1, 2002, the

boards will start defining — will define — catchment areas which will be in

place for September 2003. But on July 1 of what year will parents have the

ability to send their children to any school?

Hon. C.

Clark: The answer to that is the '03-04 school year.

MacPhail: Okay. I'll just reiterate it. This is just for information. It's

important for parents. On July 1, '02, the catchment areas will be defined for

application September '03, but it will be July 1, '03, that the parents get to

choose the school that they attend. That was my question.

Hon. C.

Clark: Starting July '02-03 — this year — school districts will start to

define their catchment areas and their policies for applying catchment areas. In

the same school year, '02-03, kids will be going to the same schools and doing

the same things that they did this year. Parents will be able to determine what

school. They'll be able to start making application to go to other schools, if

that's what they choose for their children. Then in '03-04 children will be able

to start attending the schools that they've chosen, provided that there is space

for them.

MacPhail: Parents will be making choices this summer, as I understand it, for

the school year this coming September. I'm sorry to be so thick; I'm really

having a difficult time understanding this.

Hon. C.

Clark: School districts are going to be putting in place the infrastructure for

this process starting in July. The '02-03 school year in September will come,

and parents will send their children to the schools, I presume, that they're

sending them to now, or operate under the current guidelines. Then in September

'03-04 their kids may go to another school. We expect that school districts will

have set up the infrastructure and parents will have had the opportunity in

'02-03, this coming school year, to choose a school — another school, if

that's what they'd like — and make application for their child to attend that

school, providing there's space.

MacPhail: Thank you. That clarifies it.

What's the

public consultation process? Do the guidelines leave the public consultation for

establishment of catchment areas up to each school board?

Hon. C.

Clark: We don't anticipate changing from the current regime. School boards have

been able to determine their own catchment areas for a long time, and they have

their own processes for doing that. We don't anticipate changing that.

MacPhail: I'm only familiar with the ones that have done this to date, and there

has been public consultation. Is there a requirement for public consultation?

Hon. C.

Clark: We haven't legislated it. I'm not aware of a board that hasn't engaged in

consultation as a result of wanting to bring in or change catchment areas. I

know that certainly in the member's district, it was controversial. The school

board did engage in a lot of consultation in order to do that. I don't think her

school board or any other will deviate from that.

MacPhail: I was hoping for more reassurance than just "leave it up to the

school boards," for this reason: the school boards have other pressures

that have taken on new meaning since catchment areas have been determined in the

past. They're under huge financial pressures.

[1520]

It's

disappointing to know that these changes will take place that are extremely

important to parents. It's probably one of the most important issues to parents.

It's disappointing to know that there won't be the required public consultation.

I just point out again for the minister that there are many boards that haven't

gone through — ever — establishing catchment areas, so we don't know what

boards will do in these particular cases.

J. Kwan: On

the issue around catchment areas, it's my understanding that a child could be

going to a school in a different catchment or in a different district than he or

she lives in, because it's on the basis of the wait-list, and the approval for

the child to attend at different schools out of his or her district is on the

basis of availability. Is there a possibility, then, for a student to be going

to a school, and after, let's say, two years, because there are demographic

changes in the school he or she is attending, he or she may well have to be sent

to another school after, let's say, two years in high school?

Hon. C.

Clark: That's the way it is currently. The legislation will establish a

preference for children who are already at the school, but that preference won't

override the right of a child who lives close to that school to be able to

attend that school.

J. Kwan: In

other words, a child could be attending a school of their choice, and maybe in

their grade 12 year they'll find that availability is no longer there because

the district or that school — the demographics — have changed, and the space

is not available. So in the grade 12 year that student could well be faced with

a situation of having to go to another school for their graduating year — not

only in the district but actually

[ Page 3102 ]

in a different district. You could be attending a school in Burnaby because

it has a particular specialty. All of a sudden you lose your final year in terms

of the education and also all the friends. That's a possibility with this piece

of legislation and the catchment area that is being defined.

Hon. C.

Clark: I appreciate that the member is trying to find — and it's her job to

try and find — issues to create with the legislation. This isn't something

that couldn't technically happen now as well. If a school district, for example,

didn't project its population growth in a certain area accurately and they were

so inaccurate that they ended up with no space at a school, they would now, I

assume, have to, in many cases, shrink the catchment area. That's perfectly

possible now.

Now and in

the future that is very, very unlikely, because superintendents and school

districts look very carefully at demographic data. They do their predictions

very carefully as well. They know what developments are going on in their

communities. That's a part of their capital planning process at the moment. I

should assure the member that in other jurisdictions where they've done this,

her worst fears that she's raised today certainly haven't been borne out in

reality.

[1525]

J. Kwan:

know that the minister likes to accuse the opposition, anytime we raise a

question, of creating fears. For the minister's information, the week in which

we didn't sit in this House, I went back to my own riding and met with parent

advisory committees from a variety of different schools. We engaged in a lot of

discussion around Bill 34. Prior to my going back to the riding, I actually had

a briefing with ministry staff in terms of what the changes are, so I advised

them of such.

Parents

actually raised this issue, because there was a parent whose child was going to

be graduating from elementary school this year and then heading into high

school. They were asking how this new change would work and what it would mean

and so on. This is a question that's been raised by parents who were concerned,

potentially, that a child could be going into a different catchment area because

of the choice that the minister says is being afforded. By virtue of that, if

the demographics do change, that child may well in mid-year then be having to go

to a different school — or throughout the five years if you want to try to

complete your school year. That's a possibility as well.

I'm trying

to get clarification for the parents so they understand exactly what the

ramifications are. The minister may want to cast it as though it is not an

issue, but in the parents' minds it is an issue, and they want to fully

understand within that choice what the ramifications are and what some of the

possibilities and difficulties are that their children may run into in the

future.

Hon. C.

Clark: Well, I'm glad we had this discussion, because I'm sure the member will

be anxious to go back to her community and set those parents' fears at rest. She

can certainly tell them a couple of things: one, her suggestion today that

perhaps a child could be kicked out in the middle of the year is totally —

totally — inaccurate. The legislation very clearly sets out that there's a

deadline for application. That doesn't extend into the middle of the year, so

there won't be catchment-area kids moving in, in the middle of the year and

moving other children out. The legislation explicitly would not allow that, so

I'm sure she'll be delighted to be able to go back and tell her constituents

about that.

addition, I'm sure she will be delighted to go back and tell her constituents

that if they are not worried now about that issue, they should not be worried

after the changes in legislation, because the effect of the power of school

boards to do this and the power of school boards to set catchment areas or the

power of school boards in Vancouver won't be any different.

J. Kwan: If

a family moves into an area where there is not any space available for their

children to attend the school because it's full and that school has accepted

students from outside of the district, is it the case that the students who've

moved into the area won't be able to get access to their school? Would they have

to go to a different district until next year, for next year's enrolment, in

order to get in? What room will be made available to them — the people who

actually live in those areas?

Hon. C.

Clark: Well, I'm pleased to be able to set the member's fears at rest again.

We're not talking about mid-year changes. The legislation explicitly sets out a

program that won't allow that. Currently, if a child moves into a local

neighbourhood and the school is full, a district may say to the parents of that

child: "You cannot attend this school." In fact, there were many

instances of districts saying to parents that their children couldn't attend the

school they lived by because of the way the previous government chose to

structure class-size limits.

This isn't

something that's unknown currently. If a child comes into a catchment area in

the middle of a year, and there's no room at the school and the school cannot

find any way to accommodate that child, although certainly the likelihood of

that will be much greater now that Bill 28 is in place…. Certainly we are

reducing the number of kids who have to be bused from school to school with the

enactment of Bill 28, something that school trustees and many, many other

partner groups are excited about. They will, however, in this legislation be

entitled to an educational program provided in their home district.

[1530]

J. Kwan: In

this legislation, is there anything that would enable a student to attend a

school outside of their area? If the parent decides that there is another school

which they want their child to attend but they may not have the means to

transport the student there,

[ Page 3103 ]

are there any supports within the system that would actually enable that as

well?

Hon. C.

Clark: School districts have busing programs. They may decide that they want to

move children around who are choosing a different school outside their catchment

area, but we aren't requiring it.

J. Kwan: Is

that option, then, made available on a district-by-district basis per the school

trustees' decision, or is it more than that? If parents want their children to

go to another area and may not have the means, and there may not be a school

program available to facilitate that — the district has not provided for that

support — what other means are available to these students and these families

to get to their school of choice?

Hon. C.

Clark: As I've said, it would be district by district.

The intent

of this legislation — I should be clear — is for people to move to a

different school if they choose to, as opposed to the regime that we've just

ended, where children had to move to a different school not because they chose

to but because they had to because of the very rigid, inflexible rules that the

previous government built into contracts, which we've changed. We are

introducing a new approach to education where children who want to choose to go

to a different school can choose to do that.

Now, as I

said, transportation is something that will be managed district by district.

J. Kwan:

The point that the minister is actually missing is this: in some communities, if

the minister wants to make choice available to all students, then she ought to

take into account the notion of choice with the socioeconomic backgrounds of the

families. Some families may well choose to have children go to school in a

different district, but they may not have the means to actually get them there

and back and, therefore, to fully exercise their right to choice.

The school

districts, because of the funding cutbacks…. In spite of what this minister

says in terms of the issue around flexibility, the cutbacks in education

programs have created enormous pressures in the school boards, and they may not

be able to provide for transportation services.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The member for Vancouver-Burrard, who wishes that he were minister, is

suggesting that there are no cutbacks in education. If you actually went out and

talked to the parents and students, you would know — for the member for

Vancouver-Burrard — that the programs in his own schools are being cut

severely, and his own parents are very worried about it. I met with some of

those parents during the holidays.

The issue

around choice is this. Choice is only…

Interjections.

The Chair:

Order, members. Order.

J. Kwan:

…available under this new-era government, with this new Minister of Education,

to people who can afford it. Choice is not being afforded to all British

Columbians, because they're faced with barriers in getting their children to a

different school. If they're not able to provide for and overcome those

barriers, and if the school system is unable to provide for that, then they have

no choice. That is the reality.

Hon. C.

Clark: It seems to me that the world the member prefers is one where rather than

having some choice, we have no choice; where if you can't afford to live in a

neighbourhood that might be near a better school or a school that's different or

a school that offers something different, tough luck. That's the world that

we've been living in for the last ten years. That seems to be the kind of

structure that the member opposite would prefer.

What I'm

suggesting is that just because you may live next door to a school, that may not

be appropriate for your child — and maybe you can't afford to move. Maybe you

can decide you want to take your child to another school.

[1535]

I'm not

suggesting for a second that this is going to mean that every child is going to

have every choice available to him or her. What I am suggesting is that having

some choice is better than having no choice at all. The world of no choice at

all is the world that the member opposite seems to subscribe to.

We don't

believe in that. Parents don't want that; kids don't want that. Every child is

different, and they should be able to access different educational programs.

They should be able to access the programs that meet their needs.

The last

thing I will add is this. If she is worried — and I suspect this is where

she's going — that there will be some schools that have less demand from

students and parents than others, what other jurisdictions have done and what

her school district may decide to do is create magnet schools in those schools.

What

happens when you do that is you take a school that was underperforming and

create one that attracts people from all over the district. You get children

from wealthy neighbourhoods, from less wealthy neighbourhoods, from families who

have a lot of education and from families who don't have a lot of education

rubbing shoulders in the cafeteria every day.

That's what

magnet schools are about. That's what innovative districts who have pioneered

choice have done very successfully, not just to the benefit of all the children

in the district who are able to attend that school because of the choices that

are there, but in particular to the benefit of the children who were previously

forced to attend a school that was underperform-

[ Page 3104 ]

ing. Now they may live next door to a school that's a beacon for the entire

district.

J. Kwan: I

do have these hopes and dreams that there should be full equity amongst all

people in British Columbia and across the world. On the issue around school

options, I do wish that, and especially my constituents who are, by and large,

faced with multiple barriers and are from a low socioeconomic status…. A lot

of them are new immigrants, and they're struggling on a day-by-day basis. A lot

of them are urban aboriginal kids.

I want to

see them have the full opportunities so they have equal access to the choice of

schools that they choose. But this government is not facilitating that at all.

What they are doing is cutting programs in the education area. The minister

says….

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The member for Vancouver-Burrard…. You know what?

The Chair:

Members, order, please. Let's confine the debate to….

J. Kwan: I

urge the member for Vancouver-Burrard to go and talk to the parents or the

students in his area, because they have a lot of concerns, including the school

trustees.

Here's what

the Vancouver school board chair, Barbara Buchanan, has to say about the

possibility of bringing in magnet schools as the minister advocates — that

without more money from the province, she'll be focused on making cuts, not

delivering new programs. That is what the school boards are faced with. That is

what the students are faced with.

Does this

minister care? No. Does this member for Vancouver-Burrard care? No. That is the

reality. Because of this government, they have put so much pressure on the

educational funding side that instead of thinking of new innovative programs,

school boards are now going to be focused on making cuts instead.

Hon. C.

Clark: Well, I don't think the member gives her own board enough credit. I think

she's got a lot of outstanding people at that board. In fact, she stands up and

says they're not talking about any new programs. This member will talk about

that, I imagine, until the end of her days. It doesn't matter if it's true or

not. In her own district, they are creating their first elementary-level fine

arts school at Nootka, and they are carrying on with the creation of that

school.

Don't stand

up and say: "Boy, innovation is over. Creativity is dead." It isn't.

Interjection.

The Chair:

Order, please. Let's listen to the answer. Thank you.

Hon. C.

Clark: I know the member has an ideological path she walks down unerringly,

where she says that if all choices aren't available equally to all people, then

no one should have any choice at all.

[1540]

Well, I

fundamentally disagree with that. I think there is a better way. I think that

the way to equity is to provide individuals with choices, not take them away. I

don't think that government knows better what's good for people's children than

their parents. That is a big ideological difference that I have with that member

opposite.

When she

stands up and says, "Well, there isn't enough equity in this, so we

shouldn't have any choice at all," I fundamentally differ with her. Of

course we should have choices. Of course we should allow people to decide where

they want to send their children.

You know,

right now today you will find many parents who don't feel that their schools are

performing, and those parents would like to be able to send their child to

another school. Where's the equity in that? They can't. What we want to do is

create a system where school districts, for the first time, are subject to a new

kind of pressure from the consumers of the system, which are students and

parents — where they can vote with their feet and tell a school district,

"No, you're not performing," and the school district will have a whole

new reason to step in and try and improve schools that in some cases are

operating and performing far, far below the standards that not only we expect of

them but every child deserves from them.

J. Kwan:

The minister is so blinded by her own rhetoric that she doesn't even see what

the reality is. What the school boards and every British Columbian that I've

spoken with on this issue are calling for is that there be choice, but for

government to facilitate the choice and equal access to all students. This

government is not doing that. They're only just selecting some sectors of the

population who'll be able to access the choices. What people are asking for is

for the government to facilitate choice for all students.

Do you know

what? The freeze in the Education budget, which is what this government and this

minister are doing and what this member for Vancouver-Burrard is advocating for,

actually creates inequities within our school system to the point where students

will have less likelihood of success. Their school options, even in their own

district, are going to compromised.

I say this

once again for the minister, and she needs to heed the words of the school

trustees. Without more money from the province, she'll be focusing on making

cuts, not delivering new programs. Those are the words of the chair of the

Vancouver school board, Barbara Buchanan.

For the

minister's information, Nootka school of fine arts was developed before this

legislation was brought in, before this government was elected. So that choice

the minister talks about already existed, and it was already being produced.

School boards were able

[ Page 3105 ]

to focus on that because they were fully funded by the previous government,

not by this government.

Do you know

what we face now? The fact of the matter is that Nootka School is now going to

be at risk because of the lack of funding and lack of commitment and the lack of

priorities of this government on the issue around education.

Hon. C.

Clark: I will have to take advantage of the opportunity at the break to bring in

some quotes from school districts that would certainly put the lie to what the

member has said about how she fully funded school districts when they were in

government. She may want to argue that she did, but I don't think she'll find

many school districts that will back her up. We could certainly go back and look

through the quotes, and they'll certainly tell us that they don't agree. They

didn't agree with her at the time, and they probably don't agree with her now.

I'd also

add this.

Interjections.

The Chair:

Order, members. Let the minister respond, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sometimes I feel like I'm in Nootka Elementary when

I'm in this chamber doing these debates.

I'll just

finish with this and say that we believe that choice is important. We think it

is important to provide choices, and that is preferable to providing no choices

at all, which was the regime that the previous government set up. There's much

more equity in giving parents and children choices about the educational

programs that they'd like to access in order to meet their educational needs.

Section 1

approved.

On

section

[1545]

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, there's a big difference in how this debate can go. The

minister stands up every single time and somehow thinks that just because the

only two people asking any questions are members of the opposition, somehow

they're inappropriate, that they're done for political reasons, partisan

reasons. She uses terms like ideological….

Interjections.

MacPhail: Well, let me just tell you where we've gathered up these questions:

from the parents advisory councils, with whom we have met; from the School

Trustees Association, which was informed by the deputy minister that this debate

would be finished this week and so they'd better get their questions in, so

we're asking these questions; and by the lack of answers provided by the

minister to these very people as well.

The

minister can approach this in a respectful way by just answering the questions

so that everybody can understand the intent of this legislation, or she can

choose to engage at this level of silly challenge that these questions are

inappropriate. Maybe the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I should sit

down and ask all of the Liberal MLAs to stand up and ask the questions their

trustees have given to us to ask, because that's what they've done.

Interjections.

MacPhail: That's what they've done. I hear people saying they haven't asked

questions. Maybe they're using their e-mail for other purposes, but it might be

a good idea for them to check their e-mail and find out these questions that are

being asked. This debate could go a lot more smoothly. There is no intention

here whatsoever to do anything other than reflect the questions that are being

asked. The minister knows full well these questions are being asked throughout

the province.

section

2(c), there has been a concern raised that there's no requirement for the board

— for anybody — to take into requirement any restrictions to meet class

size, that there is no requirement, first, to meet the class-size restrictions

which this government brought in under, I think,

section 74.1, and that this is

not a factor at all in determining who may enrol where. What's the logic of

excluding that as a factor?

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm delighted to hear from the members opposite that we're going to be

getting back to a more civil tone in our discussions here. I'm looking forward

to that.

The

reference to space is determined by collective agreements that affect it and by

the other legislation that governs that.

MacPhail: That wasn't my question, Mr. Chair. My question was why these are

under

section 2(c). There's a list of qualifications as to what determines where

a child may enrol. That's the

section we're talking about right now. For

instance, just for those who don't have the legislation in front of them, it

says: "Subject to

section 74.1, a person may enrol in an educational

program provided by a board of a school district and attend any school in

British Columbia if" — and then

section 2(

c) says — "the board

providing the educational program determines that space and facilities are

available for the person at the school in which the educational program is made

available."

I'm asking

the minister why there is not a qualification that includes this government's

own legislation on class-size restrictions.

[1550]

Hon. C.

Clark: The class-size reference the member is making is different from the space

reference she

[ Page 3106 ]

seemed to be referencing in this. When we talk about space, we are talking

about the physical space that's available. Certainly, the class-size limits that

we put in legislation will apply.

MacPhail: I'm not saying it's one or the other. I'm asking why this isn't

qualified by the class-size limits. If there's a dispute between whether a child

can go to…. Well, let me just say this. If the minister thinks that there's

such demand for choice, a parent could turn to this

section and say:

"You've got the space available, school board. It doesn't say anything

about you having to meet class-size limits here, so I want my child in

there." I know that may come as a surprise to the minister, but just such

legal challenges occur on a regular basis.

Hon. C.

Clark: This clause is qualified by the class-size limits that are elsewhere in

the School Act legislation that we brought in for the very first time in B.C.'s

history in Bill 28.

MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could explain to me how that occurs. Maybe she

could walk me through the legislation that demonstrates that.

Hon. C.

Clark: The act is read as a whole. The class-size provisions in the legislation

will apply to this part of the legislation and, I think, to the extent that the

Hansard debate will also, if we're anticipating a legal challenge here — I'm

not aware of that — help inform anyone that might have a question about it.

MacPhail: Of course there are no legal challenges yet. The legislation isn't in

place. Those comments are so unhelpful. Let me just say — I'm just a layperson

— that….

Interjection.

MacPhail: Well, here it does say "subject to

section 74.1." It doesn't

say "subject to

section 76.1," so I would assume that the principle of

exclusion would apply.

Hon. C.

Clark: The class-size limits that were enacted in Bill 28 apply for every school

district, and they apply for every classroom. That applies across the

legislation. Certainly, this part of the legislation is qualified by that

overarching requirement for school districts.

MacPhail: I think the minister is wrong. I'll just put that on the record. If

the minister is going to rely on Hansard discussion to inform parents about what

their rights are, the minister is wrong. The way this legislation is written,

the class-size limits do not override this provision. They don't. Otherwise….

Interjection.

MacPhail: Well, then let me ask the minister or her advisers: what's the

necessity to have the qualification saying "subject to

section 74.1"?

Hon. C.

Clark: The qualification that the member has referenced talks about where their

child would come, in terms of the preferences that a school district would make

for a child to be able to attend that school. The two are very obviously linked,

and that is among the new things that we're adding into the legislation, so it's

certainly necessary that it be there.

Let me be

clear. There is no question that the class-size limits that we put into

legislation for the first time in B.C.'s history, in January, apply to school

districts irrespective of this legislation.

[1555]

MacPhail: Well, let me just read…. The minister's answer, I'm sorry, I

couldn't follow, Mr. Chair. I actually have the language of

section 74(1) in

front of me, and it's a qualification on the ability of a parent to enrol her

child in any school. The language says: "74(1) A board is responsible for

the management of the schools in its school district and for the custody,

maintenance and safekeeping of all property owned or leased by the board."

I would assume that that qualification is about physical restrictions that the

board has, physical restrictions that say you have to have safekeeping of all

property.

I'm saying

to you that

section 76(1) is the pupil restriction. It's the same sort of legal

restriction that boards have to uphold. My view is that by including a physical

restriction and not including a pupil restriction, the class size doesn't

prevail.

Hon. C.

Clark: Now I understand why the member is confused. She is talking about

section

74(1), which is in the School Act currently. The legislation that we are

presenting today and the amendments that we're presenting refer to 74.1, which

is different; 74.1 refers to the new catchment area

definitions that are being

brought in, in the legislation. If she takes a minute to have a reference back

in the legislation to that, I think that will certainly clear up some of her

confusion in reading the legislation.

MacPhail: Thank you for that. Yes, it does. But it doesn't…. Then, indeed,

section 74.1 has physical restrictions — geographically, physical restrictions

— on how one defines a child. Thank you for that clarification. It still

doesn't include…. In 74.1, it doesn't include any reference then, again, to

class sizes. If 74.1 now prevails, in the ranking of priorities that a school

district has to determine, where does class size come in? Is it equal to 74.1?

Hon. C.

Clark: School districts must maintain, for kindergarten to grade 3, very strict

class-size averages. That applies across the board. They cannot, for

kindergarten to grade 3, exceed those maximums. For grades 4 to 12 they have

district-wide averages. They cannot exceed those averages. That governs how

school districts manage this process and certainly qualifies anything that's in

this legislation. I think that should be

[ Page 3107 ]

pretty obvious to an experienced reader of legislation like the member

opposite.

MacPhail: Well, it isn't, but it also isn't obvious to others who are examining

this legislation very closely. They're very concerned that class size is not a

qualification for enrolment beyond the neighbourhood schools.

I have to

tell you, Mr. Chair, it's just simply completely unhelpful, when we're

reflecting that, to somehow say (1) that one has to have ten years of experience

of reading legislation as complex as this, and (2) don't worry; be happy. People

are concerned about this.

Hon. C.

Clark: Well, then, it's a good thing the member asked the question. Maybe it's a

good thing she asked it four or five times. I've answered it, I think, pretty

clearly. Anyone who is reading the Hansard and has any questions about it can

make a reference to see that class-size limits certainly apply across this

legislation.

Sections 2

and 3 approved.

On

section

MacPhail: Could the minister explain the necessity of

section 4?

[1600]

Hon. C.

Clark: The School Act used to require that school districts fill in and send in

an annual report for the ministry in past years. Those annual reports were not

necessarily goals-oriented. They would tell us or were supposed to tell us how

well the school had done by certain measures, but they didn't set out the goals

for improvement. What we've done with accountability contracts is require that

school districts set out not just how well they've done but, more importantly,

how they intend to improve on the areas where they think they need to achieve

more success. The accountability contracts will be expanding in many ways the

amount of information we currently are expecting school districts to provide in

the form of annual reports.

MacPhail: Having not received the information yet from the minister on the

annual reports, perhaps she could tell the public what the expansion of

information is that will be included in an accountability contract and that was

not in the annual report.

[H. Long in

the chair.]

Hon. C.

Clark: The accountability contracts will cover not just academic outcomes, but

they'll also cover a whole range of other human and social development outcomes.

Most importantly, they won't just be talking about how well a school did the

year before, which is really the focus of an annual report. They'll be talking

about how well a school district hopes to do the following year so that they can

set goals for improvement.

The

information about where they've been over the last year is certainly part of the

context they need to provide in order to get an accountability contract in

place. There will be things in accountability contracts that are not currently

required in the annual reports; for example, goals related to violence at

school. If a school or a district has issues with violence, that's not something

that any annual report or any minister has ever required that a school district

report on. That's something that we are going to start focusing on with school

districts in the form of our accountability contracts, because it's a very

important part of ensuring that children are able to learn. They need to learn

in an environment that's safe and where they feel respected.

There will

be information from the parent-staff-student satisfaction surveys included in

that, and there will be a range of other measures that often are not provided in

many annual reports across the province.

MacPhail: Again, that's an output. We talked yesterday about inputs to

accountability contracts. There were other ways of determining inputs other than

annual reports in the system. Accreditation was one of those. I'm trying to find

out, as per our discussion yesterday, where inputs are asked for and determined.

Hon. C.

Clark: We did talk about this yesterday. When we talked about inputs, we talked

about setting the context for the accountability contracts. That's been part of

the discussion with the creation of all the accountability contracts that we've

done. Certainly, on the subject of annual reports, that was very output

oriented. That's what annual reports are all about.

I want to

give the member an example, because she asks for things that are in annual

reports but not in accountability contracts. The annual report order says that

school districts must report on the percent of grade 8s who graduate. That's an

important piece of information, but certainly a more important piece of

information is the transition — the number of kids who go on to grade 9 —

because we know that we lose a lot of kids from our school system between those

grades. Even more important than that, once we get the transition rate, is the

process of setting goals for improving that transition rate. If our transition

rate was 80 percent, how do we get it up to 81 percent the following year?

That's something that isn't required to be contained in annual reports.

[1605]

MacPhail: Sorry, my question is: what's contained in the accountability contract

that isn't contained in the annual report? The minister got those reviews

reversed.

What I'm

looking for is the inputs. Maybe the minister is misunderstanding. I was the

Minister of Education; I don't know what was in the annual reports. I'm not

accusing the minister of anything other than that it's a question of

information, and I was the Minister of Education.

[ Page 3108 ]

What I'm

looking for is the way these accountability contracts are replacing, for

instance, an accreditation process that, yes, did occur once every six years but

had input measurement as well as output measurement. I'm looking for where the

input measurement is as well as output.

Hon. C.

Clark: Certainly, as I said, the ministry talks about context and inputs with

school districts when we sit down and talk about their accountability contracts.

In addition to that, in this legislation — and I know we will get to that

subject later — we are creating school planning councils which will also talk

about inputs and outputs and goals and ways to improve for the following year.

That is going to be a huge enhancement of our current accreditation process,

which only happened once every six years.

Of course,

as I'm sure the member will remember, the group got together, and they looked at

what a school was doing, how well it was doing it and the processes that were

involved in that, and then they talked about how they would improve those

processes. It's certainly a very valuable thing to do; in fact, so valuable that

I think we should start doing it every year and guarantee parent involvement in

it every single year. That is one of the things we will achieve with this

legislation.

J. Kwan:

The minister mentioned that the measurement of the accountability contract would

be on the basis of satisfaction surveys. Is that the only measurement of how

well the schools are achieving their goals?

Hon. C.

Clark: No, as I've said a number of times, there are a whole range of measures

that we expect to be able to use for accountability contracts. This year we

didn't have the results of the surveys, because it's the first one we've ever

done systematically across the province in the recent history of the ministry.

We had the results from foundation skills assessment, we had graduation rates,

we had specific graduation rates for first nations kids, and we had results of

grade-to-grade transition. That was most of the baseline data that we relied on

this year to create our accountability contracts. Next year we'll have a whole

bunch of other baseline data, including the surveys, which will be important

information. The year after, we may be able to incorporate more baseline data as

well.

As I've

said, the accountability contracts are an evolving process. We hope that over

the years they become very individualized and that districts have ones that are

quite different from one another based on the needs and expectations of the

students and the parents in their local communities.

J. Kwan: On

the question around surveys, let me start there. Is there any translation

provided for the surveys that are being sent out to parents for them to respond

to?

Hon. C.

Clark: We certainly did talk to some school districts about translation. I will

get back to the member, though, with a very specific answer about what happened

with that.

J. Kwan:

Maybe the minister can advise: when she says she's talked to certain people

about it, could the minister elaborate on the nature of that discussion? Was it

that we would expect this to be done so that people can fully participate, or

was it just something highlighted as an issue and then sort of left to see

whether or not it gets followed up? What kind of discussion took place around

that?

[1610]

Hon. C.

Clark: As I said, I'd be happy to get her as much information as she needs on

that as soon as we have an opportunity.

J. Kwan:

The minister doesn't even know what kind of requests were made around it? I'm

curious as to what extent the question was raised. Maybe the minister doesn't

know the outcome, but what was the expectation? Was there any level of

expectation that translation would be provided, and to what extent?

Hon. C.

Clark: My understanding is that the answer to that question is yes. But I'm sure

the member will want more details about that, so I'd be delighted to get her

more details.

You know,

our government is — and as the minister, I am — very committed to ensuring

parent participation in the school system. It's something that in my opinion we

haven't seen enough of over the last decade. Parents have been frothing at the

bit to be able to get involved. There's a huge appetite from parents — parents

system.

My goal is

certainly to involve as many parents in their children's education as I possibly

can. Allowing them input through the parent-student-staff survey is an

incredibly important way of doing that. It allows people who are sometimes very,

very busy — who may not have time to visit their school regularly or have

discussions with their child's teacher regularly — an opportunity at least

once a year to tell us in the ministry and tell school districts individually

what they'd like to see changed and how they think things could be improved.

To the

extent that translations facilitate that for a greater number of people, that's

certainly something we've provided.

J. Kwan: I

hate to say this, but the words of the minister's commitment to providing a wide

range of participation ring hollow, especially in light of the fact that as a

result of the pressures put on the education system, some school districts are

faced with having to cut multicultural outreach workers. Those multicultural

outreach workers are essential to getting the parents participating in the

school system, ensuring a bet-

[ Page 3109 ]

ter education outcome for the students and so on. The fact is that a

significant number of multicultural workers have been eliminated as a result of

the pressures put by this government on the education funding side.

Her words

ring hollow, but I will await the information from the minister. She says that,

yes, translation is being asked for and is to be provided in these surveys. I

will see what information is forthcoming. I hope the minister is right that

translation is provided to facilitate maximum participation. I can tell you,

there are a lot of individuals and families in British Columbia, in Vancouver

and on the lower mainland who have language barriers. Without assistance on the

issue around language, they would not be able to participate.

I know from

my own personal experience. My parents couldn't participate in the educational

system because of language barriers. They faced tremendous difficulties. They

actually relied on the children to go home and translate the information to

them. Sometimes, by a young person, that translation is not done as well as it

could be. I was nine years old, and I was trying to explain information to my

parents from the school back to them. I know I didn't do a good job in trying to

translate that information for my parents, and I know that other children are

faced with those difficulties even today.

I'd like to

ask the minister: does she know the rate of return for these surveys that have

been sent out?

Hon. C.

Clark: At this point it would be a guess. I'd certainly be delighted to provide

all members of the House with a very firm number when we have that in, but we

don't have a firm number in yet. I can certainly say, though, that we are

delighted with the number that have been returned.

J. Kwan:

The minister says she doesn't have the firm number. Can she tell the House how

many surveys went out and approximately how many came back?

Hon. C.

Clark: I think I'll save that information for when we do have the firm numbers.

In the meantime, Mr. Chair, I seek your guidance about ensuring that we stay on

the focus of the legislation that we're here to debate.

[1615]

J. Kwan:

This is strictly related to the issue around the accountability contracts. How

are they running? The legislation actually talks about how we have to come to

these measurements for enhancing and ensuring that there is participation, and

the participation goes directly to what language, if there is translation

associated with it.

The

minister had advised the House that the first round of surveys have gone out.

I'd be most interested in understanding how that's going. How is that going? How

many have actually gone out? The minister doesn't want to provide information

with respect to how many surveys might have been returned. Does she know how

many surveys have actually gone out then?

Hon. C.

Clark: I'd be happy to provide that information when we have a complete report

on the results of the surveys. And I do want to confirm for the member — I've

got a copy of it here; I can table it for her — one translated survey. This

one is in Chinese. I'm certainly sensitive to the issues that the member raises

of language. It shouldn't be a barrier for a parent to get involved in their

child's education. We are all here the children of immigrants, with the

exception of first nations peoples. We need to remember that, and we need to be

sensitive to those issues.

J. Kwan:

Yes, I would be interested in getting the information. Aside from that

translation being offered, I would be interested in getting the information from

the minister on how many different languages are being provided and how that has

been distributed in the different school districts to ensure that the different

language requirements are there.

I know, as

an example, that neighbours of mine just came from Russia, and they speak very,

lot of Russians. I'd be very interested in terms of how to tackle that difficult

challenge, because there are many different languages in different communities.

How many languages is the information being translated into? How is the school

district facilitating full, maximum participation in this area?

On the

question around the accountability contract, is there anything within it that

will gauge the students' level when they first enter the school system? I know

that varies from student to student, from district to district. Is there

anything within the accountability contract on issues around measurement of

achievement that gauges the entry level of the children as they enter the school

system?

Hon. C.

Clark: Districts do a whole range of readiness tests. Some of them, I'm

informed, use the Yaeger-Smith readiness test, which, I understand, is a very

comprehensive way of measuring how well a child is prepared for school when they

enter it. Certainly the results of those tests can be part of the discussion for

accountability contracts.

J. Kwan:

have one more question around the surveys. Could the minister also please

provide the cost breakdown associated with the survey that's been sent out? I'd

be interested in how much it costs to do that work.

Section 4

approved.

On

section

[1620]

MacPhail: We're on the parent advisory councils. Under the act now there are two

issues — let me just be

[ Page 3110 ]

clear here, Mr. Chair — for which parent advisory councils…. Let me just

be clear. My apologies, Mr. Chair. I did have this.

Under

parent advisory councils under the previous act — the one we're amending —

it has deleted the provisions saying, as I understand it: (1) "A parents'

advisory council, through its elected officers, may advise the board and the

principal and staff of the school or the provincial school respecting any matter

relating to the school or the provincial school." I think that's been

repealed. And (5) "A parents' advisory council, in consultation with the

principal, must make bylaws governing its meetings and the business and conduct

of its affairs, including bylaws governing the dissolution of the council."

What's the

reasoning behind deleting those two provisions?

Hon. C.

Clark: With the creation of the school planning councils, we wanted to ensure

that the school planning council as a component of the PAC and the PAC weren't

advising on exactly the same issues. We wanted to make sure they weren't

doubling up on the same jobs. So what we did was added the line to that section,

after the line the member mentioned, that says "other than matters assigned

to the school planning council." The PAC can still advise on all other

matters, but we wanted to make sure that the school planning council, as a

component of the PAC with a very specific job, wasn't doing exactly the same

thing the PAC was.

MacPhail: I'm sure there will be much discussion amongst parent advisory

councils, the new school planning councils, school trustees and teachers

themselves about the move from where the centre of responsibility and input

rests. I'll let that unfold as it may.

What I do

know that I've heard from both parent advisory councils and district parent

advisory councils and then from trustees this weekend is that the change in

focus from parent advisory councils having the relationship with the school and

the district parent advisory council having the relationship with the district

now shifting toward a school planning council will mean much change. Pretty much

everyone has said it will mean a lot of change.

I'll note

for the minister, although I'm sure she's had a chance since yesterday evening

to look at this, that a resolution passed at the School Trustees Association

meeting of April 25 to 28 said: "The BCSTA requests the Minister of

Education to revise the time lines for creating school planning councils,

recognizing the boards welcome this opportunity for parental input." We can

discuss that under the next

section about school planning councils. It does

highlight, under this section, the parent advisory councils fully understanding,

with the repeal of those two descriptions of their responsibilities and their

obligations, that there is a shift of the centre for decision-making and input

over to the school planning councils.

The other

issue that has come to my colleague's and my attention — not only in our own

school boards, where this is very important, but other school boards, such as

Richmond, Coquitlam, Burnaby and Surrey as well, with high number of

parent advisory councils have been doing a great deal of work to include parents

who have not been the natural participants in parent advisory councils in years

past because of language barriers and cultural barriers.

[1625]

To give the

minister an example, in one of the schools in my riding the parent advisory

council has spent virtually the last two years — well, up until very recently,

having to deal with the inner-city school funding issues — working on a

form of luncheons. I've actually had the pleasure of going to them, and they're

culturally diverse luncheons. Translators are offered at the PAC meetings. It's

just a huge range of issues to integrate these parents.

What the

parent advisory councils are now saying, and I heard this at the trustees

meeting as well, is that all of that work will be a challenge to reflect on a

school planning council where there are just three members. I'm wondering

whether the minister has heard those concerns and what her thoughts are.

Hon. C.

Clark: The member takes a very different view of this, I think, than I do. She

talks about where responsibility for school matters rests as though she believes

that the school planning council is separate and maybe even in opposition to the

parent advisory council. It's not. The very clear intention of the legislation

is to create a situation where the school planning council is very connected to

the parent advisory council. Not only do we require that a member of the PAC

executive sits on the school planning council, but we also require them to

consult on the school plan.

What we are

doing in this legislation, though — and this is where I think I would differ

— is providing the PAC in every school with a guaranteed right to and access

to input in planning for that school. It's quite true there are schools where

the planning function of the PAC works well, where they are able to collaborate

with the principal and teachers in the school to set a plan for the school every

year. This isn't by any means true in every school. In fact, it's far from the

case, and many, many parents have told me over the last year that they are fed

up with being treated like the guys who run the bake sale. They're fed up with

what they feel is like banging their heads against the wall to try and get some

collaboration at the school level. As I said, that's not true in every case, but

it's certainly true in many cases, so what we're doing with the legislation is

providing a method of input for the PAC.

The school

planning council will be elected from the PAC. A member, a parent representative

on the school planning council, will have to have been a

[ Page 3111 ]

member of the executive of the PAC, and they will be required to consult with

the PAC. We are providing the PAC with this focus and with this guaranteed input

and guaranteed avenue for consultation into their children's schools.

J. Kwan: Is

it the case, then, that only members of the PAC would be able to vote to elect

their representative, or would all parents in their school be able to vote?

Hon. C.

Clark: Every parent who has a child in a school has an automatic right to be a

member of the PAC for that school.

J. Kwan:

The minister didn't answer my question. My question was not about whether or not

a parent could be a member of a parent advisory council but rather whether or

not, if you're a parent who is not on the PAC, you have the right to vote to

elect your representative on this school planning council.

Hon. C.

Clark: You don't have to be on the PAC executive, but you do have to be a member

of the PAC. Certainly, anyone who wants to be involved in their child's school

is a member of their child's PAC. I think that's a pretty obvious connection.

J. Kwan: I

am very disturbed by this answer from the minister, because I know a lot of

parents. They are very involved with their child's education as best as they can

be, but not all the parents are involved in the school PACs. They simply can't.

Now the minister is bringing in legislation to elect a council, but if you're a

parent who is not involved with the PAC, you don't have the right to vote. That

limits a lot of parents' capacity to actually exercise that right. I am very

disturbed by the minister's answer, and I think it is one that would trouble

many parents. I know that in my own community, it would trouble many parents as

well.

[1630]

Hon. C.

Clark: Well, on the one hand, I hear the members arguing that the school

planning council will diminish the role of the PAC and that that's a terrible

thing, because the PAC should be able to advise on school matters. On the other

hand, I hear them arguing that if you have to be a member to be involved in your

PAC, it's not democratic and it's not fair. I don't think you can have it both

ways.

The reality

is that any parent who wants to become a member of their child's PAC can. All we

are doing in this legislation is giving the PAC a guaranteed right of access to

consultation — consultation that in some cases in some schools they already

have, an ability to collaborate with the principal and the teachers that in some

cases they already have. As I've said, it's not something that's uniform and

universal. We want to ensure that the experience of those parents who are lucky

enough to be involved in a school where they do have lots of collaboration and

they do have lots of input is shared across the province for children at every

single school.

MacPhail: It's really amazing. I actually am very troubled by the minister's

answers to these questions, for this reason: this question was not asked in any

confrontational way whatsoever. The question didn't even reflect the views, one

way or the other, about my colleague's and my view on PACs and school planning

councils. I said at the opening of my questioning that we will leave it up to

the world to decide how it will unfold and how it will work. Yet the minister

tries to impose some sort of confrontational view on my colleague and me.

I know it's

hard to get up to speed on a particular portfolio, but I really do hope that the

minister gains some sort of experience on the reality of how parent advisory

councils have operated in the past and are operating now. The questions that my

colleague and I are raising are questions that we have been asked by parent

advisory councils, district parent advisory councils and school trustees. All I

did, and my colleague continued, was to ask the minister's thoughts on how that

would work, particularly in the area of multiculturally diverse schools. That's

all. That's all we were asking.

Just for

the information of the minister, the parent advisory councils who wish to know

who will vote for the representatives to the school planning councils are coming

from a point of view that they hope all parents get a vote, because they

understand that every parent can't be involved in a parent advisory council. It

is not my colleague in some way suggesting that it's either right or wrong.

Parent advisory councils want the vote to be as broad as possible, because they

fully understand how difficult it is to participate in a parent advisory

council.

Hon. C.

Clark: Well, I certainly agree that we want to have more parents involved in

PACs, in school planning councils and in their children's education —

absolutely. That is what this legislation is all about. That's what I've been

talking about ever since I was appointed as Minister of Education back in June.

I absolutely want to expand the number of parents who are involved. I think that

by guaranteeing in legislation that every parent advisory council will have the

consultation — the real collaborative role — that they expect to be able to

have, we will encourage a lot more people to want to become involved.

[1635]

I have

heard from parents who've said: "I used to be involved in my PAC, but we

didn't get any real say, except every six years." I've heard from PAC

presidents and PAC members who've said the opposite, but I want to make sure

that that access is consistently available across the province at every school

for every child. That's what this legislation is all about.

Joining a

PAC isn't like joining a political party. You don't have to sign up a membership

and hand

[ Page 3112 ]

over your $5, your $10, your $2 or whatever it is. It's very different from

that. I think that the member is quite correct when she says that PACs do want

to involve more people. What we are doing with this legislation is giving them a

whole lot more reasons and a whole lot more ability to market to their parents

in their school why they should be involved in PAC. For the first time they will

be able to go out and say to every parent in that school: "You are

guaranteed by legislation to be able to collaborate, participate and be part of

the decision-making that is going to affect the education of your child, not

just every six years, but every year."

J. Kwan: I

will simply say this. I urge the minister to go out and talk to some parents who

are faced with multiple barriers in their lives. I've spoken with parents in my

own community who don't belong to PACs but have one or two particular issues

that they're concerned about, whether it be around special needs or other

issues, and they could barely manage to raise these issues, for a variety of

reasons. They're not involved in the PACs, not because they don't care, but

because they don't have the capacity to be involved. It doesn't mean that they

don't want to make sure there is a good representative for them and for their

children at these school planning councils.

Furthermore,

other parents understand that not all parents can participate. Parents do

understand that those are real barriers, and they experience them every single

day not only in low-income communities that are living with poverty and faced

with tremendous challenges every single day. I would urge the minister to go out

and talk to those parents, and then maybe she'll have a view to say that the

participation and the right to vote to elect these school planning councils

ought to be broader and ought to be opened up to parents who may not be involved

with parent advisory councils.

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm delighted to hear from the members opposite that the PACs in their

communities are active in making sure that they're accessible to people who

experience language barriers. Certainly, I expect that they'll import those

great practices to the school planning council as well. There's certainly no

barrier posed to that happening in the legislation. I know that different people

have different barriers to being involved, but I don't think that's a reason to

say that we should have less involvement. I think that's a reason to say that we

should have more involvement. That's what this legislation is all about.

J. Kwan:

I'm just going to have a last go at it. Clearly, the minister is just so blinded

by her own views and the mantra that her new-era agenda has foisted on the

education arena that she cannot see the point that I'm making.

The point

that I'm making is this: when she disallows parents who are not involved with

PACs from voting to elect the school planning council representatives, she's

limiting participation, not broadening participation. She's failing to

understand the barriers that parents do face in their ability and capacity to

participate. That is the point.

Parents

outside of this chamber understand that. I would once again urge the minister to

go out and talk to those parents and understand what those barriers are and,

instead of putting in a system that quite frankly limits their participation, to

open it up and allow for the vote to be afforded to parents who may not be

involved with PACs.

Hon. C.

Clark: I should explain for the member again that this legislation doesn't

change the way parents participate in their PACs. It sounds to me — and,

again, I don't want to put words in the member's mouth — from what I've heard

that they are reasonably satisfied with the way PACs have functioned and the way

they've included parents in the past. We certainly don't intend to change that

with this legislation.

[1640]

What we're

doing with the school planning councils is providing the PAC with some

guaranteed access — which some now have, but some don't — and an ability to

collaborate that is guaranteed under legislation for the first time.

Interjection.

The Chair:

Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: That's really important.

The other

point that I would make for the member is this. She talks about being involved

in a PAC and being a member of the PAC as being exactly the same thing. I

suppose if you looked it up in a dictionary, you'd find that the

definitions

were similar, but I think that in reality, being a member of a PAC doesn't

necessarily mean going to a meeting every single month. It doesn't necessarily

mean a huge time commitment in order to be a member of a PAC. That's the way it

is now, and that's certainly the way it will be in the future.

The

difference will be, though, that eve