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)

MONDAY, MAY 13, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 12

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 42)

Hon. G. Bruce

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 48)

Hon. G. Bruce

Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49)

Hon. G. Bruce

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Recognition of work of police officers

D. Hayer

Volunteer marine rescue organizations

R. Sultan

Education system advocates

R. Stewart

Oral Questions

Mental health services for persons with schizophrenia

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Cheema

Mental health services for Sunshine Coast

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Cheema

Citizens' assembly on electoral reform

J. Bray

Hon. G. Plant

Death of Frank Joseph Paul

T. Bhullar

Hon. R. Coleman

Grizzly bear protection

J. Kwan

Hon. J. Murray

Tabling Documents

Draft letter pertaining to the Vancouver coastal health authority

Map regarding bear habitation

Judicial Compensation Committee report, 2002

B.C. Assessment Authority financial statements report, 2000

First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council, annual report, 2000-01

Committee of the Whole House

Protected Areas Forests Compensation Act (Bill 39)

Hon. M. de Jong

Reporting of Bills

Protected Areas Forests Compensation Act (Bill 39)

Third Reading of Bills

Protected Areas Forests Compensation Act (Bill 39)

Committee of the Whole House

Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 40)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 40)

Committee of the Whole House

Forest (First Nations Development) Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 41)

Hon. M. de Jong

Reporting of Bills

Forest (First Nations Development) Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 41)

Third Reading of Bills

Forest (First Nations Development) Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 41)

Second Reading of Bills

Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 50)

Hon. S. Bond

J. Kwan

B. Locke

Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 51)

Hon. R. Coleman

J. Kwan

Committee of the Whole House

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

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Clark

Reporting of Bills

School Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 34)

Third Reading of Bills

School Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 34)

Committee of the Whole House

Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27)

(continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. Coell

J. Kwan

L. Mayencourt

[ Page 3377 ]

MONDAY, MAY 13, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L.

Reid: I have the enormous pleasure and privilege today to introduce

individuals representing the Salvation Army. We have commissioners Luttrell,

Bill and Gwen, CEOs for both Canada and Bermuda, and the Copples, who are based

in Vancouver. They're the CEOs for British Columbia South. They do amazing work

in our province and across this country, and it's a privilege to have the

opportunity to introduce them to this Legislature today. I would ask the House

to please make them extremely welcome.

Harris: Since I've been elected, in Victoria I've had the pleasure, as a lot

of members have, of meeting and working with a number of young people who work

down here in the Legislature. Today we're joined in the House by Lisa Oldham

from the east annex. Would the House make her feel welcome, please.

Nettleton: I'd like members to join me in welcoming, all the way from the

lovely community of Fort St. James, Mayor Jim Togyi and his wife Ellen Togyi, as

well as residents Walter and Del Dagenais.

J. Bray:

I have a couple of introductions. First, it's my pleasure to introduce to the

House Andrew Clark and Christine Harvey. Andrew and Christine maintain a

residence here in Victoria. They also pursue some business interests in

Sacramento, but they feel and know that Victoria is their true home. I ask that

the House please make them very welcome.

[1405]

I also

notice up in the gallery somebody from my riding who worked extremely hard on my

campaign and has become a wonderful friend. She also works here in the

Legislature. I would ask the House to please give an enthusiastic welcome to

Rosie Debretzy.

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: It's indeed a pleasure this afternoon to introduce Nick

Loenen, who was an MLA serving in the Legislature in the 1980s and early 1990s.

I know he's active as a writer and a teacher, a contributor in terms of voting

structure across Canada and in British Columbia. May the House make him welcome

this afternoon.

Hon. S.

Bond: I am very pleased today to welcome a special guest to the precinct,

Mr. Speaker. On your behalf, I want to welcome Dr. Martha Salcudean. Dr.

Salcudean is the professor emeritus and Weyerhaeuser chair at the University of

British Columbia, where she served as head of the department of mechanical

engineering and associate vice-president of research. She's an amazing person.

She is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, Canadian Academy of Engineering,

a recipient of the Isaac Walton Killam Memorial Prize in engineering and a

member of the Order of British Columbia. In addition, she has been awarded

honorary doctorates by the University of Ottawa and the University of British

Columbia. I'm very pleased to introduce Dr. Salcudean today because she has also

agreed to serve as the chair of the new Leading Edge Endowment Fund society. I

know she's going to do a fabulous job. Please help make her welcome to the

precinct today.

McMahon: It's a pleasure today to introduce Jeevan Atwal, an assistant

legislative assistant working with us in the east annex. I ask the House to

please make her welcome.

Stewart: I'm very pleased today to be able to recognize my very special

daughter, Vanessa, who is here today. She is writing a report for school. Would

the House please make Vanessa very welcome.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I, too, have an introduction today, although she actually isn't one

that needs to be introduced to the House, because she spends as much time down

here as I do. In the gallery today is my wife, Anneke. With her is one of my

daughters, Tanya, and one of my sons, Ryan. I would ask the House that you

encourage them with a robust round of applause.

Chong: Today I am pleased to welcome a grade 5 class from Glenlyon-Norfolk

School who are here having a tour of the Legislature. I will be meeting with

them shortly after question period, and I know they'll pose a number of

questions. They're here today with their teacher, Ms. Davidson, and I ask the

House to please make them very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. G.

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

intituled Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move that Bill 42 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Today I'm pleased to introduce Bill 42, the Labour Relations Code

Amendment Act, 2002.

[1410]

Bill 42

strengthens the existing purposes

section of the code to ensure that the Labour

Relations Board will base its decisions on the actual purposes of the

legislation. Fundamental to these purposes is the development of economically

viable businesses from which employment and the right to trade union

representation arises.

[ Page 3378 ]

It also

adds a clear recognition of the substantive rights and obligations of employers,

trade unions and employees. The bill clarifies the existing right to communicate

and balances that right with specific protection from intimidation or coercion.

These

changes provide a framework in British Columbia for workers who can choose union

representation and employers to build healthy enterprises that can compete on a

world scale in the twenty-first century.

In addition

to this bill, we will also be undertaking further consultation to find ways to

modernize labour relations in B.C., as many of the different and various labour

unions have asked me to do. We're encouraging employees and employers to develop

healthy workplace relationships that lead to good, sustainable jobs.

I move that

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

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 42

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.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. G.

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

intituled Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move that Bill 48 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 48, the Employment Standards Amendment

Act, 2002.

Modernizing

employment standards is an important part of our government's overall goal of

encouraging employees and employers to develop healthy workplace relationships

that lead to good, sustainable jobs. I am very pleased that this bill will help

us accomplish just that.

The changes

in this bill follow through on commitments made before the 2001 election in the New

Era document, in which we promised to give workers and employers greater

flexibility in employment standards to negotiate mutually beneficial

relationships that help them compete and prosper.

This bill

gives employees and employers the flexibility to create hours-of-work agreements

that suit their needs, guided by the model of the 40-hour work week.

increases protection for vulnerable workers through focused enforcement of

employment standards rules and stiffer penalties for employers who would break

the law.

It makes

employment standards easier to understand, so employees know their rights, and

employers properly apply the rules.

This bill

balances safeguards for working people while giving flexibility for employees

and employers to succeed in a competitive economy.

I move that

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

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 48

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.

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. G.

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

intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move that Bill 49 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 49, the Workers Compensation Amendment

Act, 2002.

This bill

amends the Workers Compensation Act to introduce a number of changes to workers

compensation benefits and establish a new board-of-directors structure for the

WCB.

[1415]

introduces a new method for calculating workers compensation benefits using 90

percent of average net earnings as the basis of these calculations.

The bill

provides for wage replacement benefits to be provided to age 65, at which point

a lump sum retirement benefit is paid to permanently injured workers. It alters

the method of calculating inflation adjustments to wage replacement benefits and

adjusts benefits in cases where an injured worker is also receiving a Canada

Pension Plan disability pension.

This bill

clarifies coverage for mental stress, explicitly stating that coverage will only

be provided for mental stress when it is an acute reaction to a sudden and

unexpected traumatic event or the result of an injury or disease for which the

worker is entitled to compensation. This bill establishes a new governance

structure for the Workers Compensation Board.

I move that

the Workers Compensation Amendment Act be read a first time now.

Bill 49

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) RECOGNITION OF WORK

OF POLICE OFFICERS

Hayer: It is with both pride and honour that I rise to address this House

— honour that I can recognize and congratulate police officers who have served

above and beyond the call of duty and pride, because

[ Page 3379 ]

many years ago, before I was elected MLA to represent Surrey-Tynehead, as the

president of the Surrey Chamber of Commerce, I initiated the program that is the

subject of this statement.

Wednesday

night, my Surrey MLA colleagues from Surrey-Cloverdale, Surrey–Green Timbers,

Surrey-Whalley and I, along with the Solicitor General, who was the featured

guest speaker, had the pleasure of attending the sixth annual Surrey Chamber of

Commerce Police Officer of the Year Awards. For six years Surrey Chamber, the

city of Surrey and certainly the many constituents of my riding of

Surrey-Tynehead have recognized these police officers who have served and have

given far beyond what is required.

The Surrey

RCMP officer who was nominated by the community at large as the police officer

of the year for 2002 is Constable Mike Wilson. I ask this House to congratulate

Constable Wilson's achievement by giving an extra-long round of applause at the

end of this statement.

Also, I

want to recognize Constable Mike Petrilli, who was named officer of the year by

his fellow officers, volunteers and the staff of Surrey RCMP detachment. There

is no form of praise greater than that of one's peers.

In closing,

Mr. Speaker, others recognized at the awards ceremony in my riding of

Surrey-Tynehead were Staff Sgt. Richard Deets, who received the community

policing initiative award; Langley Chrysler for the business partnership award;

Margaret Pattyson for the volunteer of the year award; and Janice Spraggs for

the employee of the year award. I would ask all members to join me in

congratulating these fine officers and citizens. Thank you.

VOLUNTEER MARINE

RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS

Sultan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you today about two organizations

that maintain British Columbia's proud tradition of volunteer life-saving on the

water. The first is the Canadian Lifeboat Institution, which operates two

44-foot lifeboats, Steveston and Deltaport . These heavy-duty twin

diesel, self-righting vessels can make 18 knots and survive heavy weather.

About 100

volunteers purchase, operate and maintain these rescue vessels at no cost to the

government. They are good insurance against a 747 landing short at the Vancouver

runway or a possible cruise ship fire. The Lifeboat Institution also deals with

other confusions of marine life. For example, member John Horton contributes his

former admiral's barge, Artist's Life . Last year he was asked by the

Coast Guard to check out a vessel showing up on their radar doing 360-degree

turns in Active Pass. He found an inexperienced boater, using a Petro-Canada

highway map, trying to find the exit in the fog.

[1420]

The second,

much larger organization locally is the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary. The

auxiliary is, again, self-supporting unpaid volunteers operating with

non-government funding, although the Coast Guard does pay for their fuel. The

auxiliary provides a maximum 30-minute dispatch time, something like a volunteer

fire brigade in smaller communities. They purchase, with their own money and

local contribution, rigid-hull inflatables which can be driven up to 50 knots by

twin outboards. These small, fast, shallow-draft vessels are based in Point

Roberts, Crescent Beach, Steveston, the north arm of the Fraser, Deep Cove,

Gibsons and Fishermans Cove in Port Moody, merely to cite those on the lower

mainland.

Our marine

environment is hostile. Fall overboard, and you have about 20 minutes before

hypothermia gets you. Each year the several hundred volunteers of the Coast

Guard Auxiliary and of Canadian Lifeboat rescue many mariners in distress. Those

of us who enjoy the water are deeply indebted to these unsung, unpaid, largely

unrecognized volunteers, and they deserve our thanks.

EDUCATION SYSTEM ADVOCATES

Stewart: I stand today to recognize those people who support and advocate

for our school system. Of course, that doesn't narrow it down much, since there

are many groups that support and advocate for education. There are parents, who

in a very real way have a stake in what happens in our schools. There are

students, who more and more are hoping to have a voice in the type of education

they receive. There are school trustees entrusted by taxpayers in each community

with the responsibility to run our school system. There is society in general,

for whom the education system holds the economic and social future of its

citizens.

There

certainly are the professional teachers. The teaching profession is the

cornerstone of the school system, and professional teachers should be valued and

respected for the enormous responsibility they hold and for the professionalism

with which they tackle their responsibilities. Each of us, I suspect, has fond

memories of a special teacher — a teacher who went out of his or her way to

reach a child, to instil both knowledge and wisdom, to develop the natural

thirst for knowledge in his or her students.

I know of

teachers who arrive at 7:30 a.m. or who are still at the school in the evenings,

teachers who have spent weekends away from home at sports tournaments or band

concerts or other field trips, teachers who stay up until midnight marking exams

or writing reports or planning the next day's lessons, teachers who recognize

that parental involvement has an enormous influence on a student's success,

teachers who welcome parents into the classroom and into school life. In fact,

I'm married to one such teacher.

Teachers

are important, but teachers tell me how important parents are too. I believe

it's entirely appropriate that we have given parents a stronger voice in our

school system, and I believe that professional

[ Page 3380 ]

teachers would concur. The role of parents is to raise their children and to

advocate for their children. It is very important that we listen to these voices

and pay heed to the wisdom behind them. Therefore, I salute the professional

teachers and the parents of our school system, with the hope that they will

continue to work together for our students.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

FOR PERSONS WITH SCHIZOPHRENIA

MacPhail: The week before last we asked the Minister of State for Mental

Health about the funding cut to the North Shore schizophrenia society. The

minister was very clear. He told the House that the Vancouver coastal health

authority had been put on notice and that cuts like this will not be tolerated.

He said it would not be tolerated. It's been almost two weeks. The North Shore

schizophrenia society still doesn't have its funding.

To the

Minister of State for Mental Health: when is he going to keep his promise to

mental health patients on the North Shore and order the health authority to

reinstate funding to the North Shore schizophrenia society?

Hon. G.

Cheema: During last week's question period I made it very clear that we have

given clear guidelines and that those guidelines must be met. Those expectations

are very important for mental health patients, and we expect that they will be

met. In the meantime, I have been in touch with the health authorities, and I'm

waiting for a positive reply.

Our main

focus is patients and their families. Mental health, which has been ignored in

the past, will not be ignored. This member knows better than that.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a supplementary question.

[1425]

MacPhail: Gosh, I wonder what kind of advocate that is when a phone call

still isn't delivering, and in fact, the cuts are getting worse. Patients are

actually wondering why they're still seeing their services disappear.

It's not

only the North Shore schizophrenia society that has been cut. The schizophrenia

society in Sechelt has lost funding for its eight-hour-a-week staff position as

well as funding for its respite worker.

How does

the Minister of State for Mental Health feel about these cuts? Does he need to

make another phone call? Does he think that they should be tolerated? If not,

when is he going to stop just begging the coastal health authority to change its

mind? Why doesn't he order the health authority to backtrack, reverse the cuts

and fund the schizophrenia societies?

Hon. G.

Cheema: During the campaign we made a commitment to fully fund and implement

the mental health plan. Not only are we funding a $125 million mental health

plan, but we are also funding an additional $138 million.

We don't

need to have a lecture from the NDP. Let me just read from one article. This is

from a Vancouver Sun

article of April 1, 2000. The headline was

"Mental Health Policy: Another Bogus NDP Policy." "The

announcement in the provincial capital two years ago was a classic example of

the NDP party's style of policy-making: big, brassy and ultimately bogus."

The member opposite was Minister of Health. She admitted that they were not

doing enough.

We made a

commitment, and we are fulfilling that promise. In one year we have done more

than the NDP government did in the last ten years.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: Gosh, let's see how that works. The programs for the mentally ill

and their families that have been in place for years are being cut, and this

Minister of State for Mental Health stands up and somehow thinks he's an

advocate?

Not only

has his government cut funding to the schizophrenia society in Sechelt, but

they've also chopped the number of mental health outreach workers in the

community in half. Those outreach workers are a critical part of providing care

to patients and families that are suffering from mental illness. They provide

support, education and advice to families and patients who are in crisis,

helping them navigate through a very difficult health time.

Let's see.

These programs have been in place and fully funded for years; now they're being

cut. Again, the minister said he wouldn't tolerate cuts to mental health

programs. Was that just more spin from the minister, or could he actually stand

up and say: "I meant what I said"?

Hon. G.

Cheema: If this member thinks that spending $125 million is a cut for Mental

Health, then she's wrong. If this member thinks that spending $1.1 billion more

on health care this year is a cut, then this member is wrong. We are spending…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Cheema: …close to $10.3 billion for health care in this province, and

Mental Health is getting a fair share of the funding. We are investing in health

care which will have a long-term impact on mental health in this province.

We wish

they had done that. She's fearful because we'll be successful. She's not fearful

because patients will suffer.

[ Page 3381 ]

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

FOR SUNSHINE COAST

J. Kwan:

All the minister has to do is ensure that the funding is in place for these

programs. It seems this government is intentionally trying to make life

miserable for mental health patients on the Sunshine Coast.

The

Minister of State for Mental Health has also eliminated funding for the

Arrowhead drop-in centre for mental health patients in Sechelt. It's going to

have to close its doors at the end of June. The Arrowhead mental health drop-in

centre provides an invaluable service to the community. It provides meals and

activities, it coordinates a larger volunteer program, it operates a greenhouse,

and it employs an advocate. Mental health patients in Sechelt are devastated by

the closure of their drop-in centre. They don't know where to turn now that

their $51,000 grant has been eliminated by this government.

[1430]

Again, to

the Minister of State for Mental Health: would the minister like to explain to

the patients why they have to tolerate the closure of their centre when the

minister promised them that he wouldn't?

Hon. G.

Cheema: Mr. Speaker, during that campaign a promise was made. A promise was

made to fully fund and implement the mental health plan. We have done that. We

are not only spending $125 million extra; we will be spending $138 million

extra. What has to be done…. This member must understand that we have given

them clear guidelines, and those guidelines must be met. We should not be

micromanaging the health care system. This is important for patients and their

families, and all the advocacy groups in this province are working with us,

unlike the NDP. They were not working with them.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

Let's just recap. The Minister of State for Mental Health told mental health

patients and their families that he won't tolerate cuts to mental health

services, but in the community of Sechelt mental health services are being wiped

out. They've lost their outreach workers. They've lost their respite worker.

They've lost their part-time outreach coordinator. Now they've lost their mental

health drop-in centre. That's just in Sechelt. These are the cuts that are being

replicated throughout the province.

Either the

minister wasn't being truthful when he said that cuts won't be tolerated, or

someone is disobeying his orders. To the minister: will he today get out his pen

and paper and write a letter to the Vancouver health authority ordering them to

follow up his directive and reinstate funding for all of these mental health

services in Sechelt? If it would help, I have already drafted a letter for the

minister. All he has to do is sign it.

MacPhail: Hear, hear. Just sign the letter.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Cheema: Any development for the mental health policy in this province must

be done in consultation with the health care providers, advocacy groups, the

families and the patients. For the last ten months I have met with many groups,

and the policies are being developed in consultation with all of them. The main

objective is to serve the patients and their families. The health authorities

are working with us, and we are ensuring that they will meet those standards.

For the first time in any part of this country we have certain goals, and those

objectives must be met. They will only improve the patients and their health in

this province.

CITIZENS' ASSEMBLY

ON ELECTORAL REFORM

J. Bray:

My question is to the Attorney General. Today the three-year vote campaign

has been launched to push for the implementation of a proportional

representation system to elect MLAs. This is an issue of great interest in my

constituency. In the New Era document the government committed to

appointing a citizens' assembly on electoral reform to assess all possible

models for electing MLAs. Could the Attorney General tell us when this

commitment will be fulfilled?

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, yes. Prior to the last election we recognized that there was

growing public interest in the subject of electoral reform, and we said that if

elected, we would create a citizens' assembly that would consider proposals for

electoral reform. We intend to keep that commitment. It was a commitment made in

the New Era document, and we are certainly beginning the work to

implement that citizen's assembly. I look forward to completing that work in the

months ahead.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill has a supplementary question.

J. Bray:

Well, a number of forums have been held throughout the province advocating

the need for a move towards proportional representation, and I attended a large

one here in Victoria. Could the Attorney General tell us whether the government

supports proportional representation?

[1435]

Hon. G.

Plant: There are many ideas for electoral reform. Proportional

representation is one of them. Of course, there is also the possibility that a

group of citizens examining all the alternatives might determine that our

system, the current system, for all of its features and sometimes its flaws, is

the best.

We as a

government believe that the best way to advance the discussion of electoral

reform is to ask a group of citizens to consider it, and we will not have a

[ Page 3382 ]

position on proportional representation or any other model. That is exactly

why we have decided that we should have a citizens' assembly: to ask a group of

citizens those very important questions. We intend to keep that promise.

DEATH OF FRANK JOSEPH PAUL

Bhullar: My question is to the Solicitor General. Over the past weeks I've

had numerous correspondence with internal affairs of the Vancouver police

department and the police complaint commissioner concerning the death of Frank

Joseph Paul, a homeless person. This correspondence indicates that the

Solicitor's office was satisfied that there was no serious wrongdoing in this

matter, and the file was closed. Would the Solicitor General please tell the

House the precise nature of the review by his office in this matter?

Hon. R.

Coleman: First of all, I don't comment on an independent office of the

Legislature in any investigation it may be conducting, but I will clarify for

the member that we did have a request from the commissioner with regards to a

coroner's inquest. We advised that a coroner's inquest was not warranted in this

case. In the Paul case a coroner's inquiry was held, and the coroner's file was

closed. A report with recommendations was published.

After a

file has been closed, a formal coroner's inquest can be ordered only if (

a) the

coroner neglects to hold an inquest or (

b) an inquest has been held, and it's in

the interests of justice to hold another inquest. In my opinion, neither of

these conditions applies.

A coroner's

inquest is not the forum to assign blame for deaths or to conduct

cross-examination of witnesses. In fact, the Coroners Act prohibits findings of

fault or blame. The coroner is there to determine whether a death is natural

and, if not, give recommendations to help prevent future deaths. The coroner

performed his duty by identifying Mr. Paul, the approximate time, date and place

of his death and the cause of death. Four recommendations were made to the

Vancouver city police. It is our expectation that they be acted upon. I

understand that they have been, to help prevent any future or similar deaths in

the future.

GRIZZLY BEAR PROTECTION

J. Kwan:

The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection constantly defends her

scientifically based approach to environmental management, but when it comes to

grizzly bears, it's shoot first because the science doesn't matter. Just today

her ministry has issued a press release extending the grizzly bear hunt on

Vancouver Island throughout this fall.

Mr.

Speaker, there are no grizzly bears on Vancouver Island, nor have there ever

been any. This has been confirmed by the minister's own website. Just how much

faith can British Columbians have in the judgment of a minister tasked with

protecting grizzlies and their habitats when she doesn't even know where they

are?

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Murray: The NDP imposed a blanket moratorium on grizzly bear hunting

contrary to the advice of the wildlife biologists and scientists in the

ministry. When we were elected, we listened to the scientists in the ministry,

and we lifted the blanket moratorium, because we are committed to make these

decisions based on science, not based on politics.

[End

of question period.]

J. Kwan:

I seek leave to table documents.

Leave

granted.

Tabling Documents

J. Kwan:

I rise to table two documents. The first one is a draft letter that I've

prepared for the signature of the Minister of State for Mental Health to direct

the Vancouver coastal health authority to not make any cuts in the area of

mental health.

The second

document is a map arising out of the Minister for Water, Land and Air

Protection's website, and it highlights where the bears inhabit British

Columbia. It shows that, in fact, there have never been bears inhabiting

Vancouver Island.

[1440]

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, just for the benefit of members, you can ask leave to

table a document, but you cannot read from the document.

Hon.

G. Plant: Pursuant to

section 32.1(11) of the Provincial Court Act, I wish

to table before the Legislative Assembly the 2002 Judicial Justice Compensation

Committee report and commend to all members the provisions of

section 32.1 and

the procedure established therein.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I wish to table a report from the B.C. Assessment Authority on the

financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2000.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I have the honour to table the 2000-01 annual report of the First

Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins : I call committee stage of Bill 39.

Committee of the Whole House

PROTECTED AREAS FORESTS

COMPENSATION ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 39; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

[ Page 3383 ]

The

committee met at 2:43 p.m.

Sections 1

to 10 inclusive approved.

Schedule

approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I wonder if we might go to

section 7 of the bill, Mr. Chairman.

On

section

Hon. M.

de Jong: I have an amendment that I'll table with the Chair.

[SECTION 7(1), by deleting the proposed paragraph (

b) and

substituting the following:(

b) an annual cut reduction affecting the

licence, to the extent that it was or is attributable to the establishment

of a protected area.]

The

Chair: I'll just call for this again.

Sections 1

to 6 inclusive approved.

Amendment

approved.

Section 7

as amended approved.

Sections 8

to 10 inclusive approved.

Schedule

approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:44 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1445]

Reporting of Bills

Bill 39,

Protected Areas Forests Compensation Act, reported complete with amendment.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M.

de Jong: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave

granted.

Bill 39,

Protected Areas Forests Compensation Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I call committee to consider Bill 40.

Committee of the Whole House

FORESTS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 40; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:46 p.m.

Sections 1

to 17 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:47 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 40,

Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read

a third time and passed.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I call the committee to consider Bill 41.

Committee of the Whole House

FOREST (FIRST NATIONS DEVELOPMENT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 41; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:48 p.m.

Sections 1

to 5 inclusive approved.

On

section

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move the amendment on

section 6 presented to the Table.

[SECTION 6, by renumbering the proposed subsection (2) as

subsection (1.2).]

Amendment

approved.

Section 6

as amended approved.

Sections 7

to 11 inclusive approved.

[ Page 3384 ]

Title

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:49 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 41,

Forest (First Nations Development) Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete with

amendment.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M.

de Jong: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave

granted.

Bill 41,

Forest (First Nations Development) Amendment Act, 2002, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 50.

[1450]

Second Reading of Bills

ADVANCED EDUCATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. S.

Bond: I move that Bill 50, Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2002,

be now read a second time.

This bill

amends the Engineers and Geoscientists Act and the Technical University of

British Columbia Act. I would like to speak to the amendments. First, the

Engineers and Geoscientists Act. These amendments will authorize the Association

of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C. to make bylaws requiring

that members of the association carry primary and secondary liability insurance.

addition, the amendments will authorize the association to establish insurance

fees and other fees either by bylaw or under the authority of a bylaw. These

amendments will allow the association to participate in a national

secondary-liability insurance program established by the Canadian Council of

Professional Engineers. The amendments will also enable the association to make

bylaws establishing the circumstances under which its members are required to

hold primary liability insurance.

Additionally,

the amendments will authorize the association to establish insurance fees either

by bylaw or under the authority of a bylaw. This will provide the association

with the flexibility to adjust fees in response to changes in the insurance

market. For consistency, the amendments will also authorize council to establish

other fees either by bylaw or under the authority of a bylaw.

authorizing the association to require members to maintain insurance, this

legislation will help to improve liability coverage for engineers and

geoscientists in the province and increase consumer protection.

I would

also like to comment on the amendments to the Technical University of British

Columbia Act. This bill will amend the Technical University of British Columbia

Act so that the government can appoint a transition administrator to wind up the

Technical University of British Columbia. The amendments will also provide for

transfer of the university's assets and liabilities and for repeal of the

Technical University of British Columbia Act.

Continued

operation of the Technical University of British Columbia in its current form is

simply not feasible. Since it was established in 1997, the Technical University

of British Columbia has consistently failed to meet its original mandate in

terms of enrolment, operating costs, funding and industry partnerships.

Government has increased funding for the Technical University of British

Columbia several times and has repeatedly adjusted enrolment targets downward.

Government

has worked with the Technical University of British Columbia to try to find a

solution to keep the university going in its present form. However, we have not

been able to find a solution that assures certainty for students and is fiscally

responsible.

We want to

ensure a smooth transition for all stakeholders, and this legislation will help

to ensure that happens. In particular, student needs have been this government's

top priority in making decisions around the future of the Technical University

of British Columbia. In winding up the Technical University, this commitment

will continue. The amendments to the Technical University of British Columbia

Act will allow for a transition administrator to oversee the winding up of the

university and to transfer the rights, property and assets of the university.

I'm very

pleased to say that the Technical University of British Columbia's assets will

be transferred to Simon Fraser University, which has agreed to accommodate

existing Technical University of British Columbia students and to continue the

same range of program offerings as the Technical University of British Columbia.

Simon Fraser University will also be accommodating as many Technical University

of British Columbia faculty and staff as possible.

Simon

Fraser University has agreed to maintain a presence in Surrey and has also

committed to expanding enrolment in Surrey. This will benefit students,

faculty and staff of the Technical University of British Columbia. The city of

Surrey and Surrey residents will also benefit from having a satellite campus of

a major university located in the city.

Government

has also taken steps to ensure that current Technical University of British

Columbia students do not face any disruption to their education

[ Page 3385 ]

during the transition period. Current students will be able to complete their

year at the university and will be offered the possibility of earning a degree

from Simon Fraser University.

Not only is

the Simon Fraser University proposal good for students, it is also fiscally

responsible. In fact, the Simon Fraser University proposal will cost $22.4

million less over three years than the continued operation of the Technical

University of British Columbia under its most recent business plan.

[1455]

This

legislation demonstrates the government's ongoing commitment to ensuring that

British Columbia has a top-notch advanced education system with sound financial

management. It will ensure that the needs of students are met and that public

post-secondary education in this province is delivered in a fiscally responsible

manner that benefits all British Columbians.

J. Kwan:

Bill 50 marks a substantive setback to education in this province, as the

majority of the provisions in this bill have the purpose of eliminating the

Technical University of British Columbia.

Tech B.C.

is an innovative and dynamic organization that delivers high-quality high-tech

training to the people of British Columbia. Tech B.C. is the only

university-industry hybrid in Canada. At Tech B.C. learning takes place in the

classroom, the real world and the virtual world, giving students the right mix

of theory, hands-on practice and workplace skills in a high-tech environment.

Research happens in interdisciplinary teams, addressing such areas as design

management, on-line learning systems, human-computer interfaces and computer

games systems.

Tech B.C.

is an initiative that should be supported and encouraged, yet this government

has chosen to hinder this innovative organization by eliminating the governing

board of the university and making Tech B.C. a satellite campus of Simon Fraser

University.

The New

Era document outlines the goals this government has for advanced education

in British Columbia. Among the many goals listed in the document are:

"Double the number of graduates in computer science and electrical and

computer engineering within five years," and "Strengthen our network

of colleges, institutes and on-line learning throughout the province."

That's a direct quote from the New Era document. While the government

expresses these sentiments in the New Era document, the government's

policies towards Tech B.C. hinder the realization of these two goals. Tech B.C.

provided an innovative model for assisting and furthering these two goals.

Eliminating Tech B.C. is a serious setback to these goals.

In a press

release issued by the government on February 7, 2002, the minister stated the

plan to make Tech B.C. a satellite of SFU: "It's a solution that meets the

needs of students and provides certainty." In my estimation, a great deal

of uncertainty remains for students interested in studying technology in this

province.

One issue

of concern is the lack of support that this government has provided to the

institutions that provide on-line and other alternative learning methods. Tech

B.C. is a leader in this field. Tom Calvert, the vice-president of research and

external affairs for Tech B.C., is the co-creator of Virtual U software, a

well-respected telelearning program. According to Mr. Calvert: "Our goal at

Tech B.C. is to use telelearning to the greatest extent that's sensible, and

this is partly because we think you can do good teaching but also to increase

access." That was from the Vancouver Sun , November 12, 1998.

Tech B.C.

is a centre that attracts faculty and students who are leaders in the field of

on-line learning because it is the only university of its kind in the country.

Amalgamating Tech B.C. with SFU, I believe, will diminish the capacity of this

program to attract the best and the brightest in on-line learning innovation,

because Tech B.C.'s unique university model will be lost when Tech B.C.

integrates into the existing SFU structure.

[1500]

The

uncertainty regarding this government's commitment to distance learning is also

evident in the government's approach to the Open Learning Agency. The Open

Learning Agency has also played a significant role in advanced education in this

province; 22,000 people take Open Learning Agency courses each year. The Open

Learning Agency has provided the people of this province with a way to access

advanced educational training through distance education. The minister fired the

board in February of 2002 and has still not yet announced what will become of

the agency and its students. Clearly, innovation in non-traditional learning

methods is not a priority for this government.

Another

source of uncertainty regarding the situation of Tech B.C. relates to the

location. Tech B.C. is currently located in Surrey, the fastest-growing

community in our province. This government has repeatedly criticized the

building where Tech B.C. is currently located for being too expensive and being

too impractical.

I think

Surrey is a good location for Tech B.C., and this government's criticism of the

physical structure of the building should not interfere with the vision of the

project. I am concerned about the location of Tech B.C. and its change and

potential change, which may be jeopardized as a result of its amalgamation with

SFU. Tech B.C. has had an annual budget of $23 million, and it is estimated that

the university pumps $150 million into the local economy each year. This was

derived from the Tech B.C. general information. In my estimation, Tech B.C. is

based upon a sound vision, and the issues surrounding the building it's located

in do not discredit the importance of this vision.

I recall

that when I was on the Education Committee, there were individuals who came

forward and spoke on the Tech B.C. issue. They tried to advocate that the

government keep Tech B.C., keep its location, understand its uniqueness and the

innovation within it, understand that it's not only a learning environment but

also the leading edge of the wedge of technologies in British Columbia.

[ Page 3386 ]

I remember

this committee, actually, because when the matter was brought up, the Chair of

the committee tried to tell the individuals who came to make those submissions

to take their concerns elsewhere, not to this committee. In spite of that,

people came forward and made their submissions in any event, and we listened to

those submissions.

Although

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is not where the Tech B.C. site is located — it is

located in Surrey — I as an MLA have received correspondence from British

Columbians urging the government and urging me as the opposition to raise the

issue with government around the importance of Tech B.C. and its innovation,

urging the government to keep Tech B.C. intact.

So far we

have seen a half-earnest, half-hearted approach to Tech B.C. from the government

in the amalgamation of Tech B.C. with SFU. Much of its future is still

uncertain, particularly in relation to its location.

There is

also the other issue. It's been surfacing particularly in the newspapers over

the last couple of weeks, although we've known about this challenge for some

time now. In the years to come there will be a lack of people who are trained in

various different fields to come forward into the skilled labour environment.

There are grave concerns in this area.

So far we

have not seen any plans whatsoever from this Minister of Advanced Education in

terms of preparing British Columbia for the future, in terms of making sure

there are people who are trained in the various different trades to make sure

the employment needs are going to be met in the future, to make sure the

technical needs will be met in the future, to make sure the trades needs will be

met in the future. We have yet to see a plan from this government, from this

minister, on this issue.

What we

have seen so far, though, is elimination of the tuition fee freeze that allowed

individuals throughout British Columbia to get access to post-secondary

education, particularly those who are faced with socioeconomic barriers and

challenges. What we've seen, quite frankly, is this government attacking

students on that front, making it more and more difficult for students to access

post-secondary education.

[1505]

I wonder

where the Surrey MLAs are and whether or not they'll actually rise up in this

House to speak on behalf of their own constituents, to speak on behalf of Tech

B.C. and to advocate for the protection of Tech B.C. from the chopping block of

this government. So far we haven't heard any Liberal MLAs come up and raise this

issue. They have been particularly silent, like on so many issues. Tech B.C. is

another one of those that the Liberal MLAs are being silent on, and there is no

exception to that.

If you look

at the bill, there is one area of grave concern, and that is the issue in

relation to the demise of Tech B.C. and its ultimate future. As we know, not

only does it provide an educational opportunity for students and innovation for

the people who teach at the university, it is also an economic generator for

Surrey. The community would have spinoff in terms of economic activities that

Tech B.C. would bring to it. The certainty of that location is now being

questioned and is unanswered, as of yet, by this government. The ramification

for Surrey, one of the fastest-growing communities in the lower mainland, is

that it's going to have to grapple with the fallout of the government's

decision. This bill deals with the attack on Tech B.C.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

One of the members raises the issue about the past government's decision around

Tech B.C. The past government actually recognized the innovation around Tech

B.C. and the value of Tech B.C. to British Columbians and understood that it

provided tremendous opportunities in the area of technology in this field, both

for students and for the people who work in that space. Tech B.C. became a

vision from that perspective. Now all of that is being undermined, and there is

a potential that this government will simply do away with Tech B.C. in its

current location. That would, I think, undermine the progress Tech B.C. was

intended to do. It would undermine the future for British Columbia in terms of

training people in the various different trades and technologies in preparation

for the shortages of these skilled individuals in the future.

This is the

major

section of the bill that I wish to speak to. I just want to recognize the

role of Tech B.C. and its importance and urge the government to keep its current

location in Surrey so that it would benefit not only the students and those who

are involved with the institution but also Surrey as a whole.

Locke: I want to thank the Minister of Advanced Education for her vision and

this government for making the SFU campus in Surrey a reality. I want to tell

you that the people of Surrey are excited. They support the concept of SFU in

Surrey in place of Tech B.C. We have support from the mayor and council, from

the chamber of commerce and, most importantly, from the students. It was only

that vision which saved that school and saved those students. I want to tell

you, the fallout that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant…. It was a

fallout indeed. It was a fallout from an unsustainable, ill-conceived plan —

no business plan, in fact — that put students, teachers, faculty and workers

in jeopardy. It was just an appalling display of management.

I am just

thrilled to support this bill. I am pleased with the direction the minister has

gone in recognizing Surrey and the needs of the South Fraser. I want to applaud

the bill, and I look forward to supporting it.

Mr.

Speaker: Second reading of Bill 50. The Minister of Advanced Education

closes debate.

[ Page 3387 ]

Hon. S.

Bond: I want to suggest that the reason we require this piece of legislation

is because the previous government decided that in order to protect the needs of

students, they needed to attach it to a piece of real estate that was too

expensive and unsustainable. We simply decided we wanted to keep what was best

and most important about Tech B.C.

[1510]

I want to

suggest that when we involved Simon Fraser University, they said to us that they

wanted to look at trying to maintain an innovative program, trying to keep as

many staff members as possible and, most importantly, ensuring that the students

who began at Tech B.C., whose future was in jeopardy because of the fiscal

mismanagement around this project…. They said: "We want to make sure

those students don't lose their opportunities, and we're going to even try to

provide them with a degree." We think that makes great sense and is really

good news for the city of Surrey and the people who live there.

The

fabulous news, the great news, is that….

Interjection.

Hon. S.

Bond: Yes. In fact, you know what? The member opposite asked the question:

where were the Surrey MLAs? I want to tell you where the Surrey MLAs were.

The Surrey

MLAs were working hard to make sure this government paid attention to the

students who attended Tech B.C. and make sure that we were held accountable for

ensuring a presence in Surrey. They worked very hard. They did an excellent job,

and I'm pleased to see that two of them are in the House today as we bring this

bill forward.

Let's talk

about our commitment to double the number of graduates. The fantastic news is

that we will double the number of graduates. In fact, some of the students at

the campus at Surrey will contribute to doubling the number of graduates as we

said we will.

addition, we're working on an on-line strategy for the first time in this

province, where we're going to look at expanding access to students who live in

every corner of this province. We're looking at not only a comprehensive

strategy but one that's innovative and exciting.

We want to

reiterate the fact that Simon Fraser University has agreed to look at a presence

in Surrey. They have said they're going to keep what's best about Tech B.C.

We're excited about that. We believe we want to maintain as many of the staff as

possible there. Simon Fraser University has said we're going to look not only at

those programs but at the possibility of expanding the kinds of opportunities

and access for students. We think that's a great news story, and this piece of

legislation is the technical piece that we need to take care of. But you know

what? The vision is expressed by Simon Fraser University working with the city

of Surrey, working with the MLAs in that area, to provide even more

opportunities for students in that region of the province.

On a final

note, I do want to just make a comment on the reference: "We haven't seen a

plan for skills and trades training in this province." I'm interested to be

able to point out that the reason we haven't seen a plan is because we don't

believe the way to create great plans is to sit in an office in Victoria and

cook them up. As a matter of fact, we're working right now with industry across

this province. I met and spoke to the B.C. Business Council on Friday and issued

a challenge to industry to say: together we need to figure out how best to

deliver the trades and training that are necessary in this province. They're

going to step up to the plate and work with us, and we think that's a far better

solution than government one-size-fits-all solutions.

With that I

would move second reading.

Mr.

Speaker: The question is second reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Bond: 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 50,

Advanced Education 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.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I call second reading of Bill 51.

PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. R.

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

The Public

Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, amends sections of

the Crime Victim Assistance Act, the Criminal Records Review Act and the Motion

Picture Act. These changes will clarify new benefits for victims of crime,

protect B.C.'s criminal-record check program and streamline how films are

classified.

The Crime

Victim Assistance Act will replace the Criminal Injury Compensation Act this

summer, transferring this program from the Workers Compensation Board to the

Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. The new crime victim assistance

program will have a faster, less onerous application process and give crime

victims benefits like medical and dental care, rehabilitation, income support,

counselling, home security and relocation expenses.

Today's

amendments will clarify the benefits for victims, families and witnesses and how

those benefits will be provided. Changes will also ensure that victims receive

benefits under this act as long as they are not eligible for the same benefits

from another source, such as an employee health benefit plan. We want to

eliminate the potential for double benefits

[ Page 3388 ]

without preventing victims from receiving benefits to which they are

rightfully entitled.

Changes

will also give the crime victim assistance program authority to obtain

documents, evidence and sworn testimony in order to adjudicate a claim. They

will also clarify how claims and appeals in process under the Criminal Injury

Compensation Act will be handled when the new program comes into force.

[1515]

The Public

Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 also changes the

Criminal Records Review Act. This statute helps protect children from physical

and sexual abuse by requiring everyone who works with children or who has

unsupervised access to children through their work and is employed, licensed or

funded by the government to undergo a criminal-record check.

The program

conducts about 60,000 checks per year for positions such as teachers, doctors,

nurses, physical massage therapists, licensed child care providers and school

and hospital staff. If no relevant offence is found, the employer is notified in

writing that the employee is cleared to work with children. The act lists 56

offences that are considered relevant for potential to harm children.

Confirmation

of a current charge or provision or a previous conviction for a relevant offence

triggers an adjudication to determine if a person poses a risk to children.

Currently, if an adjudicator determines someone poses a risk, the individual has

14 days to provide the registrar with written notice of their intent to appeal.

An appeal panel considers the adjudicator's decision and can either confirm or

overturn it.

Since 1996

there have been about 2,800 adjudications, 25 of which resulted in findings of

risk. The Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General has appointed three

adjudicators to make these determinations. Today's amendments will eliminate the

adjudicator position and refer people with a relevant criminal record to the

deputy registrar, who will determine whether they present a risk to children.

The deputy registrar will apply the same criteria and guidelines used by the

current adjudicators.

As the vast

majority of cases are straightforward, this change will allow decisions to be

made in an informal, timely, fair and impartial way. Complex files may require

external specialization consultation. Currently, the adjudicator's decision can

be appealed through an appeal panel. Since 1996 there have been only nine

appeals. The most recent was in 1998.

Today's

amendments will change the appeals process. Reviews of the determination of risk

made by the deputy registrar will be referred to the registrar. People will have

30 days to request a review. The number of appeals is expected to continue to be

minimal, and judicial review will still be available to anyone wishing to

dispute a determination of risk.

A final

amendment to the Criminal Records Review Act will introduce cost recoveries to

the program. This is consistent with other cost recovery practices in government

and cost recovery fees charged for criminal-record checks done through police

for private sector employees and community volunteers.

I believe

employers, parents and the community want the reassurance of a criminal-record

check for those who work with children. Checks are a complement to other

employment screening and supervisory methods so that children can live and grow

without fear of harm from those who are entrusted with their care. The changes

to the act will help to make sure the program is sustainable for the future.

The final

set of amendments made by this bill is to the Motion Picture Act. The Motion

Picture Act authorizes the activities of the B.C. film classification office,

which classifies films, videos and new media and oversees licensing and

compliance of retailers and distributors. The amendments will allow the office

to adopt a rating for a motion picture already given by another provincial or

industry classification organization. This will enable us to eliminate

duplication and lessen repetitive submissions by film distributors.

The

director of the film classification office will be given the authority to

delegate duties, functions and decisions about licensing, classification and

enforcement. The film classification office makes thousands of classifications,

licensing and enforcement decisions each year, but fewer than ten are appealed.

The amendments will eliminate the Motion Picture Appeal Board, which reviews

film classification decisions. The amendments include a new decision-making

process that gives the director of the film classification office the power to

reconsider decisions regarding licensing, classification and enforcement. If

there is still a dispute about the decision, a judicial review will continue to

be available.

[1520]

J. Kwan:

This bill incorporates a number of different areas, one of which is the

Crime Victim Assistance Act. I know in the act that it would no longer require

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to consult with the privacy commissioner

before enacting regulations related to information-sharing agreements. The

opposition will be canvassing this area during third reading with respect to

privacy issues and whether or not the privacy commissioner has commented on this

bill and what his thoughts are around that in terms of privacy protection.

The other

area which this bill canvasses is around the Criminal Records Review Act. This

is a change particularly in relation to criminal-record checks, which will no

longer be paid for by the ministry. The person requesting the criminal-record

check will now pay for it. The government currently pays, as I understand, $1.2

million on the criminal-record check program. Record checks are required for

anyone who will be working in the child care support program area. This, of

course, includes child care providers.

The press

release announcing this bill states: "The fee will be set by regulation and

will be in line with the fees currently charged by police departments." In

[ Page 3389 ]

Victoria a criminal-record check will cost that child care provider $50. It

is not uncommon for a child care provider to apply for a criminal-record check

numerous times, as the criminal-record check is not child care

provider–specific but rather facility-specific. This means that if a child

care provider is working part-time at one facility and applies to another

facility to work a couple of extra days a week, he or she would need to apply

again for a criminal-record check, meaning that another $50 will be taken out of

their pocket. Requiring the person applying for a criminal-record check to

shoulder the costs will create, I believe, added financial responsibilities for

the person who provides a very necessary profession. Child care providers are

not highly paid. They're generally paid approximately $10 to $15 an hour.

The child

care sector has been hard-hit by many of the cuts being implemented by this

government. Particularly, the previous government had brought forward a

universal child care program, and this government, under the Liberal

government's leadership, will no longer be proceeding with a universal child

care program.

The cost

recovery fee, I believe, will further hurt those engaged in one of the most

valuable professions, and that is, of course, caring for children. Given that

the cost is not just a one-time cost on a check on the profession — that is,

child care provider–specific — but rather that it is facility-specific,

every time you went to work with a different facility, a criminal-record check

would be done, and you would have to pay for the cost of that.

That, it

seems to me, goes contrary to the government's notion of cutting red tape. One

would have thought the government would have brought forward a criminal-record

check on a profession-specific basis — that is to say, if you're a child care

worker, you've been cleared by that criminal-record check to be a child care

worker. You would be able to utilize that for different facilities.

That is not

the case here. This is a facility-specific piece of legislation that asks for

the person to pay for a record check every time they go to work at a different

facility. That, in my mind, is not only a burden for the individual, but it is

also a burden on red tape in terms of the amount of record checks that the

person needs to go through, and it goes contrary to the government's purported

agenda of cutting red tape.

During

committee stage the opposition will particularly be canvassing this area and our

concerns around this area, and we'll have more to say by way of questions to the

government on this matter.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I look forward to those discussions in committee, and I think we

can actually deal with most of the member's concerns relative to this particular

piece of legislation. I've heard the Victoria argument already, but we, in

regulation, can set the fees from a government standpoint relative to our

criminal-record checks. There are some concerns in and around that, which the

member mentioned just briefly. I'm sure we can deal with it, again, in

committee. Relative to whether it be site-specific or not, one of the concerns

as we went through this debate was identifying the concern we had with people

that were actually changing their names in the province and running from

criminal-record checks, in a loophole that we closed there — that we would

actually not have somebody transitioning from one facility to another in the

midst of criminal activity and not having to be actually reidentified, whether

they had at some point during the period of time from one facility to another,

been involved in some activity involving children that was illegal. That we will

discuss in committee.

[1525]

I believe

that it's important that employers and employees in the public sector, where

they are funded by government, recognize that they have the same responsibility

as people in the private sector relative to criminal-record checks for their

employees. I think that's the reason we want to go to cost recovery so that we

can make this a sustainable system.

I look

forward to committee stage, and I'm sure we can deal with the member's issues.

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: 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 51,

Public Safety and Solicitor General 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.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I call committee stage of Bill 34.

Committee of the Whole House

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

(continued)

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 34; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The

committee met at 3:27 p.m.

section

36 (continued.)

Kwan: Reflecting on our debate from the previous days on this matter,

section 36 is of course relating to the funding formula that school boards

receive.

The

minister had suggested that the funding formula does not change. She insists the

funding formula and what the minister is doing in the area of education is that

she is protecting education, but more and more we're learning that this is in

fact not the case. People, school trustees, individual parents are sending in

information challenging the minister at every step with respect to her comment

on this.

[ Page 3390 ]

In fact,

there is yet another letter that was sent in by an individual regarding school

district 20. Let me just put the letter on the record, Mr. Chair.

The letter

is dated May 12, 2002, and it reads as follows:

"Municipalities

funding schools in their own communities will invariably lead to an

increased need for alternate funding. This funding will either come from

parent fundraising, service groups, private donations or corporate

donations. Once this occurs, the gap between the quality of the educational

experience in the poorer communities and the wealthier communities will

continue to grow. There's also the added concern that the donations come

with strings attached — only selling a certain brand of pop at school, for

example, or only using a certain curriculum. Service groups will be squeezed

more heavily, leaving less money for other projects.

"Are

you ready as parents to fundraise for textbooks, library resources, lab

equipment, teacher training, musical instruments, etc?

"In Ontario, and I quote: 'The average amount raised per school by

parents' fundraising has gone up 30 percent over the past three years from

$7,280 in 1998-99 to $9,440 in 2000-01.' This came from the CCPA Monitor,

April, 2002.

[1530]

"School

funding is a provincial responsibility that we pay on our property taxes

every year. This year the new government devised a new formula to distribute

money to the school districts. The Ministry of Education insists that there

have been no cuts. It has been explained to the parents in our district that

in actuality there have been cuts, because things normally not covered by

the funding are now included. These include such things as the maintenance

costs of the building. The secretary-treasurer of the district could be more

specific as to the details. He could be reached at school district 20 board

office.

"In

actual fact, we end up with significantly less money than before —

teachers' salaries and increased MSP payments adding to the funding

shortfall.

"This

formula was not even finalized until sometime in the early part of this

year. I wonder how this formula came to be. Where was it tried out? Did they

use our neighbouring district as a test case and found it was just fine

there? I can only assume, since the government continually defends that they

are committed to quality public education, that they have made some mistakes

in regards to this formula. It is illogical to assume that in three years we

need to abandon eight to ten schools, restructure many others, abandon our

educational philosophy regarding middle schools and still not meet the

government's targeted budget. Is that what the ministry and the provincial

government call being committed to quality public education?

"We're

asking the board to submit a needs budget. If the ministry cannot understand

why this funding formula does not work in this district, and we're not

alone, then let them come and try to provide quality education with too few

funds. Let them fulfil their commitments, obligations and promises to

quality education to all children in all communities. Irreversible changes

in the delivery of education in our district are unacceptable. Cuts to high

school programs, limited services to special needs students, reduced

librarians and learning assistants, teachers' continued use of antiquated

materials and equipment is unacceptable. Send the 'flexibility' back to the

government. This type of flexibility we don't need or want."

This is from an individual from Fruitvale. I wonder what the minister has to

say to this individual with respect to her notion of flexibility, given that the

reality of this flexibility yields funding cuts, and the funding formula yields

cuts to educational programs.

Hon. C.

Clark: The member is confusing the issue of funding with the funding

formula. This

section of the act deals with the funding formula. If she'd like

to raise any questions with respect to that, I'd be happy to answer them.

J. Kwan:

The minister says everybody else is wrong except her. This letter was written by

an individual from Fruitvale. If the minister was listening, she would have

noted that the letter mentions the notion of the funding formula, which the

minister purports provides for the same amount of funding and that it protects

education for British Columbians. The individual is saying otherwise. That is,

in fact, not the case. To the minister again:

"This

formula was not even finalized until sometime in the early part of this

year. I wonder how this formula came to be. Where was it tried out? Did they

use our neighbouring district as a test case and found it was just fine? I

can only assume, since the government continually defends that they are

committed to quality public education, that they have made some mistakes in

regards to this formula. It is illogical to assume that in three years we

need to abandon eight to ten schools, restructure many others, abandon our

educational philosophy regarding middle schools and still not meet the

government's targeted budget. Is that what the minister and the provincial

government call being committed to public education?"

Hon. C.

Clark: We had a technical advisory group that worked on building the

formula. That was how we brought it together. We certainly believe it's a

simpler, fairer way to allocate funds.

[1535]

J. Kwan:

The reality is such that it yields educational program cuts for many districts

throughout British Columbia. This individual from Fruitvale is raising the same

issues. In spite of that, the minister says: "Well, it's not the funding

formula. Yes, it is the funding, but we're protecting education." What

people are seeing all throughout B.C. are cuts in education programs.

Let me just

review for the House some of the schools that are going to be shut and that are

threatened with school closures as a result of the government's approach to

education. It does deal with the funding issue — make no mistake about it —

and behind the funding issue, of course, it's tied into the funding formula

concept.

The

southeast Kootenay area is faced with a budget shortfall of $2.8 million, and

there are four schools faced with potential closure: C.L. Salvador Elementary

[ Page 3391 ]

School, Muriel Baxter Elementary School, Elkford Elementary School and Rocky

Mountain Elementary School.

These are

in the area of Kimberley, Windermere and Golden. They are faced with a host of

potential closures — two, four, six, eight schools in total in terms of the

threats — Blarchmont Elementary, Meadowbrook Elementary School, Wasa

Elementary, Canal Flats Junior Secondary, Radium Elementary, Field Elementary,

Edelweiss Elementary and Columbia Valley Elementary.

Revelstoke they are faced with the potential closure of Big Eddy Elementary

School.

The

Kootenay-Columbia district is faced with the potential closures of two, four,

six schools: Montrose Elementary, Sunningdale Elementary, Tarrys Elementary,

Valley Vista Elementary, Blueberry Creek Community School and Cook Avenue

Elementary.

In the

Central Okanagan there are three potential school closures: Bellevue Creek

Elementary, George Pringle Secondary and Peachland Elementary School.

The

Cariboo-Chilcotin area is faced with two school closures: Forest Grove

Elementary and Chimney Creek Elementary.

Quesnel is

potentially faced with the closure of Rich Bar Elementary School and the Wells

Barkerville Elementary School.

Vancouver the Shannon Park Annex is potentially faced with closure.

In Burnaby

the Canada Way Education Centre is potentially faced with closure.

In Maple

Ridge–Pitt Meadows, Thornhill Primary is faced with potential closure.

Prince

George has two, four, six, eight, ten, 12 potential closures: Bear Lake

Elementary, Haldi Road Elementary, Hart Highlands Elementary, Hixon Elementary,

Gladstone Elementary, King George V Elementary, Mcleod Lake Elementary, Mountain

View Elementary, Nechako North Elementary, Seymour Elementary, Springwood

Elementary and Blackburn Junior Secondary.

The Peace

River South area is faced with potential closure of the Kelly Lake

Elementary–Junior Secondary School.

Peace River

North potential closure is Upper Halfway Elementary–Junior Secondary.

Campbell

River potential closures are Maple Elementary, Central Elementary and Surge

Narrows Elementary.

In Gold

Trail, there's Riverview Elementary.

The

Fraser-Cascade region is faced with McAffrey Alternate School closure.

Cowichan

Valley is faced with three potential school closures: Honeymoon Bay Elementary,

Mount Brenton Elementary and Sahtlam elementary.

In the

Coast Mountains, which is the Kitimat-Terrace area, there are two unspecified

schools and three others in the Terrace area, respectively.

Finally, in

the Nechako Lakes area — that's Burns Lake and Nechako school districts 55 and

56, respectively — they are faced with potential closures of Babine

Elementary-Secondary and Mapes Elementary.

These are

the schools, 57 in total, as a result of the funding — or the lack of funding,

if you will — and the new funding formula that the minister insists is

protecting education. What we see are 57 schools being threatened with potential

closures.

We see on

the FTE side that 1,957 teaching positions are being threatened with a budget

pressure, a budget shortfall, of $204.8 million.

[1540]

Maybe the

minister can explain, because I fail to understand — and so, too, do many

parents and the public, educators and the public, school trustees and the public

fail to understand — how it is that the minister can claim that she is in fact

protecting education when all of this is going, and this is only year one. The

worst years are yet to come, the next two years. Because this is a three-year

frozen budget of educational cuts, the worst is yet to come.

Hon. C.

Clark: For the last time, I will repeat my comments.

The member

is confused. She is mixing the issue of the funding formula, which is what we're

supposed to be discussing, with the issue of funding.

If she

wants to have a debate about funding, the appropriate place to do that is in the

budget estimates. I believe we had an extensive debate about that. If she has

any further questions, I'd refer her to the Hansard from those debates.

In the meantime, unless she is prepared to ask questions about the relevant

section of the bill that we are discussing here today, I suggest we move on.

J. Kwan:

The minister wants to move on. Of course she wants to move on because, in my

view, she doesn't want people to know how she is hurting education. The minister

keeps on saying: "Well, it's the funding formula." The funding formula

yields the funds that end up in school districts, so those two things are

interrelated. For the minister to suggest that they're completely separate is,

in my view, a false representation of the impacts on education and the funding

needs of British Columbians.

It's not

just me who's saying that on these issues. The information that I've brought

forward to the House is coming from the public. The public are concerned about

education, even if the minister doesn't care, even if she says everybody else is

wrong except for her — that she is the person who knows what is best for

education. She and her colleagues from the Liberal bench are the only persons in

this entire universe who say that education and its funding are being protected.

Everybody else is saying something different. Maybe everybody else is wrong,

with the exception of the minister. Maybe that's the perspective of the

minister.

Let me just

look and see what the BCSTA, the B.C. School Trustees Association, has to say.

This was a press release that they sent out on April 29, so it's

[ Page 3392 ]

recent. The quote that I'm going to put on the record is as follows:

"'School

boards are getting mixed messages from Victoria,' BCSTA president Gordon

Comeau said. 'On one hand the province has joined trustees in our key work,

improving student achievement through community engagement, and is

supporting us in reaching this end with contract language and legislation

that acknowledges the need for autonomous school boards. On the other, the

province is legislating unprecedented and unnecessary powers to intervene in

the work of locally elected school boards, and we are facing the biggest

deficits I have seen in 21 years as a school trustee due to the unfunded

teachers contract.'"

That's from the B.C. School Trustees Association.

There's no

denying that the funding formula that the minister is now putting in legislation

results in less money for school boards and for educational programs throughout

the different districts and schools. As a result of that, some 57 schools are

now going to have to close. Close to 2,000 teaching positions are going to be

eliminated in the school system. School trustees and school boards throughout

B.C. are faced with a total of over $200 million in shortfall in terms of

funding. That's derived from the funding formula. There is no denying that. The

impacts are grave.

I know the

minister doesn't want to talk about it, but we need to talk about it. The

minister needs to come clean with what the issues are that school boards,

teachers, parents and children are faced with.

The Liberal

MLAs may not want to raise these issues. They've been silent, quite frankly.

They haven't spoken to this issue, raised the matters in this House and

challenged the minister on this front. They have all just thumped their desks

and agreed, saying: "Hey, hey, hurray — yay for the minister. Good on you

for making these cuts to education, and we'll all pretend that somehow it is

protecting education."

The reality

is that the public knows the difference. I'm raising some of the issues that

they have brought to my attention as matters to be raised in the House.

[1545]

This was

actually from a retired teacher-librarian, someone who is not in the system

anymore but who still cares very much about the education system. The letter

actually was a letter to the editor and was published in the Times Colonist .

Let me just put this on the record, Mr. Chair. "School Libraries are Worth

Fighting For" is the headline:

"There

is a school library in every school in B.C. In tiny schools they may be part

of a hallway or classroom. The school library is a distinct space in every

new or renovated school.

good school library is a self-directed learning laboratory for your child.

"Almost

every parent in B.C. will soon learn that the school library will be

affected by the recent changes in school funding and organization.

"One

of the key issues that the government changed in the legislated solution to

the teachers' contract was the elimination of minimum levels of

'teacher-librarian' support in the schools. While those minimum levels were

not large — one teacher-librarian for every 702 students K-to-12 — the

legislation completely eliminated this standard for service across the

province. It is now up to each board, and perhaps each school, to determine

the levels of teacher-librarian support, if any.

"What

is a teacher-librarian? Why is a teacher-librarian important to my child?

"The

teacher-librarian is a teacher who has taken special training in developing

a school library program that meets the learning objectives of the school.

That program includes teaching all children how to access and use learning

resources, to develop the criteria and skills to select quality information,

and to read widely and well. The teacher-librarian is a catalyst for ideas

in the school, offering access to community and worldwide resources and

linkages to resource people.

"Do

teacher-librarians make a difference to the quality of my child's education?

In major studies conducted in Colorado, Alaska, Pennsylvania and Texas, the

provision of qualified school librarians had a significant effect on pupil

achievement.

"Teacher-librarians

are responsible for making the school library part of the learning program

of a school. The school library, without professional leadership, will

rapidly become an impoverished, incomplete service that will not meet the

learning needs of children. Despite the best of intentions for volunteer and

clerical support, the school library will rapidly become irrelevant to the

school's overall program.

"What

will my children lose if the school library is closed or diminished? If

students do not have access to quality library programs they will lose that

linkage between resources and learning. In other words, the direct

consultation between teacher and teacher-librarian provides enormous

opportunities for personalizing learning, developing lifelong research

skills and acquiring important literacies, including reading, viewing,

listening, presenting and computing.

"In

addition, they could lose a 'cultural' base that could affect their values

in this increasingly complex society.

"It

is important to note that the school library is often shown as a measure of

quality in the publicity for independent schools, colleges and universities.

"How

much does a school library cost? A quality library program in a school of

500 students would cost about $250 per student. This would include the costs

for a full-time teacher-librarian, a full-time clerical assistant and a

reasonable budget for current learning resources. The average cost for

schooling per student in B.C. last year was over $6,000.

"Why

can't the public library provide this service? There is a distinct

difference in function between the public library and the school library.

The public library offers services directly related to the provision of a

wide range of information for the entire community. The school library

teaches students to engage information and ideas. The public library is not

equipped to meet instructional needs. The school uses the school library to

enrich and augment the learning environment.

"What

can a parent do? Challenge decisions to cut school library programs. Visit

the school library in your school. Ask tough questions. Ask questions of

your principal and your teacher-librarian. Demand answers. Talk to your

trustees and your MLA."

That's what Donald Hamilton, a retired education librarian and a trustee for

the Greater Victoria Public Library, had to say.

[ Page 3393 ]

[1550]

The cuts

come from the funding formula — make no mistake about it. The minister may not

care, because when I was reading this

article into the record the minister was

busy talking to other members in the House. She couldn't be bothered to listen

to what a trustee — a retired librarian and, I suspect, probably a parent as

well — has to say. For the minister, only she knows best. Nobody else knows

what is important in the school system. Only the minister knows best, and she

couldn't be bothered to pay attention to the words of Donald Hamilton.

Section 36

of the bill, which also touches on

section 106.2, requires the minister to

establish and announce the amount of funding to be paid to boards in the next

fiscal year by February 1. There is no mention of what the formula will be and

what will be used to make this determination. The minister consistently says

that the formula works and is an equitable distribution. Could the minister

please break down, then, how the minister arrived at this funding formula — in

detail?

Hon. C.

Clark: On February 1 we announced the block that's available to the ministry

for dispersion to school districts, and then we broke that down by the formula

we used. We had an extensive debate and discussion about the formula in our

estimates debate — the actual formula, which is not a part of this piece of

legislation.

If the

member is having difficulty recollecting that discussion, I can give her a quick

rundown here, although if she wants any further detail I'd suggest she go back

and have a look at the Hansard . It's $5,308 per student. There is an

additional allocation of $1,100 for each ESL student, an additional allocation

of $950 for first nations students and $30,000, $10,000 or $6,000 for special

needs students. There is special recognition given for districts that have

unique geographical needs, transportation, salary differential, and then there

is the formula buffer grant that's built in.

J. Kwan:

Maybe the minister can provide this information to the House. I recollect

the estimates of that debate very well, and in fact at that time we received

early information from the Vancouver school board, which outlined their $25.5

million shortfall. Then we listed the items where they were faced with that

shortfall. The minister emphatically denied that there was such a thing as a

shortfall and that it was all funded, and so on and so forth. Subsequent to the

estimates debate, my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings and I had met

with the Vancouver school board. They advised us we were dead-on the money with

respect to the shortfall that is caused by the funding formula, by the funding

the government has introduced. That's a $25.5 million shortfall.

Subsequent

to that meeting, we brought the matter back to the House. When I first brought

the matter to the House in estimates, asking the minister about the shortfall

that the city of Vancouver was faced with, the minister said she wasn't privy to

that information and that she needed to talk to the Vancouver school board

around that. Well, it's a long time since, and quite frankly, the script from

the Vancouver school board has not changed. They're still faced with a $25.5

million shortfall. Irrespective of what the minister said in terms of how

they're fully funding education, the fact of the matter is that there are huge

incremental costs. The minister is bobbing her head as if to make light of the

matter.

Maybe for

her this is all very funny. Maybe for her this is all irrelevant: so what if

education funding is being cut? So what if education programs are being cut? She

is maintaining her mantra no matter what happens, as she's protecting education.

The reality is — and school trustees know this — that they're faced with

educational cuts. They're caused by this minister. They're caused by this

minister; make no mistake about it. It is a result of the new funding formula

and the freeze on educational funding that the minister has imposed on British

Columbians.

[1555]

The

educational funding and the pressures are not being funded. Let's just be clear.

There are educational pressures in the education system that are not being

funded. No matter what the minister says about the $5,308 funding formula and

how it covers everything, that $5,308 comes short when there are increased costs

in the education system — whether they be MSP premiums, the teacher contract,

increments for non-teacher salary raises, maintenance costs, and so on and so

forth. Those are the pressures school trustees are faced with, and as a result

of those pressures, school programs are being cut and schools are being closed.

[1600]

Section 36

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 60

Falcon

Coell

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Lee

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Bell

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

[ Page 3394

Nijjar

Wong

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Lekstrom

Sultan

Hamilton

Hawes

Kerr

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Sections 37

and 38 approved.

section

J. Kwan:

I just want to confirm that in

section 39 this amendment essentially moves the

provisions that were previously under

section 113(2) to

section 112.1. Am I

correct in reading that?

[1605]

Hon. C.

Clark: Basically, this is status quo. We had to add this because we removed

another reference to when the budgets have to come in, and the surveyor of taxes

requires an April 27 date in order to have the information he or she needs.

Sections 39

and 40 approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 41 is

section 114 of the original act, which is being repealed and

replaced with the wording that's before us now. As I understand it, the new

section differs from the original

section as it includes

section 114(4), which

states that if the minister gives a school district more than the board was

meant to receive, the Minister of Finance can deduct the overpayment from next

year's grant to the school board.

Could the

minister please advise how that differs from previously? In the previous act, if

there's such a case, there's no provision for the government to reclaim dollars

that were given to the school board. Now this allows them to do so.

Hon. C.

Clark: This is to address an issue that arises when the ministry does an

audit that reveals there is money owing to the ministry. Right now, if there's

an audit and money is found to be owing, the only option the ministry has is to

claw the money back in this fiscal year. Because we do our audits around this

time in the year, that leaves very little time for the district to be able to

accommodate that.

What they

end up doing then is amending their budget to run a deficit. It's either that,

or they claw the money out, and it causes some serious dislocation in the

district and could compromise educational outcomes. What this does is allow the

district to choose to do it the way we currently do it or to postpone the

payment of it, if you will, so that it comes out of the following year's budget,

and they have an opportunity to plan better.

J. Kwan:

Is this related at all to the mid-year school count in terms of enrolment? It's

perhaps not at mid-year but at any time when the minister decides there ought to

be another school count with respect to enrolment. Is there any relationship?

Hon. C.

Clark: As I said, this is primarily to address issues arising out of audits

that the ministry undertakes.

Sections 41

and 42 approved.

section

[1610]

J. Kwan:

This amendment, as I understand it, creates a new targeted grant called the

annual capital grant. This grant is meant to be used by school boards for

capital projects to maintain sites and buildings owned or leased by the board. I

wonder if the minister can explain the idea of creating the new targeted grants.

It appears to me that it contradicts the ministry's commitment to providing the

board with greater autonomy and flexibility regarding how they spend money. If

that's the case, why are the minister and the ministry specifying particular

uses for the money the schools boards receive from the ministry, if the new

era's meant to provide boards with the flexibility and autonomy to make their

own decisions?

Hon. C.

Clark: We have, as I've said in previous debates, separated capital from

operating very clearly. I don't think it serves anyone's interests to mix those

two, so we've ensured, with these changes in the act, that we're respecting that

intent.

J. Kwan:

The B.C. School Trustees Association passed a resolution at their most recent

AGM held in Vancouver April 25-28. One of the resolutions was related to capital

maintenance funding, and the BCSTA urged the Minister of Education to continue

use of recognized space and age of facilities as the basis for allocating

capital maintenance funding to districts. Could the minister first advise

whether or not she would agree with the motion that was carried at the AGM of

the BCSTA? Secondly, could the minister please advise if that's related to the

annual capital grant?

Hon. C.

Clark: This

section of

section 43 is there to recognize something that we

currently do in the ministry and have done for a number of years, but which

wasn't reflected in the act. Really, what we're doing is giving after-the-fact

legislative permission for something that the ministry has done for quite a

while. It's unrelated to the question the member has raised.

J. Kwan:

Well, could the minister then just answer this question which was raised by the

BCSTA, and

[ Page 3395 ]

that is for the ministry to continue the use of recognized space and age of

facilities as the basis for allocating capital maintenance funding to districts?

Hon. C.

Clark: I will respond to that in another context. However, the context we're

engaged in now is to examine and debate

section 43 of this act, and I'd advise

the member that it's probably wise to stay relevant at this stage.

J. Kwan:

In my view, it is relevant, because the

section we're talking about is the

annual capital grant, and the capital maintenance funding that the school

districts are referencing is in relation to capital funding for, and the basis

for allocating the capital maintenance funding to, various school districts. In

my view, there is a relationship in terms of the capital funding dollars and how

they are being allocated to the various different school districts.

I wonder

why the minister wouldn't want to answer the question. It's a straightforward

question from the B.C. School Trustees Association. It was passed at the

association's AGM. If the minister wants to share that information with the

trustees from the minister's perspective, I am sure they would welcome it.

Sections 43

to 51 inclusive approved.

section

[1615]

J. Kwan:

Section 52 deals with repealing the power of the minister to use regulations to

change deadlines, for the minister to establish the preliminary and final amount

of provincial funding, and for the minister to provide each board with an

estimate of the board's debt service expenses.

It also

allows for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to determine the rates that would

be levied on land improvements, for the board to submit its budget estimate and

for the board to follow up if they call a referendum regarding increasing

revenue and, finally, for the board to adopt its budgets.

These

changes mean that the minister and boards must follow the deadlines outlined in

the legislation, as the minister no longer has the ability to change these

deadlines through regulation. What happens if those deadlines are not met?

Hon. C.

Clark: The thing that would happen is the same thing that would happen with

any other piece of legislation. School boards are required to abide by the law.

They do abide by the law, and this will become part of the law of British

Columbia.

J. Kwan:

Yes, that's what the legislation says — that they must meet these deadlines.

I'm asking the minister: should there be an instance where those deadlines are

not met, what is the recourse to the school board, to the school trustees? What

action would the minister take?

Hon. C.

Clark: We'll have a discussion with them. We'll remind them about the law

— encourage them to respect to law. Certainly, school boards are filled with

committed, dedicated people who are trying to do what's best for their

communities. All of them certainly want to live within the rules that they're

elected under.

J. Kwan:

I assume that people will try to do that, but there may well be situations

where, for a variety of reasons, they are unable to do so. In that situation the

minister says she will endeavour to talk with the board. What other actions

would the minister take?

Hon. C.

Clark: I've answered that question.

J. Kwan:

Does that mean to say that's all the minister will do then — just endeavour to

talk to the boards? I'm just trying to get clarity here in terms of what the

minister's intent is.

The

Chair: Shall

section 52 pass?

J. Kwan:

Good God, Mr. Chair. The minister is just unprepared to provide answers to these

questions. These are questions that some members of the public and some of the

school trustees are wondering in terms of what will happen if these deadlines

are missed. Is this minister just not prepared to share that information, or

does she not know what the intentions are?

The

Chair: Shall

section 52 pass?

J. Kwan:

The minister doesn't even attempt to answer the question any further. One can

only assume, on the basis of the questions that I'm asking here today and the

response she's given…. She's given a wink to the member for Vancouver-Burrard,

and she's smiling. You know, this has been the attitude throughout this debate

— as though somehow the questions that are asked by the opposition are

irrelevant, something that the minister mocks and makes light of. Somehow the

parents who have spoken on the issues with respect to the cuts in educational

programs they're faced with are something that is just unimportant.

Everybody

else is wrong, with the exception of this minister, who says education is being

protected. She's uninterested — in this supposedly open, transparent Liberal

government and the new-era agenda — in providing any answers at all.

[1620]

Is the

minister just saying that nothing will happen if the deadlines are not met?

There's no recourse other than the minister will try and talk to them. Is that

what she's saying? She has not answered the question.

[ Page 3396 ]

The

Chair: Shall

section 52 pass?

J. Kwan:

On the same section. I was engaging in this debate, questions to the minister. I

know there's an eagerness all the way around for people to move forward, to just

sort of rush through the bill. That's been the approach of this government: ram

through their bills and these huge changes with respect to impacts for British

Columbia. I know there's a big rush to do that. But you know what? There is a

need for questions to be answered. There is that need, no matter how big the

majority is on the government's side, no matter that you have 76 seats on the

government side.

The

Chair: Member, I just remind you to keep relevant to the section, please —

section 52.

J. Kwan:

Yes, I am keeping relevant to the section.

The

Chair: There is a question in this, I hope.

J. Kwan:

Yes, absolutely, there's a question to this.

I've been

trying to ask questions of the minister, to which I've been unable to get an

answer. There's been no cooperation from the minister with respect to this. I

know there's a big rush to get through all this stuff, and I know the government

thinks there's a big majority so they can just ram stuff through without

answering questions. But you know what? There is a place for questions to be

asked and for answers to be provided, and some of that takes place in this

Legislature. That's what we're doing right now with respect to debate on Bill 34

and this section.

This

section deals with deadlines that have to be met by school trustees in a range

of different areas, whether it be the board submitting its budget estimates

within the prescribed time line, the board adopting its budget within its

prescribed time line, the board providing the information to the public in a

timely manner, the government meeting its own time line and so on.

The

question is asked: what happens when those time lines are not met? Why is it a

question the minister will not answer? What is she trying to hide? Or does she

not know what the intentions of this government are with respect to this

section

of the bill?

Hon. C.

Clark: This

section deals with the Lieutenant-Governor's ability to vary

dates — period. It corrects an outdated reference in the bill — period.

That's it. If the member would like to restrict her questions to parts of the

bill we're discussing, I'd be happy to answer her questions.

J. Kwan:

Section 52 repeals the power of the minister to use regulations to change

deadlines for the minister to establish the preliminary amount of provincial

funding, to change the deadline for the minister to establish the final amount

of provincial funding, to change the deadline for the minister to provide each

board with an estimate of the board's debt service expenses, to change the

deadline for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to determine the rates that will

be levied on land improvements, to change the deadline for the board to submit

its budget estimates, to change the deadline for the board to follow if they

call a referendum regarding increasing revenues and to change the deadline for

the board to adopt its budget.

It's not as

minor as the minister would like to make it sound. These are the changes, as I

understand it, under

section 52. Why the minister won't answer the question in

terms of what happens if these deadlines are not met is beyond me. I simply have

to say that I don't know what it is the minister is trying to hide.

Sections 52

and 53 approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 54 deals with authorizing the boards to spend money on a joint capital

project. Could the minister please advise if joint capital projects are

public-private partnerships?

Hon. C.

Clark: Perhaps the member could ask the question again. I'm sorry; I missed

it.

J. Kwan:

Are joint capital projects public-private partnerships?

Hon. C.

Clark: I suppose it could be. Typically, a joint capital project is between

a school board and a municipality, but I suppose it could be a public-private

partnership.

[1625]

J. Kwan:

Could the minister give some examples?

Hon. C.

Clark: There are lots of examples of school projects that have community

elements in them. There are gym additions, for example, that have local

government support for them. Parkland exchanges — there's a whole number of

examples of that, lots of them, around British Columbia already.

J. Kwan:

The examples that the minister used centre around municipality involvement, park

board involvement and the like. Are there other partners that one should be

anticipating as a result of this change?

Hon. C.

Clark: I don't know. We'll see when school districts put their creative

thinking caps on and come forward with creative proposals.

J. Kwan:

What role will the minister have in approving and monitoring joint capital

projects?

Hon. C.

Clark: Just to ensure that the member is clear, the annual capital grant

refers to maintenance only as opposed to project funding. Currently, we require

that if money comes out of the capital grant fund, it requires approval of the

ministry. If any money for a project comes out of that, that will continue to be

the case.

[ Page 3397 ]

J. Kwan:

What role will the minister have in approving and monitoring joint capital

projects then?

Hon. C.

Clark: As I said…. Maybe I didn't say it; I should have. If it comes out

of the capital grant fund, it requires ministerial approval. That is the case

currently, and it won't change.

J. Kwan:

Well, I'm just looking at the

section 54 notes. The explanatory notes state as

follows: "…removes the requirement for the minister's approval to spend

money for an annual capital project; allows a board to spend money on a joint

capital project." It clearly states in the explanatory note within the bill

that it removes the requirement for the minister's approval to spend money for

an annual capital project.

The

minister just said, in the same breath, that nothing has changed, but in the

explanatory note it actually says it removes the requirement for the minister's

approval, so something has changed. Could the minister please advise what role

the minister will be playing around approval and monitoring?

Hon. C.

Clark: Yeah, as I said, the member is confusing the issue of the annual

capital grant with joint use projects. The annual capital grant is not for joint

use projects. It is for maintenance, and those are typically not joint use

projects. Joint use projects are not maintenance; they're new projects. She

shouldn't confuse the two things.

[1630]

J. Kwan:

The act actually doesn't speak to annual grants. It speaks to annual capital

projects. If it's meant to be directed at capital grants, why doesn't it say

that? Why does it say capital projects?

Hon. C.

Clark: If the member goes back in the bill and has a look at the

definitions, she'll see that annual capital project is defined as something that

is funded through the annual capital plan. A capital plan project is funded out

of the capital reserve fund. That's probably not the exact term. If she goes

back and has a look at the

definitions, she'll see that each one of them is

carefully defined, and that's what separates the two.

J. Kwan:

I am just looking at the

definitions because I anticipated that the minister

might say something like that. Maybe it's just not clear in the bill, in the way

it is describing the effects and the changes.

The

section

that we're talking about,

section 54, references two things: annual capital

projects and joint capital projects. When you look at the

definitions section,

you'll find that…. In fact, I don't see a definition for annual capital

project. What I do see is annual capital expenses. In annual capital expenses

there is a change of terminology from "annual capital allowance" to

"annual capital grant." That's the only reference with respect to

that. Then, when you look at the other definition which is for joint capital

project, it simply defines it by saying it "means a capital project that

consists of a capital plan project and a local capital project." It doesn't

make any reference to the issues or the distinctions that the minister had

mentioned, even in the

definitions section.

Hon. C.

Clark: If she goes to look at

section 1(e), she'll see that it says that

"annual capital grant" replaces "annual capital allowance."

It's a language change. It still refers to maintenance, and it still doesn't

refer to joint use projects.

J. Kwan:

The

section 1(

e) that the minister just read out was what I just finished

talking about. "Annual capital expense" is being struck out, and

"annual capital allowance" is also being struck out to be substituted

with the words "annual capital grant." If you go to the other

definition, joint capital project "means a capital project that consists of

a capital plan project and a local capital project." When you look at

section 54 in the explanatory note: "Section 54 removes the requirement for

the minister's approval to spend money for an annual capital project; allows a

board to spend money on a joint capital project." That's what it says.

You know,

Mr. Chair, I'll take the minister's word for it, but quite frankly, the act and

the explanatory notes are unclear. For me to look at both of these with the

minister's explanation, it doesn't tell you anything different. The words are

not defined in the act. Even though the minister may want to say that it does,

the fact is that it doesn't. If you look in the act, that definition is not

there. It doesn't tell you clearly that joint capital projects have nothing to

do with capital project initiatives but rather just maintenance initiatives. It

doesn't say that in the definition

section of the act either.

[1635]

Section 54

approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 55. The amendment exempts joint capital projects from preparing a

capital plan under

section 142 of the act. Again, is this just maintenance? I

want to double-check, because the act is not explicit in saying that. If it's

just maintenance, that's one thing, but if it is not, then I would like to know

why boards don't have to create capital plans for joint capital projects.

Hon. C.

Clark: As I said earlier in the debate, if it's a capital plan project, if

it includes any money from the capital plan, it does require ministerial

approval.

J. Kwan:

I don't think that was my question at all. What I was asking the minister

was: is this still related just to maintenance issues?

Hon. C.

Clark: No. As I said — and I think I've said this a couple of times —

capital plan projects are not maintenance projects.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister please advise why it is the case, then, that the boards

would not have to establish a capital plan for these joint capital projects?

[ Page 3398 ]

Hon. C.

Clark: Okay, this is the last time I'm going to say this. They do, if it

requires money from the capital plan fund.

J. Kwan:

Only if they require money from the capital plan fund. If they generate

their own revenues elsewhere, then they are not required to create a capital

plan.

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm prepared to answer every question twice, but twice only, so I'll

do this one more time. Currently, if a project is funded locally and doesn't

require money out of the capital plan, it doesn't require ministerial approval.

That will not change.

J. Kwan:

I don't know what it is with the minister; I really don't. The issue here is

this: the minister says that these projects would have to be approved by the

minister.

initiatives, I'm asking the minister…. Given that the entire bill allows

school boards to generate moneys elsewhere, to generate revenues through other

sources, those provisions allow the school boards to make money, to create

revenue. In the instance where capital projects are initiated by the trustees

and they don't use moneys — grants — from the government, I'm asking the

question: will they still be able to just proceed without any approval

whatsoever from the minister? As well, would they be required to create a

capital plan?

The

minister said: "Well, I answered that question."

Why

wouldn't they have to create a plan for the public to see? Why wouldn't that be

an accountability measure that needs to be in place?

Sections 55

to 74 inclusive approved.

section

[1640]

J. Kwan:

Section 75, as I understand it, enables the minister to appoint a special

adviser to a francophone school district. Could the minister please expand on

the

section and the intent behind the section?

Hon. C.

Clark: The member knows we've given school districts an unprecedented amount

of local autonomy since we took government 11 months ago, and school districts

have welcomed that with open arms. They're delighted to be able to have the

flexibility they need to be able to make decisions that they are locally elected

and empowered to make.

We have

built into this act, though, accountability as well, because you can't have

autonomy without accountability. Certainly, we respect local school boards and

the fact that they are elected locally, but ultimately, when school boards find

themselves in difficulty, the only remedies available to the government are to

write a letter suggesting they do differently or to fire them all. That doesn't

leave any middle ground.

This

legislation is attempting to create a middle ground to allow the government to

provide a special adviser to a district that is in difficulty to support them

through difficult times and ensure they can get back on track and do the thing

we're all working toward, which is improving student achievement for every

student in their district.

J. Kwan:

This

section refers to the francophone school district only. I don't know the

information that the minister was spouting out. I'm not sure if that actually

relates to

section 83 rather than this section. Maybe the minister was just

trying to clarify….

Per the

act: this section, in terms of the special adviser, relates to the francophone

school district only. I have more to say with respect to the appointment of

special advisers relative to the other school districts under

section 83. Is the

minister referring to the francophone school district only, or is she making a

broad statement that applies to all school districts?

Hon. C.

Clark: If the member has a look through the current act, she will see that

the francophone school district is dealt with differently from all other school

districts in the province, partly because they have issues with respect to the

way they elect officers in their district. It's an unusual district; it's

provincewide. It doesn't have a specific piece of geography attached to it. This

section parallels the changes for school districts 1 to 59 across the province

and applies them equally to the francophone school district.

J. Kwan:

Yes, I've seen the previous School Act, and I understand that the francophone

school district does have different circumstances in which they're operating.

Given that the minister stated it's a broad matter which applies not just to the

francophone school district but rather, on the whole, to all the other school

districts as well, there are some concerns that I want to raise with respect to

this.

The B.C.

School Trustees Association itself has raised concerns to the minister. Again,

they have passed a motion at their AGM to urge the Minister of Education to

honour the government's commitment to board autonomy and added flexibility by

deleting sections of Bill 34 that establish special advisers with the authority

to act in districts at the minister's request and to expand the minister's

authority to remove school boards for educational reasons in addition to

financial mismanagement.

[1645]

These are

the concerns that the B.C. School Trustees Association has raised because it's

contrary, on the one hand, for the minister to say they respect the autonomy of

the school trust