2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 32, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Statements

Better Business Bureau Week

Hon. P. Bell

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

West End Cleanup

S. Chandra Herbert

West Vancouver centennial

J. McIntyre

Sinking of Queen of the North and environmental protection of Gitga'at territory

G. Coons

Retirement of Fraser M ac Rae from Surrey RCMP

D. Hayer

Karen Barden and teacher-librarians

S. Hammell

World Down Syndrome Day

R. Lee

Oral Questions

Release of media correspondence with government to Eminata Group

A. Dix

Hon. N. Yamamoto

Hon. C. Clark

M. Mungall

J. Horgan

M. Karagianis

B. Ralston

Safety of Vancouver floatplane terminal

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. P. Bell

Forest industry jobs and log export policy

D. Routley

Hon. S. Thomson

N. Macdonald

Motions Without Notice

Membership and powers of Parliamentary Reform Committee

Appointment of Special Committee to Appoint an Ombudsperson

Hon. R. Coleman

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 22 — Education Improvement Act (continued)

R. Austin

Hon. G. Abbott

M. Karagianis

G. Coons

J. Kwan

Reporting of Bills

Bill 22 — Education Improvement Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — Education Improvement Act

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 4 — Offence Amendment Act, 2011

Bill 8 — Community, Sport and Cultural Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2011

Bill 22 — Education Improvement Act

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (continued)

S. Fraser

Hon. M. Polak

B. Simpson

B. Routley

G. Coons

[ Page 10265 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2012

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Statements

BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU WEEK

Hon. P. Bell: Mr. Speaker, 2012 marks the 100th-year anniversary of the Better Business Bureau internationally The province is declaring March 17 to 23 as Better Business Bureau Week to celebrate the centennial and recognize the relationship between the business community and consumers across British Columbia.

The Better Business Bureau provides free, accessible information to the public, reporting on business practice and tackling misleading advertising in the marketplace. I'd please ask that all members of the House join me in celebrating Better Business Bureau Week next week.

Introductions by Members

S. Simpson: I have two sets of introductions to make. First, I'd like to introduce a couple of my constituents who are here: Aarom Mueller, who's an on-line educator with the Vancouver school board, and Caroline Shuh, who's a grade 4 and 5 French teacher at Lord Tennyson Elementary. And maybe even more important, Aarom and Caroline are planning their wedding for this summer, so please offer your congratulations and welcome them to the House.

My second introduction today. I'm really pleased to have the opportunity to introduce my sister, who's here, Debbie Simpson, and my nephew Liam Simpson, who's often better known in our family as Little Trouble. Please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery and, I think, in one case in the precincts are a couple of very good friends and outstanding British Columbians: first, Olga Ilich, who we all know and remember fondly — a former minister, a former MLA in this chamber; and also Anna Nyarady, who is a good friend and outstanding British Columbian, past chair of the B.C. Assessment Authority and a former member of the board of the Royal B.C. Museum.

Both Olga and Anna are here in Victoria to celebrate the retirement of another outstanding British Columbian, who I think we all in this chamber would know well. That is Pauline Rafferty, who for many years has served and served with distinction as the CEO of the Royal B.C. Museum. Pauline has made a decision to retire, and I'm sure all members of the House would not only want to wish Anna and Olga welcome but also to extend our congratulations as legislators to the exceptional service that Pauline has provided to the province of British Columbia.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

WEST END CLEANUP

S. Chandra Herbert: Butts, butts and more butts. That's what you find in the West End on the second Saturday of the month. In addition to the cigarette butts, there are fast-food wrappers, coffee cups, compostables, recycling and, unfortunately, more trash left behind on our streets. But thanks to the volunteers of West End Cleanup and local business people who take an interest, our streets are much cleaner.

Founded in May 2007, West End Cleanup is celebrating its fifth anniversary this year. It started with 18 volunteers as part of the Keep Vancouver Spectacular campaign, who afterwards decided to do it every month. Since then, rain or shine, on the second Saturday of the month they've met at Cardero and Comox streets at 9:55 to clean up.

They've had 80 people out on a good weekend and average about 20, and many more have adopted their own blocks and clean them up every week. They average 40 bags of garbage each session, which really should give us all pause. That's a lot of waste, which highlights how we as legislators need to take action to help our province create less garbage by reducing packaging and reducing, reusing and recycling.

It's an incredible group of volunteers, who I've been pleased to join, cleaning up our streets. Sometimes we're joined by Butthead, the cleanup's mascot, who reminds smokers to put their butts into the bins and not onto the streets, where they can end up washing out into the ocean.

To the buttheads who make their jobs tougher: as the kids in elementary school know, don't be a litterbug. Put it in the bin. The volunteer leader, John Merzetti, and all the volunteers who've been there since day one, rain or shine, and all the new folks who join them on the weekends to keep the West End clean, on behalf of West Enders, thank you.

[1340]

WEST VANCOUVER CENTENNIAL

J. McIntyre: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to ask the House to join me and my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano in wishing West Vancouver happy 100th birthday. The district of West Vancouver is inviting one and all to honour its past and celebrate its future with a community-wide festival recognizing its centennial.

It was incorporated on March 15, 1912, after separat-

[ Page 10266 ]

ing from North Vancouver, and held its first municipal election within weeks. Twenty-six years after that first election Lions Gate Bridge, built by the Guinness family, opened to the public, connecting the Lower Mainland with our community, which before then had been only accessible by ferry.

I encourage you to learn more about the stories of the early communities of Ambleside, Dundarave, Altamont, Caulfeild, Horseshoe Bay and others in West Vancouver Historical Society's excellent new book honouring our centenary entitled Cottages to Community: The Story of West Vancouver's Neighbourhoods .

Over the last century we have developed a reputation for incredible scenery and great outdoor living. We are home to Cypress Provincial Park, the snow venue for the 2010 games, and local parks like Ambleside, John Lawson, Lighthouse and Whytecliff Park. Not many communities in the world can boast a ski hill and an ocean a mere 30 minutes apart, where sometimes you can ski and sail in the same day.

Our community is so picturesque that many Canadians also choose to retire here. Along with White Rock, we have the highest proportion of seniors in the province.

So as a kickoff to a year of centennial events throughout West Vancouver, birthday festivities are being held this very afternoon at the West Vancouver Memorial Library where, along with the family- and kids-oriented celebration, the library's new digital collection of historical photographs is being launched.

If you cannot make it today, stay tuned for more details about the amped-up annual community celebrations that are planned for June 2, along with other upcoming events.

Happy centennial birthday, March 15, 2012, to West Vancouver.

SINKING OF Queen of the North

AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

OF GITGA'AT TERRITORY

G. Coons: March 22, 2006, will be a day I never forget. I received a call around one o'clock in the morning with the news the Queen of the North had sank. Two lives were lost. My thoughts still go out to the Rosette and Foisy families and hope that closure will come sooner rather than later. There are still lingering, devastating impacts on passengers and crew members, who were bumped from their beds into the cold night and traumatized beyond imagination.

Communities on the north and central coast were hit hard economically and the public image of our ferry fleet damaged. A criminal investigation is active and ongoing, but closure is still far in the future.

We can never forget the quick actions of the crew, the Coast Guard and especially the heroes of Hartley Bay. The Gitga'at fishermen were the first to respond to the distress call when the Queen sank just past midnight. Rescuers set out in a fleet of small fishing and recreational vessels to pick up many of the 99 survivors.

As many of us move on, six years later, it's difficult for the heroes of Hartley Bay, the gallant Gitga'at, as they still deal with the daily upwelling of fuel, asbestos, lead, mercury and other toxins in their territory, impacting traditional harvesting of shellfish, seaweed and a host of other riches from the sea.

I was at the joint review panel hearings on the Enbridge project two weeks ago in Hartley Bay — still hearing how the promises made about the Queen of the North wreck were all broken. Whether restoring Gitga'at territory to its pristine condition or monitoring for contaminants in their harvesting areas, the trust factor has been shattered at all levels.

As watchmen of the Great Bear rain forest, the Gitga'at are also sounding the alarm about their fears of a crude oil tanker spill and the irreparable harm to their culture and the devastation of their ecologically diverse territory.

They know the pain of environmental damage from a vessel sinking, and they vow to rid oil tankers from traversing through their traditional territories.

RETIREMENT OF FRASER M ac RAE

FROM SURREY RCMP

D. Hayer: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say the RCMP is losing one of their finest. Assistant Commissioner, officer in charge of Surrey RCMP detachment, Fraser MacRae, is retiring from the Surrey RCMP force.

I have come to know Fraser MacRae very well over the past year as he has led the Surrey RCMP detachment, one of the best detachments in Canada and one of the largest RCMP detachments in Canada.

I would like to say that I will miss him greatly, because he has assisted me in my role as an MLA countless times over the last eight years. He is an exceptionally outstanding officer and a fine example of the RCMP motto, "Defenders of the law."

Not only has he gained and earned the respect of citizens throughout Surrey, he is highly regarded within the RCMP. Assistant Commissioner MacRae, on his retirement on June 1, 2012, will have completed 35½ years of RCMP, all spent in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. He has served in the E division headquarters, which will soon be moved to Surrey, and within the North Vancouver, Burnaby and Ridge Meadows detachment. He currently leads 651 police officers at the Surrey RCMP detachment, along with another 250 municipal force staff and approximately 300 volunteers.

[1345]

During his time with the RCMP detachment Fraser MacRae has made great strides in combating crime in our Surrey. He and his team have made a huge dent in the marijuana grow-op industry, and through his direction, car thefts, petty crime, gang violence and even the

[ Page 10267 ]

murder rate have declined tremendously.

Assistant Commissioner MacRae will be missed. I'm certain the legacy he has created towards successfully fighting crime in Surrey will live on. Please join me in thanking Fraser MacRae for his outstanding career in fighting crime and for making British Columbia a safer place to live and in sending our best wishes on his retirement.

I'd also like to wish everyone in the House and throughout B.C. a happy St. Patrick's Day on Saturday.

KAREN BARDEN AND TEACHER-LIBRARIANS

S. Hammell: Today I rise in the House to speak about one of my constituents who goes beyond the call of duty as a teacher. For the past 35 years Karen Barden has been a teacher-librarian, and like many teachers, her career has become her passion. Let's face it. School libraries are not particularly cool places for kids to hang out, but Karen's library definitely has lots of that cool factor.

For the past 23 years at Johnston Heights Secondary in Surrey, Karen's dedication has created one of the best school libraries in this province. She has developed a popular library media and technology class that this year alone has over 100 student librarian volunteers.

With school libraries facing funding challenges and students turning to the Internet, Karen has done a lot of work in order to excite students about reading. She has initiated nights to turn off the TV and read, and also launched a "Read" poster campaign, featuring staff relaxing with their favourite book.

We've been hearing about bringing 21st-century technology into classrooms. Throughout Karen's career she has piloted many new technologies — in the '80s, CD-ROM technology; later, laser discs; and most recently video streaming. For the last few years she has spent extra time managing an award-winning website, created with the help of her wonderful son Brett, containing 1,000 educational resources based on the needs of the curriculum.

After 35 wonderful years the Surrey school district will be losing Karen, as she will be retiring at the end of the school year. I would like the House to join me in thanking Karen Barden and every other teacher who goes above and beyond the call of duty for the students of our province.

WORLD DOWN SYNDROME DAY

R. Lee: This year marks the seventh anniversary of World Down Syndrome Day, a day celebrated in over 60 countries across the globe. It's held on the 21st of March because an extra copy of chromosome 21 is a trait which is unique to people with Down syndrome.

The condition affects approximately one out of every 733 births and is the most common cause of human birth defects. The condition was first identified as a distinct form of mental disability in the late 19th century. Ever since, people with Down syndrome have been marginalized by society. Some have even supported childhood plastic surgery to lessen physical characteristics of the condition as a way to reduce social stigma.

World Down Syndrome Day has become a powerful tool for raising awareness of the struggle facing people with Down syndrome. This year marks the first time ever that the United Nations is officially recognizing and celebrating the day.

Throughout its seven-year history World Down Syndrome Day has helped create a worldwide community which provides a voice for people with Down syndrome. Through this community, advocates have come together to promote inclusiveness and understanding and have rallied together to change the world's perception of people with this condition.

[1350]

Hon. P. Bell: I seek leave to do an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: We are joined by a good friend and constituent of mine, Horst Sander, in the gallery. Horst used to beThe CEO of Northwood Timber has been a tremendous advocate for the forest industry over the years, and I'm very proud to call him my friend.

Welcome, Horst.

I ask the House to please welcome Horst Sander.

Oral Questions

RELEASE OF MEDIA CORRESPONDENCE

WITH GOVERNMENT TO EMINATA GROUP

A. Dix: Today 25 post-secondary presidents — presidents of universities, of colleges and of institutes — wrote to the Minister of Advanced Education strongly criticizing the government's cuts to training and post-secondary education during a time of skill shortages.

Yesterday we learned that the minister, on the private side, despite her role as a regulator of private post-secondary education, enabled her colleague the Minister of State for Multiculturalism to improperly share correspondence involved in a Province investigation about a company which is under her regulation. The purpose

[ Page 10268 ]

could only have been to provide some protection for a political ally.

How can students and the public have confidence in the minister or her colleague when they show such blatant preferential treatment to a company they regulate?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I want all members in this House to know exactly what happened. On Monday I became aware of an

article that was written in the Province newspaper. In that

article they indicated that a representative from Eminata was in receipt of a copy of an e-mail that originated from a reporter that had been sent to my Advanced Education communications department.

The reporter had asked for a response to some questions regarding a private post-secondary institution. An e-mail was sent back to the reporter, with a response to those questions for the article. So just to be clear, that is the e-mail that is in question.

After finding out about this — and in the newspaper — I did take steps to find out what exactly had happened. So later that day I was advised that a printout of the e-mail was passed along to the office of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. That was done by my ministerial assistant on February 20, and I was not aware of that, nor did I direct that.

I have since learned that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism passed it on to a representative from Eminata. That was wrong. Yesterday the Minister of State for Multiculturalism acknowledged his error in judgment. He has apologized for that.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Specifically to the minister, then, because the minister said in response yesterday that no rules were broken. The only way that's possible is if no rules existed for Liberal cabinet ministers.

In this case we have to ask why her office provided this e-mail at all to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. Had he divined its existence? Had he conjured it up? I don't think so. It was passed on to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism because of the political links between the minister and the company in question. That's what the minister's office did.

Can the minister explain why her office provided that letter, that e-mail, to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and, further, whether she thinks, given the regulatory role of her office, the actions of her office were proper?

[1355]

Hon. C. Clark: Well, clearly the actions of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism were not proper. The minister of state offered his sincere apology for that yesterday. This morning he offered me his resignation from cabinet. What he did was not illegal, but it did show a very clear lack of judgment. It was the wrong thing to do, and he has resigned.

I want to put this in context, though, because what he did was not illegal, although it was wrong. It showed a lack of judgment, and he resigned. It is very, very different from what some other people in this House are alleged to have done. He did not forge a memo in an effort to try and derail an RCMP criminal investigation. He nonetheless has done the honourable thing today, and he has stepped aside from cabinet.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition has a further supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

A. Dix: This e-mail was shared by the office of the Minister of Advanced Education.

[ Page 10269 ]

You know, unlike the Premier, I appreciate, in this case, that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism did the right thing. So given that he has done the right thing, I don't think I will continue to press questions about his conduct.

The question here is: why did Minister of Advanced Education, who has the regulatory responsibility here for this private agency, pass it on to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism? What was the purpose of that? Why did they do it? What other reason could that have been passed on by the minister's office for, except that it was a political ally of the government? Can the Premier explain, can the minister explain why that was done and why their office, which has regulatory responsibility here, behaved so improperly?

Hon. C. Clark: Ministers of executive council do often share information with each other. We require that it be kept confidential amongst us. That's part of the understanding. It's part of the privilege accorded to cabinet ministers.

This cabinet minister did not live up to that expectation, and that's why he has done the right thing. He has resigned. He did not do something illegal. He didn't forge any documents. But he did share information inappropriately. He has resigned from his cabinet duties as of this morning. I would say he did absolutely the right thing.

M. Mungall: There is no doubt this is a very serious matter. Clearly, the former Minister of State for Multiculturalism has recognized that with his resignation. But it is important that the public know how the Liberals conduct themselves when one of their donors is being investigated by the media.

The question to the Minister of Advanced Education is: why did her staff pass the e-mail on to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, and why did he pass it onto the CEO of Eminata Group?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, cabinet ministers routinely share information with each other. We often do that at the cabinet table, and we do it in myriad other ways. That is one of the privileges that is accorded to cabinet ministers. That is entirely proper.

What was not proper was that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism should have shared any information from within government with individuals outside government in this case. It was not proper. He did the honourable thing. He has stepped aside from his duties, and I guarantee you he won't be coming back to run for leader.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1400]

M. Mungall: As I said, this is a very serious matter. It puts into question the Liberals' ability to respect the public's interest.

We have an e-mail sent by a journalist looking into a large number of complaints by students at private post-secondary institutions run by Eminata Group. He finds some information about the owner that is concerning and asks the Minister of Advanced Education about the matter in writing. Somehow that e-mail finds its way to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. Out of all the cabinet ministers, he is the minister who received that e-mail.

Why was he the minister that received that e-mail, and why did he pass it on to Eminata's CEO?

Hon. C. Clark: I'll answer that question again for the member and say this. What the member did was inappropriate. It was not criminal. It was not information that was concocted or passed along in the course of an ongoing criminal investigation. It was not created out of thin air in order to try and derail a criminal investigation. It was information that was passed on inappropriately — not illegally but inappropriately. It shouldn't have happened.

He has taken full responsibility for it. He has apologized for it. He has gone one step further, and he has resigned. He's done the right thing.

I know that members across prepared their questions for question period well in advance, before they knew that the member had resigned. But I would suggest…. Before they ask me the same question again and again for the next 20 minutes, I'll warn them. They're going to get the same answer.

J. Horgan: The Minister of Advanced Education has said that her ministerial assistant passed on an electronic message to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. Didn't pass it on to the Minister of Finance. Didn't pass it on to the Minister of Labour. Didn't pass it on to the Minister of Health. Passed it on to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism.

Now, in a parliamentary democracy with an executive council, ministerial accountability starts and ends at the top. If a staff member in the minister's office gave that document to the minister of multiculturalism, knowing full well that the Eminata Group had given $14,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party, then surely the question is: what is that minister still doing in cabinet?

Hon. C. Clark: The member in question who shared the information did so inappropriately, and he has resigned.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: The ministerial assistant, a staff member in the office of the body that regulates this private post-secondary institution, deliberately and with intent passed on information that could materially affect the ability of that office to continue to effectively regulate the private institution.

Again, who's responsible for that? Is it the member for Delta South? No. Is it the member for Peace River South? No. It's the Minister of Advanced Education. That's the person responsible for regulating private post-secondary institutions, and her office gave information to another minister that made it into the hands of that institution.

Surely, she sees the ethical blind spot there. Why doesn't she follow the lead of the minister of multiculturalism and head for the door?

Hon. C. Clark: The member is right. Ministers do need to be accountable for their conduct. Sharing that information externally was wrong. You know, in our government we do expect both ministers and staff to behave honourably, and in this case the minister who acted inappropriately has done so.

[1405]

M. Karagianis: The Minister of Advanced Education has a responsibility to respect the public's interest in her role as a regulator of these post-secondary institutions. Now, the minister has admitted that she'd already responded to the e-mail. She'd dealt with it. There is no purpose that is evident to any of us as to why she would then hand it along to another cabinet minister — very specifically, the minister that she handed it to.

Now, the thread here would certainly have to be the fact that the Eminata Group has contributed large donations to the B.C. Liberals, so it would be in their interests to try and give that organization a heads-up.

We've already seen one minister do the right and honourable thing here today over this and step down, so the

[ Page 10270 ]

Minister of Advanced Education, in her responsibility and the fact that she has not stood up for the public interests of British Columbia, needs to tender her resignation today as well.

Hon. C. Clark: Ministers have the privilege of sharing information with each other. There is absolutely nothing untoward about that. The minister who shared it inappropriately with an external party has resigned. He did it absolutely without the knowledge of the minister that this member speaks of, and I think he did, in resigning, absolutely the right thing.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: The Minister of Advanced Education, who is responsible for regulating post-secondary institutions in the province, has a responsibility to the public interest, has allowed information to be leaked — vital information. We've already seen one cabinet minister do the appropriate thing because of this leak.

It is her responsibility to take the next steps that she needs to take and do the same honourable thing, because of this leak to a donor. This is a direct leak to a donor. Would she please tender her resignation today?

Hon. C. Clark: The information was shared. It was inappropriately shared. The minister has resigned. The actions of the former Minister of State for Multiculturalism occurred without the knowledge of the Minister of Advanced Education. I think I've answered that question quite fully three or four times now. I look forward to many more of exactly the same question in the next, oh, 20 minutes.

B. Ralston: My question is for the Minister of Advanced Education: can she explain to the House her understanding of ministerial responsibility?

Hon. C. Clark: I think it's quite clear. The Minister of State for Multiculturalism has resigned. He certainly understands the meaning of ministerial responsibility, as we all do on this side of the House. I thank him for doing the right thing.

Mr. Speaker: The member as a supplemental.

B. Ralston: My question is again to the Minister of Advanced Education. She's the one who needs to explain herself here in the House today. What is her understanding of ministerial responsibility?

Hon. C. Clark: I believe I already answered that question.

SAFETY OF

VANCOUVER FLOATPLANE TERMINAL

S. Chandra Herbert: Yesterday in the House the minister responsible for PavCo questioned the safety of the new $21 million floatplane terminal. Later in the day he said in an interview that there are "indications that there is a potential for a safety hazard. On that basis, it would be inappropriate for us to require Harbour Air to move until we're convinced the facility is safe."

There are still two floatplane companies operating out of that terminal, a terminal that the minister now says is not safe enough for Harbour Air to use. Will the minister explain to this House how it's safe for them to use the terminal, not for Harbour Air?

Hon. P. Bell: Every pilot is ultimately responsible for their aircraft. Each pilot has the responsibility to determine whether or not the facility that they are using, the aircraft that they are using, is safe for passenger service. That's something I learned as a private pilot. The pilots that are continuing to use the floatplane facility are actually flying aircraft that are of a different type. They've assessed that that facility is suitable for that particular aircraft type.

[1410]

The Ausenco Sandwell report indicates there are challenges with other aircraft types that need to be addressed. We're waiting for a fuller report. It would be inappropriate for PavCo or for any government — and for the member opposite, for that matter — to require movement of aircraft to a facility that still has question marks as to its safety.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, nearly a year ago the minister who's just answered this question was urging that all floatplanes go to that terminal, which he now says may be unsafe for Harbour Air. Harbour Air, for the House's knowledge, operates nearly 95 percent of the floatplane flights in and out of the Vancouver harbour.

PavCo specified what kinds of docks and the setup the new terminal would have. They demanded a fancy facility, which increased costs. The government demanded a facility as it stands now, a facility which doesn't work for 95 percent of the flights. The government is now being sued.

My question to the minister is: why would his Liberal government approve a floatplane dock design that doesn't work for the majority of floatplanes in B.C.?

Hon. P. Bell: This government, PavCo, does not design docks. That's done by professionals. The company Vancouver Harbour Flight Centre did the design criteria for the docks. We're reviewing that process. But I am absolutely sure of this. I am absolutely sure that the mem-

[ Page 10271 ]

ber opposite would not advocate that aircraft be put in a risk as to their safety in a facility. I'm sure that the member opposite would not require that move if there was some concern as to the safety of the aircraft and the passengers on them.

FOREST INDUSTRY JOBS

AND LOG EXPORT POLICY

D. Routley: Yesterday we heard about workers in Surrey who were losing their jobs because the Forest Minister 86 times overruled his own timber export advisory committee. Let me talk today about Nanaimo.

Coastland mill in Nanaimo planned to add another production line, employing dozens more workers, but they couldn't get logs. When the log buyer at Coastland looked for wood, he was told there was none. He went to the log export market, and he discovered 230,000 cubic metres of wood headed out of B.C., most of it in trucks driving right past the front door of his own mill.

Why is the minister refusing to ensure that those B.C. logs are creating jobs in Nanaimo?

Hon. S. Thomson: The continuing debate on log exports. Let's look what the NDP's answer is to log exports. Let me quote the Leader of the Opposition during his leadership campaign. "I am calling for a major increase in provincial fees levied on raw logs harvested on Crown lands for export and a new provincial sales or earnings tax on logs exported from private forest lands."

That's the NDP's answer. Taxes are their only solution. That's their approach — adding costs, making the industry more uncompetitive by adding major, major fee increases, new taxes. That's their approach to log exports.

On this side of the House we're working towards a balanced policy that respects both domestic mills and jobs here for the economy of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: The NDP's answer is to defend the public interest. Balance is not a 550 percent increase in raw log exports. Balance is not B.C. mills starved of fibre. Balance is not the loss of B.C. jobs because of this government's log export policies.

Coastland is a mill that did everything right. They're a small business, the engine of our economy. They invested in their own processes and made plans to create new jobs in my constituency, in Nanaimo, for my neighbours, only to be shut out because that minister 86 times overruled his own committee and decided arbitrarily to ship logs out of the province.

[1415]

Can that Forests Minister explain to independent companies like Coastland how they can operate when the rules are arbitrary and entirely up to the discretion of the minister?

Hon. S. Thomson: I find it really puzzling when the members opposite continue to rail against log exports when they know that log exports keep mills open, keep jobs in their communities all across the province.

Let's just use an example, Coast Tsimshian Resources up in the Terrace area. It's a First Nations company that has built a business with 260 direct jobs, contributing over $30 million per year in economic activity into the community and one that has taken the community from 90 percent unemployment to full employment within the community.

I wonder if the member asking the question has talked to the member for the Skeena riding — whether he agrees with adding taxes, adding levies and restricting log exports that would impact that First Nations community's ability to provide jobs for that community.

N. Macdonald: Well, that took three days to come, but that's a real stretch.

You know, there is a law. There has been a law since 1906, and the law reads that logs are not supposed to be exported if there is domestic need. Instead of following the law, the minister 86 times chose to override the advisory committee. That has implications for Teal-Jones, implications that start this weekend. That has implications for Coastland.

Now, the right thing to do legally and, I would think, economically is that if there are mills that can take B.C. logs and create B.C. jobs, that is what should happen. That's the NDP policy.

Maybe the minister of lost jobs could stand up and explain what B.C. Liberal policy really is.

Hon. S. Thomson: I know the members opposite are fundamentally against log exports. We hear that clearly. They ask if we've been talking to mill owners and mill managers. I wonder if they have been. Let's look at a couple of other comments.

"Without the ability to export timber to the world markets, these opportunities will evaporate. Domestic log prices will not support the cost in these areas." That's Corby Lamb, president of Coast Capacity Forest Management.

From Chief Richard Harry of the Xwémalhkwu First Nation: "We are planning to grow our forestry business over the next five years through forest tenure and forest land acquisition. An increase in log exports is essential to ensure that we remain profitable while creating additional jobs for our company, for industry contractors and for forest product companies working in our traditional territory."

The balanced policy we have…. This is a policy that's creating jobs in all communities. I wonder if the member for North Coast would agree that adding excessive taxes,

[ Page 10272 ]

increased taxes and excessive fees is a policy that would assist those communities in ensuring that they build the capacity in their First Nations, build those jobs in their communities.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: What an outrageous statement. I've walked with that member through the massive industrial complex that was there before this government took over. It is empty. It is massive — one plant completely removed; the other sitting idle, never, never to produce again.

[1420]

This minister comes in and 86 times between December and January decides to override the proper system. He decides to override expert advice and allow raw logs to go out when Teal-Jones could have provided real jobs, when Coastland could have provided jobs, would have added additional lines.

I have a question for the minister. What is the policy now? What is the policy on raw logs? You say you're looking for a balance. You are sending out 5.5 million cubic metres in a year. What are you keeping here on the coast for jobs? What are you doing to make sure that people in Surrey, people in Richmond, people in Nanaimo who could use those logs to create jobs actually get the opportunity to do it?

Hon. S. Thomson: The members opposite are wrong when they talk about job losses. In fact, it's just the opposite. Let me be clear. Over 18 mills reopened because of building…. And 9,000 jobs, $9.95 billion in exports as a result of the domestic market.

Exports are 10 percent of the total harvest. The overall policy is providing those jobs here in our community. That's why we're focused on job creation. It's not just the 9,000 jobs that that policy is providing; it's the 9,000 new jobs we've created in the last month for our B.C. jobs plan and 39,000 net new jobs over the last year as part of the focus on job creation that I proudly support in this government.

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP AND POWERS OF

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM COMMITTEE

Hon. R. Coleman: By leave, I move:

[That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on the matter of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act (RSBC 1996 c.287).

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the said Committee by the House, the Committee is empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

And further that Mr. Bennett be appointed to replace Mr. Les as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

TO APPOINT AN OMBUDSPERSON

Hon. R. Coleman: By leave, I move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of an Ombudsperson, pursuant to

section 2 (2) of the Ombudsperson Act (RSBC 1996 c. 340) and the said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be composed of Mr. Les (Convenor), Ms. Barnett, Mr. Howard, Ms. Elmore and Ms. Karagianis]

[1425]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon in this House we will do committee stage of Bill 22, intituled the Education Improvement Act, where we're starting, I believe, on

section 14. We'll continue with that. In

section A, the

[ Page 10273 ]

Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will continue the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 22 — EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 22; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:28 p.m.

section 14 (continued) .

R. Austin: We are on

section 14.

The minister has stated that classes such as drama and band will be the kinds of classes that will be designated as a prescribed category of classes that may exceed 30 students. Can the minister also explain to the House whether the minister anticipates any other types of classes that will be designated as being in a prescribed category?

[1430]

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question.

There will be further work as we develop the regulation around the area of classes that could be larger-designated or smaller-designated. But examples based on, obviously, hearing the advice and evidence of others….

The kinds of classes that tend to be larger are band and choir classes and, I guess, on occasion theatre as well. I had a recent meeting with the B.C. Teachers Federation technology group, and they make a strong argument that for classes like woodworking and metalworking, the shop classes where students are working with power tools, arguably there should be a smaller class limit there.

Again, that is the kind of thing that we'll be looking at in the consultation which will follow passage of this bill.

R. Austin: I would like to also commend that presentation made on behalf of technology students.

I myself was an educational assistant in classes such as metalwork and shop, where it became very impractical for the teacher — who was responsible, of course, for every child in that classroom — to essentially maintain a safe classroom, particularly if, in addition to the number of kids in that class, there are kids who have been identified as having special needs and very often don't have the one-on-one support with an educational assistant or, in some cases, where the educational assistants who are asked to come in and help kids with special needs themselves don't know how to use the equipment.

So for the teachers it's like having a special needs child and an adult who requires adequate supervision to supervise that child, so I would hope that that happens.

Just to get this correct, then: all of this kind of thinking will be done through regulation after this. How long will that regulation process take? Is it going to be given up to the mediator to decide all that, or is that something that the minister is going to prescribe on his own decisions?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer would be, first of all, that the work will be undertaken by the Ministry of Education. We expect probably about one month in terms of the period required to look at this issue and to bring a draft regulation to the table.

I do want to just say further, to support what the Education critic has said, that I also found very useful the discussion with the BCTF technology association on the issue of shop classes. I think one of the areas that we agreed that we would further explore is the issue of providing a skills module to educational assistants who might want to be a generalized support in a shop class.

Again, in this case we would be looking at ensuring that rather than being a potential hazard in a shop class if they don't understand the operation of power tools, we can, in fact, with a skills module take educational assistants and make them a real asset in the shop. Again, this is another example of the kind of thing that we can do through the learning improvement fund and the upscaling of educational assistants.

R. Austin: Could I also ask the minister: is there going to be any taking into account the number of classes that have split classes? Again, that makes a huge difference to the ability of a teacher to have adequate learning conditions. Is there any thought as to what will happen in terms of the number of split classes there are and whether this will affect the number of kids in that class or whether it will affect the number of children who have been identified going into a split class?

[1435]

Hon. G. Abbott: Interesting question. Again, the member knows this, but generally, decisions around split classes — i.e., a 1 and 2 class put together or a 2-3-4 class…. Generally, these are school-based decisions, and they are often issues that confront rural and remote schools because there are not sufficient numbers of grade 1 students, grade 2 students, grade 3 students to have independent classes. It's not typically going to be a dilemma because generally the numbers are smaller anyways.

But to the member's point, in theory, one could come up against either a hard cap or class maximums, depending on what the splits are. So this is an important point to note for the record, and I appreciate the member asking the question, because it should be put on the record. In the instance of a kindergarten–grade 1 split, as an example, we would defer to the class cap for kindergarten. If it was a 3-4 split, we would refer to the hard cap for grade 3 versus the class maximum for grade 4. In a

[ Page 10274 ]

2-3-4 split, again, it would be the rules that would apply to the youngest students in that split.

R. Austin: Thank you to the minister for that answer. In reference to the learning improvement fund, the minister has indicated that now there is not just a potential but is probably going to be an increase to this fund, of approximately $30 million or $33 million, depending on whether it was $10 million saved today or $11 million saved today.

Because the lift is designed to have the lowest amount of money in it in year 1 and then increasing year 2 and year 3, is it fair to assume that the savings that have been made recently will be applied to the first-year lift, to take it from $30 million to, say, $60 million in year 1? Is that what the minister's intention is?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, that is our hope, subject to a battery of accountants and lawyers agreeing with that.

R. Austin: I think this the last question on this section. Just to be sure…. I heard the debate back and forth with other members. When there are increases in class size beyond 30, and the minister has outlined the various options that a teacher can choose — one, I guess, out of three or four — presumably that increase will not come out of the school budgets but will come from the lift. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: No, it would come out of the regular district funding.

R. Austin: One more question on

section 14, and that is on the notion of if a teacher decides to choose to take the incremental salary increase. I know that it's considerably bigger in elementary than in secondary. Is the minister not concerned about the fact that this is somehow entering into a sort of fee-for-service in our educational system? It's like we have in the health care system where we go see our doctor, and the number of patients that a doctor sees in a day is the number of people that he or she bills to the system.

[1440]

That is not a model that we have ever had in our educational system. We have block funding and a teacher teaches, and they go and teach. Is there not a concern that by introducing this model of payment structure, or potential payment structure, we are entering a place where teachers are going to suddenly be faced with: "Do I accept a pay raise for the extra child?"

I think that that is a very dark place to be entering. I'd like to hear the minister's comments on that kind of discussion — if it ever happened in the ministry.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's a very important question, and I want to give a thoughtful and full answer to the question.

No, I am not concerned about it. In the first instance, the decision to go over 30…. It would be exceptional to go over 30. Again, I've used the example of Coquitlam, where they have zero over 30, and Kamloops, where they have only a few classes, and they tend to be band and related classes that are over 30. So it's only in exceptional circumstances that one would see a class over 30.

Secondly, there has to be a consultation process among all the educational partners before, ultimately, the principal and the superintendent give their stamp that this is an educationally appropriate environment for student learning.

The case where this might happen would be…. It's the sort of Telkwa, Sicamous — the small town where maybe in one instance the class is 28, but in another instance it's 31. You don't want to have to tell the 31st student that they can't attend that class or that they have to get bussed or that they have to do it through distance learning or something.

So it is a matter of accommodating the student, but it is only in exceptional circumstances where that will happen.

Again, the numbers are pretty small here. It's not going to happen often. The numbers we're using are based on the Dorsey arbitration. As professionals, teachers can decide whether they want to take prep time, to take professional development contributions, to take it as a salary increment or they want to do a combination thereof. But it's only in those exceptional circumstances that we will see that.

This is not something that concerns me. There will be a built-in incentive here for the school district not to have classes over 30, because there will be a small cost — nevertheless, small — that will, if for no other reason, discourage them from wanting to have a class larger than

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

R. Austin: Could the minister please explain the purpose of

section 15?

Hon. G. Abbott: Probably the most effective way…. I expect the critic may want to explore this more fully than my first answer, because it is an important piece.

[1445]

It involves the deletion of what would generally be termed the Bill 33 portions of the School Act, as amended. So I would draw the member's attention to the

section entitled "Organization of classes — consultation at the beginning of the school year," which is 76.2.

It reads: "In each school year, the principal of a school must, within 15 school days after the school opening day set out in the school calendar applicable to the school for the school year…the consent of or consult with the teacher…consult with the school planning council..." etc.

[ Page 10275 ]

As I think we've made clear earlier on, we want to move away from that Bill 33 model. Every time I have met with the Principals and Vice-Principals Association, and it has been many times, invariably, they pretty much beg me to find some solution to this. The Bill 33 approach, again, while undoubtedly well-intentioned…. There's no question about that.

What occurred, though, as a consequence of that, was that a lot of the school class composition issues were pushed into the first weeks of September and the first weeks of the school year, and basically, as the principals would describe it, it buried them in paperwork at a time when it was really critically important for them to be visiting classrooms, to be working with teachers, to be building the collaborative culture in the school.

But instead of that, they were obliged under these points to be focusing work that really should be done all year round into a shorter period of time in the school year.

So we've tried to take into account the now longstanding concerns of the principals and vice-principals with this approach and tried to move to a model that would see us, particularly, starting to focus on class composition in May and June in the year prior to the September start.

R. Austin: But this

section also removes the reporting process that enables school districts and parents to be able to see how their school district was doing and how their class was doing in terms of class size and composition. Is that not correct?

[1450]

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, it's fabulous that we have committee stage debate, so I can learn all about the education system in British Columbia.

We have gone, the member may know, to a complete open data system. One of the foundations of that data system is an October reporting of class-size data as of September 30. Every one of the 1,600 schools in the province of B.C. will be providing to the ministry a report just like the one here. It's entitled "School Class Size and Composition." In this particular case it has a coded number and then Silver Star Elementary, which I suspect is up in Vernon.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, I did. Thank you for reminding me of that.

This will be the kind of report that will be generated. It's comprehensive and will be updated, I presume, annually.

R. Austin: I think it is important. You know, if we're moving to this new model, it's very important for everybody to have access to seeing what the results are going to be. We've had this debate back and forth, and the minister thinks that there's going to be an improvement. That's why he's called it the Education Improvement Act.

Many of us on this side think that there will not necessarily be an improvement and, particularly on the issue of composition, by removing the cap on having three children identified with an education plan, that in fact it's going to make matters a lot worse for our kids.

With that in mind, I would like to move the following amendment:

Section 15, by adding the text shown as underlined:

15 Sections 76.2 and 76.4 to 76.7 are repealed and further

section 76.3 is amended by repealing subsection (8) (a) (i). ]

On the amendment.

R. Austin: Speaking to this amendment, the purpose of this amendment…. Notwithstanding what the minister has just told us in the House in regard to the reporting process, it is sometimes very challenging for regular people, for parents, to understand how to go to various websites to find out information that we think is very important for every parent in British Columbia to have access to.

We think that it is important to retain the reporting measures that were laid out to give some accountability and some transparency to the results of these changes that are going to be made in Bill 22.

I'd like to begin my comments just by quoting from the previous Minister of Education, the member for Prince George–Mount Robson, who, when she was speaking about public reporting and consultation on class size, said the following:

"We also committed to requiring annual public reports on class size, and we acted on that. In fact, in February we released the first-ever report on class sizes in British Columbia public schools.

"The report was the most comprehensive information on class size and composition ever collected and published in this province, and it showed that many classes were a reasonable size but that some were not. The report also showed that 15 school districts were not in compliance with the provincial average class size legislation in at least one category. Clearly, there was a demonstrated need for a mechanism to enforce class size legislation."

[1455]

That, of course, has now been removed, but nonetheless….

"The school principal must consult with the school planning council on class organization within 15 days of the start of the school year. A superintendent must also verify that the school district is in compliance with class size legislation and submit a report on the organization of all classes to the school board and the district parent advisory council on or before October 1 of each year.

"The school board must then review the superintendent's report at a public meeting on or before October 15 each year and then

[ Page 10276 ]

send a copy of that report to the Minister of Education. The school board will be able to decide whether to accept the report, or they may instruct the superintendent to revise the report. In that case, the report must be returned to the board within 15 days."

We think, on this side of the House, that it is extremely important that we still continue to have this public reporting out at the school district level so that parents who may not otherwise know how to go to various websites can find out this information.

The purpose of this amendment, of course, is to retain the accountability measures provided through public reporting of class composition, and the amendment adds wording to the current provision in order to keep 76.3 of the School Act, which is otherwise removed by Bill 22.

The amendment also provides for a consequential amendment that removes the requirement of a superintendent to require a principal to consult with teachers under sections of the School Act that are removed by Bill 22.

I'm going to just spend a few minutes talking about why this is important, and I'm going to use as an example my own school district. Every year there has been a reporting out so that people in school district 82 can have an understanding of where our school district stands in terms of class size and composition, and it is a very useful tool.

For example, what we can discover…. From last year's report that was published October 1, 2011, we can see that on the issue of class size, at the elementary school level we were doing fantastically well. In fact, there were no classes in school district 82 that were over the class size of 30, between the elementary grades. However, that was not the case in terms of the higher grades, where there were almost 30 classes in excess of 30.

My school district is not a school district that has been overly challenged with class sizes, although there are lots of individual cases. It hasn't been one that has been overly challenged with class sizes because we've actually had a population decrease in northwest B.C., as the minister would well know. The challenge in school district 82 — and this is why this is so crucial for people to have access to this information — is on the number of kids with individual education plans. In that regard, the numbers are extremely challenging in school district 82.

We think that by putting in this amendment, every parent around British Columbia will understand what is going on directly in their school district. Let's just look at the number of students, from my report in school district 82 on classes that have more than three children in them with an individual education plan. This is going to grow, obviously, because Bill 22 actually removes the maximum number of children with an IEP, so we could end up legally having four, five, six, seven. Things could actually get much worse, is what I am trying to say.

I want to point out, as I read these figures out, that even while we had class-size and composition rules here for the last five years, since 2006 when Bill 33 was passed, the reality is — and of course, the minister has already alluded to this — that for the last several years that law has been flouted each and every day thousands of times because we weren't able to maintain the law. That's very troubling and I think, in part, has led to some of the reasoning that the minister has made today for essentially abandoning those regulations.

Now, we've had a debate back and forth about whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. We will continue to not agree on that issue. We think that maintaining class size and composition is important, but for the purposes of this amendment, here's the reason why we think it's important to report out. We need to be able to see whether things are getting worse rather than improving.

[1500]

In the Kitimat area last year the number of students was 19 students over the three in each class. Ten classrooms had those 19 students over. In the Hazelton area there were four classrooms. In Thornhill, just outside Terrace, there were seven classrooms. In Terrace itself there were 35 elementary classes last year that had more than three kids with IEPs. What does that tell us? It tells us that in spite of Bill 33, we were failing many of our children in not having the correct supports in the classroom.

I'm just going to make note of one. The minister…. Obviously, it's to his advantage when he brings up an example, but I'm just going to pick one here and show what is happening at a community school in Terrace. This is quite extraordinary. This is a split-grade class. This is happening right now, as we're speaking. Right now there are, in a split 5-6 class, 11 students with IEPs — 11 students with an individual education plan — out of 22.

Now, what does that tell you? How can any teacher…? I don't know who this teacher is, but how is even a teacher with 20, 25 years experience going to cope with a split class with 11 children with individual education plans?

We need to have this information. It needs to be public. It needs to be transparent. I was just pointing out, while the minister was chatting to the Opposition House Leader, that I'm just using an example in Terrace, as we speak, of one split 5-6 class with 11 children with IEPs. That's going to take an awful lot from the learning improvement fund to improve that classroom.

I'm still sticking on Terrace. A 6-7 split with seven IEPs. A different school — another 6-7 split with seven children with IEPs. A grade 5-6 split with nine individuals with education plans.

You know, when you look at these kinds of statistics, first of all, it's important for everyone to know that they're there, because we want to see whether we get better or worse. But in all honesty, I'm very concerned that when you see these kinds of figures…. I think it will probably be worse for rural school districts than it will be for urban school districts because, as we've debated earlier in this debate, there is simply less capacity to do the kinds of fixes necessary to help the kids and support

[ Page 10277 ]

the kids with IEPs.

So what's happening, really, is in many instances, as you get further away from an urban centre, I would argue that the support systems aren't in place to give the same quality of education that you would get in an urban centre. I think that's a generalization that I would make.

Certainly, when you look at the reporting out from school district 82, I think the minister would have to agree that this is a perfect example of a school district that's in serious trouble, especially in terms of giving support to children with special needs.

Now, I should point out, in fairness to what the minister said earlier, that school district 82 is not an average school district. I know that the minister's staff has spent a lot of time looking at all the data and coming up with averages. This is a school district that probably has twice the average of children with special needs in it. But clearly, when you've got classes that have 11, seven, seven and six children with individual education plans and you have a school district that's challenged with having a school population that has a history of…. Let's face it. Let's call it oppression — that's what it was.

We have a large number of families of aboriginal descent whose families have a history of children being removed back through the ages, and of course, they have major challenges in terms of supporting their kids because their experiences in the school system when they were young were horrific. That's just something that we will have to work through as we go through the generations.

Anyway, the reason for this amendment is to keep this reporting process as open and accountable and transparent, and we think that having a website that's very specialized is not the place to do it. We think that the superintendent should be the one who each year reports out publicly at the school board level so that that information is given through community newspapers and all the parents in their various communities can see what is going on.

We also think it is very important because now we are moving away…. A lot of the things that were protected under Bill 33 are now scrapped. They're gone. So it becomes even more important to make sure that we have this reporting out so that parents can gauge what has happened in their school districts.

I'm going to now cede the floor and allow other members to comment, if they want to, to this amendment.

[1505]

M. Karagianis: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment and would strongly ask that the minister and the government side of the House consider this amendment and that they give some serious thought to supporting it.

I would like to talk a little bit about the discourse that I've heard throughout the debate on this bill, and certainly as we've gone through the committee stage here. It seems to me that, at this stage, removing accountability, which ostensibly…. Bill 22 removes a number of accountability measures, and this amendment would restore those.

I think it's really imperative, at this time, that we do talk about accountability and that we ensure there's more accountability, rather than less, within the school system.

I mean, this was a primary promise by the Premier of this province — that there would be more openness and accountability of this government to the public and to families and to, in this case, students and school teachers. We have seen less accountability. So at this particular time, with this amendment, I think it's really important that we give serious consideration to this and that all members of the House support it.

When I look at the issue of superintendents having the ability to have that accountability, to be able to prepare reporting for class size and composition to the local public meeting of their school boards, this is an important part of accountability mechanisms that government owes to the public and that the public should consider as a right rather than a privilege.

In fact, when you strip away accountability measures in Bill 22, you are stripping away the rights of parents and families and students and teachers to provide their very best educational outcomes for young people.

In my particular school district there are a large number of classes that have more than 30 students in them. This is not an abnormality. It looks like this is the new normal within the school system — to have these large classes and to have growing numbers of children who require IEPs that put extraordinary burden on the classrooms.

I have received numerous letters from students. I've got some from teachers and parents, but I've been particularly moved from the letters I've received from students within my own school district and the very compelling, profound, wise, savvy perception of students around how class size and composition has affected their educational outcomes and how it will affect the future of their educational outcomes.

When students write to me in grade 11 and say, "I have spent a good number of years of the school system in overcrowded classrooms, in classrooms where there were not enough support systems in place for those who needed special needs or special attention, and my education has been compromised…."

Students say to me, in these letters: "I am not getting the education I deserve, and I am not getting the opportunities that I deserve in my life because the education system has been compromised."

Students say to me: "I rush to classes because I'm hoping I'll be among the first to get a seat so I don't have to sit on the ledge at the back of the room" or "I rush to class because there are not enough textbooks to go around" or "I sit in classrooms where there are a num-

[ Page 10278 ]

ber of special needs students who are disruptive or who require such enormous amounts of support and attention from the teacher that I'm not getting the education that I deserve."

I think that in the case of those students, they have the right and expectation, as do their families, that they will know — they will have a public accountability mechanism in place — exactly what to expect as outcomes in their own school districts or in schools that they're going into.

I think that the actions of this government throughout this bill have been very disturbing. We've continued to have what turns out to be just a straight-on ideological clash, when we can't have any kind of agreement, even on what the repercussions will be of large numbers of students requiring IEPs — on existing class resources, on the learning environment. For students who are currently in the system, I think that it's a bit tragic.

[1510]

This amendment here would go a long way to at least putting some minor, realistic checks and balances in place into this bill.

The previous Minister of Education, as we have canvassed in this House, was very clear around her desire to see these kinds of mechanisms in place. That was only a few years ago.

I am unconvinced at this point by listening to some of the remarks coming from the current minister as to why we would shift away from that, when that promise was made of board accountability, of superintendents' ability to report out to school districts so that families always were aware of the pressures on the system. I don't understand why those goals and ideals that were expressed in 2006 are now no longer valid.

I believe that the accountability portion of this…. If we have been unable to convince the government to reverse the portions of this bill that have left class size and composition as a continued problem and challenge for students well into the future — if we have done nothing to try and sway that course — then I would at the very least urge the government to join with this side of the House in supporting this amendment.

If we can do nothing else, if we can't correct the system or build better mechanisms in place or do better in our classrooms, then at the very least we should put an accountability mechanism in there that allows the public to see what's going on.

This government has moved further and further away from accountability to the public. This is yet one more step. I urge all members of this House to support this amendment, because I think it is a necessary step to take.

G. Coons: I'm speaking in support of the amendment put forward by my colleague, the member for Skeena. Basically, this amendment looks at what's happening with

section

Section 15 removes the reporting requirements for annual public reporting that was brought in by Bill 33 in 2006.

The issue at hand here is that it removes requirements for the superintendent of each school district to prepare a class-size report, provide the rationale on it and to present it not only at a public meeting but to parent advisory committees. The amendment before us is putting that accountability measure back in there.

The importance of public reporting is that it's an accountability measure. It's a transparency measure. It's a due diligence measure. The importance of it can't be expressed more than with what's happened with the class-size and composition stripping that happened. School districts have to report out. They should be reporting out to parents, to the public, to teachers and to constituents.

As was commented before by the member for Skeena, coming from the north coast, it isn't class size. It's the composition, where we've got kids in there that fall in the grey matter. This amendment has to bring back the accountability measure of the school districts. I believe it does.

When we look at what has happened, the number of classes in the last…. Last year there were close to 4,000 classes over 30. But the key component of that — and we need the accountability, the reporting process — is the number of classes that have more than three special needs kids in them. Last year there were over 12,000 classes with more than three students with IEPs.

I think it's incumbent on the minister, incumbent on the government, to ensure that superintendents have the reporting aspects of that. When the bill came out previously, the previous minister, the current Minister of Justice, basically talked about: "The board is ultimately accountable to its community. The superintendent is accountable to the board."

She says in the debate when this

section was brought in, with Bill 33: "We also believe that there eventually needs to be a series of accountability measures in place. People expect that." That's what this amendment does.

I do want to bring something different to the mix, and that's…. There was an arbitration done on

section 76.3. I believe arbitrator Dorsey looked at alleged violations of

section 76.

[1515]

The Dorsey award emphasized the importance of the consultative process set out in legislation. That's why, bringing forward this amendment, we're looking at assuring accountability, transparency and due diligence. That's what we need from our school districts to ensure parents and the public know what's happening in our classrooms.

Now, in the award…. I'm going to go to it. I'll just take a couple of minutes here. The cited paragraph set out in the Dorsey award.... This is from the award. These are quotes. "The factors to be considered by an arbitrator in reviewing a principal's decision to organize a class that

[ Page 10279 ]

exceeds the class-size and composition standard and the principal and superintendent opinions the class size is appropriate for student learning are factors that relate to transparency."

So this is an arbitration, comments by an arbitrator on this. It's all about transparency and accountability. That's why we're putting forward this amendment, and that's why I support that. The reason the class was organized as it is, and the basis of the opinions — the opinion that the class is appropriate for student learning — are very important. That's what we need.

When I look at some of the reports by school districts, they range as far as the report on this section. Some of them are very basic, but several of them outline the number of classes with more than three students with IEPs, and the reasons why. We need that to hold our education system accountable and this minister accountable. That's why we're putting forward this reasonable amendment so that we can help the minister along in this.

Another

section from the Dorsey report relating to this

section is:

"Transparency will be fulfilled by meeting the consultation and reporting requirements."

That's what this amendment is about — accountability, transparency and due diligence. I'm continuing in the report.

"The reason for the organization of the class involves an explanation of the alternative class organizations explored and the reason the organization in dispute was chosen. The basis for the opinions that the class is appropriate for student learning involves all the reasons and factors that led the principal and the superintendent to their opinions the class is appropriate for student learning. These may include teacher requests; class, school and district supports for the class; and the students in the class."

So we need those reasons of why class sizes are over 30 or why there's more students with special needs.

The last part, before I conclude is — and this is part of the report:

"As part of the due diligence, the superintendent must be informed about classes that exceed the class-size and composition standard with which the teacher agrees it is a class appropriate for student learning and these classes for which the teacher disagrees or did not express an opinion. Principals, superintendents, boards of education and perhaps parents need to know if teachers do not believe their classes are appropriate for student learning."

I think it is outrageous that this government is again looking at going after class size and composition and having no accountability measures, no transparency measures and not doing their due diligence. You know, it's vital that throughout the process, when classes are deemed to be at greater than 30 or a class with more than three students with IEPs, there's a rationale that goes out in the reasoning and why, as the arbitrator said, parents need to know if teachers do not believe that their classes are appropriate for student learning.

On that note, I think this is a reasonable amendment to put forward. I think that it's already been covered in arbitration — the reasons why we need to ensure that reporting out, being transparent, being accountable…. School boards and the minister doing their due diligence is required with this amendment.

J. Kwan: I rise to speak in support of this amendment. Just so that we can contextualize what we're talking about, this amendment relates to

section 76.1 of the School Act. What does it effectively do, or what is it talking about? It's talking about the limits on class sizes per the act.

[1520]

It states that kindergarten classes may not have more than 22 students, that grades 1 to 3 classes may not have more than 24 students, and grades 4 to 7 classes may not have more than 30 students unless the superintendent of the schools for the district and the school principal deem the organization of the class to be appropriate for students' learning and obtain the consent of the teacher of that class.

[D. Black in the chair.]

The requirement to obtain the consent of teachers in grades 4 to 7 classes that exceed 30 students is removed by

section 14 of Bill 22 — that's what we're talking about — and the amendment here is talking about keeping that provision in. So that's what the amendment is about.

The issue, of course, also deals with grades 8 to 12, where grades 8 to 12 can exceed 30 students if the superintendent of the schools for the district and school principal deem the organization of the class to be appropriate for student learning and consult with the teacher of that class. They need to consult with, but not obtain the consent of, the teachers.

Section 14 of Bill 22, which also relates to this amendment, proposes to remove the need to consult with high school teachers. The amendment here aims to keep it there, and to say that that consultation is important and necessary.

The limits on the number of special needs students tie into this as well. All classes may not have more than three special needs students unless the superintendent of schools for the district and school principal deem the organization of the class to be appropriate for student learning and consult with the teacher of that class. They need to consult with, but not obtain the consent of, the teacher.

Again, limits on special needs students are removed by

section 14 of Bill 22, allowing that there be an unlimited number of special needs students in the classroom.

These are important issues that we're talking about. It speaks directly to the issue of class size and composition, requiring that the superintendent do some work that they're already currently doing, which I think is absolutely important for building the relationship with the teachers, and then also making sure that whatever that composition is in that classroom is going to be the optimal learning environment for the students involved.

Why else would you have the requirement to consult

[ Page 10280 ]

with teachers from the superintendents or the principals of that school? Why wouldn't you want to require that, to make sure that that work is done? Yet Bill 22,

section 14, says that no, they don't need to do that.

How does that make sense for the government to put in such a section? How is that useful and helpful (

a) for the teachers, (

b) for the students and (

c) for the parents?

It does not help anybody to do that. Why would the government do that? Why would the government put forward a

section of a bill that eliminates that requirement for consultation and the need to produce reports to tell British Columbians how the government is doing on class size and composition across the districts in British Columbia?

It doesn't make any sense. So my colleague has put forward an amendment to say no. We should not take away the requirement for consultation. We should not take away the requirement for public disclosure, if you will — reports that tell us, all British Columbians, so that we know what the status is in the classrooms right now.

Why is that important? That speaks to why I support this amendment. It is important because we know that the government has been in violation of class size and composition — not one or two classes, not three or four classes, but to the tune of hundreds, of thousands. That's a lot of classes that are in violation.

In fact, the BCTF, the B.C. Teachers Federation, has actually put on the public record that there are some 10,000 classes that are under grievances right now because of the issue of class size and composition.

That is something that…. The government right now is in violation of their own law. Is that the reason why the government wants to do away with the public reporting of class size and composition, so that nobody knows when the government is in violation of their own law? Is that the purpose of

section 14 of Bill 22? And to not consult with the teachers? Why wouldn't people consult with the people who are in the classroom and who have to do that work each and every day?

[1525]

When we talk about special needs, we know that children who have special needs will need additional support. We also know that in a complex classroom, where you have special needs, sometimes ESL students, sometimes gifted students….

Sometimes you have students who also have other socioeconomic challenges in the classroom that comes from the home front, but when they go to the school, they don't leave all that stuff at the door. It all comes into the classroom. The complexity of the classroom is key to make it work so that the teacher can manage that complexity in the classroom.

If you exceed the level of special needs students of three in any one classroom, then you need to make sure that there is the capacity for the teachers and the assistants in that room to manage the classroom for the benefit of every student in that classroom. To take away some of those standards and limits means that the people who will suffer from that are the very people that we say we want to have a good education system for. That would be the students.

If the teacher can't manage that particular composition of the classroom, then it doesn't serve anybody at all. So this requirement of

section 14 simply doesn't make any sense.

I have here with me examples of the Vancouver school district, which is the area in which my schools are located in the city of Vancouver. Of the 179 classes…. That would be secondary schools enrolling more than 33 students, therefore in violation of the government's law right now. Of the 179 classes that exist, reported as enrolling more than 30 students, 73 classes enrol more than 33 students. So that's quite a statistic, really, to look into.

Almost a third of those classes are in violation, and the Vancouver school board says that there are 82 K-to-12 classes with more than three special needs students. So that's 82 classes in the Vancouver school district that are in violation of the government's law right now, with respect to special needs students.

Of these classes, teachers in 67 of them — that's 87 percent of them — disagree with their class-size compositions, saying that they didn't meet the learning needs of the students. That's a sampling of what is going on right now in a classroom. We need to have this information if we're to try to figure out what is going on in these classrooms and then how to address it to ensure that the optimal learning environment exists for the students and the teachers alike.

So the importance of this amendment…. I can't emphasize enough the importance of this amendment. This amendment, I should say, doesn't cost anybody any money. It does not cost the government money. It does not cost the system money. All that it does is that it calls for accountability and transparency in the system. That's what it means.

So why would the Liberal government be against this? Why would the Minister of Education be against this amendment? I don't get it. Why would, in fact, anybody in this entire Legislature be against it?

And isn't this the very issue to which the court judgment has spoken to — around the need to consult, around the need to ensure that there is that level of participation with the teachers? Isn't that good governance to engage in the practice of discussion? Isn't that the way and the path to go forward in trying to resolve conflict?

I would argue that it is. I would argue that it is a good amendment and that the government should, in fact, embark on that and that the government should listen to our critic with this constructive amendment that is being put on the floor and say: "Yes, that makes sense. It makes sense for the students. It makes sense for our teachers. It makes sense for the parents." Frankly, it makes sense for

[ Page 10281 ]

our education system.

I would urge the Minister of Education and I would urge the members of the government bench, all of them, to examine this amendment in a non-partisan way, put forward in such a way that will look to making a decision that will best address the needs of our classroom. At the end of the day, that is what's most important.

[1530]

So I would urge all members of this House to look at this amendment and what it means, and I would urge the member of the this House to rise to speak to it.

Tell me what you think about this amendment. Do you agree with it? Do you not agree with it? If you don't agree with it, why not? What is the problem with it? Why is accountability and transparency a bad thing in our education system? I would urge all members of the House to take up that task, to do that, and I'll look forward to that debate.

For myself, I am going to be supporting this amendment, and I think it's a positive way of going forward.

R. Austin: Madam Chair, my understanding is that there has been an agreement that we will vote on this amendment at five o'clock when we actually vote on the bill.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, shall the amendment pass?

Hon. Members, I've heard that a division call has been made. We are currently operating under the time allocation motion adopted on Monday, March 12, 2012. However, I do understand there is an agreement that a standing division will be held at 4:45 p.m. on this amendment.

Section 15 stood down.

The Chair: Committee will now proceed with

section 16.

E. Foster: Will the bells be rung at 4:45 to call a standing vote?

The Chair: Yes, Member, they will.

We'll move now to

section 16. We can't pass

section 15 if we are going to vote on an amendment later, so we'll proceed now to

section 16.

section 16.

R. Austin: Could the minister just explain the purpose of

section 16?

Hon. G. Abbott: The amendment here is a minor housekeeping amendment related to the duties that a vice-principal may perform. It would simply reflect the elimination of some of the pieces in front of it.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

[1535]

R. Austin: Could the minister please explain the purpose of

section 17?

Hon. G. Abbott: The change in respect of

section 17 refers to

section 78.1 of the School Act — that is, in respect of the extended day and year-round schooling. That provision is repealed. It was enacted by

section 15 of the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, also known as Bill 28, and was struck down by Justice Griffin's decision in B.C. Supreme Court.

The intent of this

section was to clarify that boards have authority to set local school calendars that provide for extended day and year-round schooling.

R. Austin: The other sections that were ruled unconstitutional by Madam Justice Griffin have been put back into Bill 22, but this particular

section that's been removed hasn't. Can the minister explain to us what the reason for that is? How is it different from all the sections that have been put back in?

[1540]

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the repeal of

section 78.1, the existing school calendar regulation exists and is permissive of boards making the changes that they may, after consultation with their citizens, believe appropriate. The

section that is being deleted, we believe, is unnecessary.

Section 17 approved.

section 18.

R. Austin: I think this is a very important section, and I'm sure the minister will agree. We need to go into the details of how the LIF is going to work. I guess I would like ask the minister to give a broad overview of the workings of the LIF, and then we can get into detailed questions on this.

Hon. G. Abbott: At the highest level what it does is add a

section to the School Act. Just so the critic understands the flow here, 115 is entitled "Special purpose grants," 115.1 is the annual facility grant, and 115.2 will be the learning improvement fund. It fits into that

section of the School Act.

As we have discussed previously, the learning improvement fund is a product of the discussions which followed from Justice Griffin's decision of April 13, 2011, in the B.C. Supreme Court. The fund was tabled as part of the

[ Page 10282 ]

process of face-to-face discussion that occurred between representatives of government and BCPSEA on one side and of the B.C. Teachers Federation on the other.

[1545]

The grant, as I've mentioned many times, is currently $165 million over three years, which we hope will become $195 million over three years — again, subject to final approvals of that. The object is to improve our management of class organization, particularly as it refers to the allocation and management of special needs resources in the classroom.

R. Austin: The minister refers to the learning improvement fund as a specific amount of money that will be used specifically to support kids with special needs. Will this funding be used to fund anything outside of special needs students, and if so, can the minister explain which areas of the school system might be supported with the learning improvement fund?

Hon. G. Abbott: The purposes of the funds are limited to classes that are challenging because of the special needs students who are within those classes.

To qualify for utilization within LIF, one would be looking at, for example, contact hours between learning assistants, as is the case with the CUPE agreements. It could be — hypothetically, because we haven't had the discussion yet — contact hours for teachers — again hypothetically, as the discussion has not occurred.

It could relate to building the knowledge and skills base of both teaching assistants and teachers. It could relate to professional development opportunities for teachers. It could add additional teachers and learning assistants or teaching assistants as well.

R. Austin: In all the cases that the minister has just mentioned, they have to be related to improving services for special needs. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.

R. Austin: I'm just interested in the actual definition of the learning improvement fund. Was that a title that was put in place by the judge? How come the government made the definition of learning improvement fund? How was that determined?

Hon. G. Abbott: The name was not prescribed legally. It is a name that was chosen rather like my parents chose, at one point, George, for my name.

R. Austin: Since then they've named a very famous clothing line after you. That's quite good. Very successful, I understand.

Could I ask the minister how the dollars will be allocated to this fund each year? Now, we know at the announcement that it was initially $165 million — so $30 million this coming year, then $60 million and then $75 million. There may be an increase in this year's funding, depending on whether everything goes well in taking the savings from the three-day strike last week.

[1550]

In terms of allocating the dollars, in terms of the budget, presumably that's already decided for the next three years, irrespective of the budget that's going to be coming down, each and every year, for Education. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for the important question. There is a distinction between the way in which the dollars will be distributed this year versus how they will be distributed in years 2 and 3. In terms of the first year I'd make the member aware of 115.2(3), which reads: "Before making the first grant under subsection (2) in any fiscal year, the minister must notify each board of the amount of the grant the minister estimates will be provided to the board."

What will occur in the current year…. Obviously, it's going to vary whether it is $30 million or $60 million, but the allocation will be on the same basis in which the overall funding block goes to school districts. It's largely driven by per pupil, but it may vary depending on the other elements that tend to move funding up or down a little bit — number of students with special needs, ESL, aboriginal, climate, distances, all of that that have become things that may move the per-capita or per-student number up and down a little bit. That will be the basis on which it is distributed in the first year.

In the second and third years there will be a consultation with the B.C. Teachers Federation in respect of the disbursement, and I'd refer the member to 115.2(4), which lists "(

a) total student enrollment in each district; (

b) the number of students in each district who are diagnosed with special needs; (

c) the location of schools, communities and services in each district."

We believe that with a year of experience and in consultation with the BCTF, we can probably refine the way in which the fund is utilized. Also, the expectation when we started with $30 million, moved to $60 million and moved to $75 million was that we would learn a lot in that initial year about how most effectively to manage this fund and then have some refinements to it as we got into second and third year.

[1555]

R. Austin: In the first year the $30 million will be minus the $7.5 million that I believe is part of the CUPE contract. So it will be $23½ million that'll be distributed in the next fiscal year, if we don't get the other $30 million that's coming from the savings from the teacher action last week.

I want to ask the minister this. I understand the chal-

[ Page 10283 ]

lenges from starting in the first year, not having the time to do the consultation with all the school districts. But surely, if the purpose of this is to improve the educational outcomes of those with special needs, yet in the first year the main driver is again going to be per-pupil student funding, again that's going to really hit those districts that have a disproportionate number of children to support with special needs versus those districts that have the largest populations.

Surely, even in the first year the way that it's going to be designed to be distributed is not going to maximize its benefit to children with special needs. Once again it'll be driven by per-pupil funding. So the larger districts, principally in the Lower Mainland, will benefit, in a way, disproportionately from this when the whole idea of this is to support children with special needs.

Hon. G. Abbott: A few points, I think, are very important here. First is to note, and this is important to understand, that the incidence of special needs across the 60 school districts is surprisingly consistent across that great diverse body we call British Columbia. There is not a great variation between the incidence of special needs in, for example, a rural district versus incidence in an urban district.

They're a challenge in both. There will be some variation up and down, but there is consistency across the board. They're roughly the same level.

To go to the point, which I think the member was making earlier, around the challenges of provision of educational services in rural-remote areas, I know that the member's constituency is probably a little bit more rural and remote than my own, but these challenges are not unknown in Shuswap either.

The advantage we have here in having in year 1 the disbursement of the $30 million or the $60 million, as the case may be, being reflective of the portion which each district takes in the overall funding is that this is the far-edge example of the funding formula and how it works.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Stikine is the smallest school district in the province, about 200 students, as the member knows, but scattered over this huge area — four schools, 16 teachers. The per-student funding is $22,000 per student as would compare to $7,000-something in the largest district in the province, Surrey.

[1600]

Stikine will, in a relative sense, get that same additional opportunity, based on how much more difficult it is to even get the paraprofessionals or professionals in to deal with special needs kids. Though there are not going to be many incidents of special needs, they are going to be very challenging to deal with because of the distances and the remoteness factor. The formula does take that into account.

A final point — and not to be picky, but it's important — the $7.5 million that will be utilized by the Canadian Union of Public Employees will be within that block that is disbursed to each of the 60 school districts. It will have to be used, for example, for extending the contact hours for educational assistance or in the extension of training, skills opportunities, for those teaching assistants.

Where it will go in terms of the BCTF side of the equation has to await that hopefully fulsome discussion we'll be having at some point with BCTF on this fund.

R. Austin: The portion that's not going to be used for members of CUPE, for the educational assistants. Is that going to be part of the discussions, then, that the mediator has to take care of, in Bill 22?

Or is it that after the mediator has finished his work, you are then going to be sitting down with the BCTF to decide how that's going to be used? Or is this something that's going to be decided with the school trustees or the administrators to ensure that the money is spent specifically on things that improve learning conditions for kids with special needs?

[1605]

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, to set it in context again, LIF is based on Justice Griffin's decision and the discussions that were held pursuant to Justice Griffin's decision. Despite the failure of the discussions that led up to LIF and led up to this bill, it may be at some point that the parties want to reconnect on how better to disburse the LIF fund.

Whether that happened in terms of direct contact between government and union or union and government, we'd be quite happy to see that discussion proceed, because we haven't had that important discussion about how this fund might benefit the teaching profession in relation to the special needs students that they serve. That's a discussion that needs to be had.

If the union decided that they would like to have the assistance of a mediator in undertaking those discussions, it would not be inconsistent with the expansive mandate of the mediator to do that. That would certainly be a possibility, but we're not being prescriptive about that. If that's the way it turned out, we'd be fine with it, but we're happy to have the discussion under any terms and circumstances. The dollars are there. It's a question of how to make best use of them.

To your question, though, on how it's likely to work in this and subsequent years. Each school district, based on our previous questions, would get their allocation. Right now and through the end of June schools will be building timetables. They'll be building budgets, etc., hopefully on a collaborative basis, as we've spoken of previously.

The principals will be identifying within their schools those classes that have the highest needs from a spe-

[ Page 10284 ]

cial needs perspective. They will in turn be passing, as principals and vice-principals, that information on to the superintendent for that school district. The superintendent, then, will look at this constellation of need and develop a plan, in consultation with the president of the teachers association, for the distribution of those resources.

That would be what would be undertaken prior to the end of the current school year. There will be a plan in place and, hopefully, an agreement in place, subject to, obviously, the parties being able to secure that.

In many instances there will be some changes over the summer. The number of special needs students may change, or the overall student numbers may change. There may be elements that change.

So we would look forward in September, after registrations are completed, to some tweaking of the plan by the superintendent, the principals, the president of the BCTF local — having some discussion of that and, hopefully, agreement — with all of this culminating in a sign-off by the superintendent, a report to the board and the board reporting to the province on the distribution and effective utilization of the fund.

R. Austin: As time is running out, let me just ask a couple of questions, perhaps.

Is there going to be a deadline in terms of timing? For the schools to be able to plan for next year as to when the essential figure is going out from the learning improvement fund to each school district, is there going to be a deadline as to when the information is going to be given?

Will the dollars allocated to each school district…? Presumably, it's on a yearly basis, and then the school district cannot assume that those same dollars will come the following year.

That's good for now.

[1610]

Hon. G. Abbott: The information with respect to the distribution of the $30 million was communicated earlier this week, so they have that information now. There is a possibility of additional good news, in terms of the doubling of that, should we be able to move an additional $30 million into that fund.

The way that the fund works, as the member may recall…. It will be either $30 million or $60 million in year 1, moving to $60 million in year 2, $75 million in the third year and $75 million every year thereafter. That's the basis of the fund.

R. Austin: Is there going to be a holdback of that fund to ensure that once September starts, if a school district has got a higher need than it expected when they were initially doing their consultation…? Will there be a percentage held back, like in a lot of school funding?

Hon. G. Abbott: No. In this case it will go out in its entirety.

R. Austin: In subsection (2) of

section 18, can the minister just explain what "any other grants payable under this Act" refers to?

Hon. G. Abbott: It is to ensure that these funds are incremental to or in addition to the block funds for this purpose.

R. Austin: That means that this has got nothing to do with the annual lift or whatever that the minister decides becomes part of the normal budgetary process. This is all in addition to…. So we won't see the situation of the budget coming down next year and there being this LIF fund being considered part of that normal budgetary process. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: That is correct. These funds will not replace the $866 million that is in the block for special needs purposes.

R. Austin: Does the minister expect, in subsequent years, that there may be districts fighting for these funds based on presenting their cases? Like if each teacher brings forward their information on what their class is like in terms of the number of kids with special needs and that information is all aggregated, like it is in the report that we were just talking about in our amendment….

If the need is obviously greater…. The minister often says we don't have unlimited dollars. As he knows, this is a system which, if we did have unlimited dollars, would use them. So given that the need for special needs is so great around the province, how is the minister going to ensure that once all this information is collated from each superintendent, which is gathered from each school district…? Ultimately, is the minister not going to have to be making a decision right here in Victoria in terms of who gets help and who doesn't?

We could end up in a sense of school districts fighting one another or arguing with one another, saying, "Our need is greater than yours because, look, we have so many kids with special needs," and another district saying: "Well, look. We've got so many kids with special needs that need help." In addition to that, quite aside from the actual child who has been identified, there may be capacity issues that vary hugely from district to district.

Ultimately, is it going to be the minister and the office down here that decide these things, or is there going to be a structure that enables it to really be seen as being fair?

Hon. G. Abbott: This is an important question. I know I've heard suggestions that this would occur, but my answer is no. I wouldn't expect that at all because, first of all, special needs are not unique to any one of the 60 dis-

[ Page 10285 ]

tricts, as I mentioned in an earlier answer.

[1615]

While from year to year and district to district there may be some modest variation, still, predictably — whether the district is urban, rural, urban, remote, whatever it may happen to be — there's quite an impressive consistency across the piece.

Further, one of the important advantages we have in terms of understanding the degree of need and ensuring that, as I think the member appropriately framed it, fairness drives this fund…. We are now able, because of the facility of information-gathering and communication we have through vehicles like the early learning partnership and some of the great work that's been done at UBC around need….

First of all, we know the total student enrolment readily in each district. We know the number of students in each district who are diagnosed with special needs. We know whether they are level 1, 2 or 3. We know the level of severity that needs to be dealt with, and we know the location of schools, communities and services in each district.

So all of this volume of information we now have, courtesy of University of B.C. and other post-secondary institutions. We have a pretty good idea of this, so we can, as we now are going to do with CommunityLINK, use that information to drive the distribution of funds. Basically, that will be how we do it here as well.

R. Austin: That brings an interesting point. I wanted to ask the minister this. We have a lot of kids who have been identified, and the ministry has all that data. There are, though, a few districts, particularly those that are far away from urban centres, that have always had challenges in terms of simply getting their kids to be assessed.

The minister would know that there are students who are spotted by a teacher in the early grades as having some challenges. Because there is either a lack of capacity or a lack of funding to bring the specialized person up from Vancouver to do the assessment on a child, very often kids will go two or three grades without being identified. Those kids are often referred to as grey-area kids, and teachers know who they are and try to do their best to address them until such time as they can get assessed.

The minister just alluded to the human early learning partnership in recognizing those districts and those areas around the province where there is a greater vulnerability of children entering the system. The fact that all these grey-area kids have not been identified and the fact that the human early learning partnership does identify catchment areas of the province where children are entering the school system with great vulnerabilities…. How will those two areas be dealt with in terms of helping this learning fund to address the needs of those two specialized areas?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member raising this question, because it's a very important and real-world issue. As the member rightly identifies, it is remarkably challenging if one has what we often term, fairly or unfairly, a grey-area kid. And if that grey-area kid happens to be in Lower Post, it is remarkably challenging to get a professional or paraprofessional in to do a diagnosis, never mind to do the therapy that might benefit the child in that case. That's a real-world challenge we have, and I think we need to think about that.

The second point I would make is that the issue of grey-area kids is not only one that is important, though, in rural and remote circumstances. Sometimes, based on demand and numbers in some socioeconomic areas, it can be particularly compelling in urban areas as well. So this is an important challenge.

That is why I am particularly excited about the conversation that we have underway with the deans of education of post-secondary institutions to see whether there is a way that we can build a set of programs or skills or degrees.

I'm not sure what it will look like, because we've just begun the conversation, but something that would provide an opportunity for a bachelor of education to take some additional training and become that paraprofessional link between the ever-short number of occupational therapists, speech therapists, speech pathologists, psychologists, etc.

[1620]

That's a conversation that excites me. I think that gets us part of the way. That is very much the kind of thing which we can do under LIF.

R. Austin: Further to the minister's comments, these kinds of discussions — are they already taking place with those who provide post-secondary services in British Columbia, to design courses that aren't necessarily a full degree in psychology or whatever but that will enable somebody who has already got a bachelor of education to go and do some continuing education locally, at their local college or university, to be able to get those skills?

And is this something that the professional colleges that look after those areas are willing to engage in? I know that part of the challenge…. We hear it a lot around this Legislature in terms of working with different professionals. I'm going to use the example from the health care system. As soon as you start to suggest to a doctor that a nurse practitioner can do a large portion of what a doctor does, it creates huge challenges within their own respective professions.

So I'm wondering: are we going to see that same challenge here, or is this something that the minister thinks we can overcome?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think all of the things that the member referenced are possibilities. Respecting that we're

[ Page 10286 ]

now about four hours into probably a 200-hour discussion, clearly, there's a lot of thought and articulation that would need to go into construction of new programs or degrees in that area. We're not even scratching the surface yet. It's very early discussion.

But one thing we do know. I know that the member and I agree on many things, and I suspect we'd agree on this. Even if today, somehow, we were able to resolve with the universities a major increase in the faculties that produced speech pathologists, speech therapists, occupational therapists and so on…. Even if we were to agree today, it would be at least a decade out until we had enough to deal with all of the issues that we have within the school system.

I think it's a sensible step to think about paraprofessionals. And the member is right. Whenever you do that, there will be some in the profession who may say: "No, that endangers my economic basis."

I have a sister-in-law who, for the purposes of this debate, I'm certain, would prefer to remain anonymous, but she is a speech pathologist, speech therapist. She can't begin to keep up with both her public sector clients and her private sector clients. And virtually — well, I think, not virtually — everyone who has that set of skills is constantly in demand.

So I think it's going to be a long time, and there are going to be a lot of paraprofessionals produced before the need for those professionals is diminished in any way. What we're really thinking about here is not replacement of those skills but having someone — and again, the nurse practitioner is a good example — who can take account of the need but not necessarily having the full skill set of the full professional.

R. Austin: I think the minister makes a good point. While there is such a high demand for skilled professionals, now is the time to go at it and attack that issue. It doesn't hurt the economic base of a lot of these professionals, when the need is so great, to actually suggest that we can have paraprofessionals underneath them who can do a portion of their work, because it doesn't change their income at all. Hopefully, that will happen.

[1625]

Is there opportunity for school districts or teachers to access the learning improvement fund to help with those kinds of children? We're seeing some schools that have a large percentage of those kids.

R. Austin: At the end of the first fiscal year, once the…. Well, these grants have now been given out, and hopefully they are going to be increased, with the extra $30 million.

Presumably, each school or each district, as its planning, will not be able to take that amount of money as a sort of baseline grant for the following year. They have to plan each year, recognizing that every year, when they get notice of their learning improvement fund grant, it will change, and could be changing quite dramatically, from year to year. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: In theory, there may be shifts from year to year, because of course, you have a graduating class, and you have an incoming class of kindergarten children. There may be some modest variation.

I'm advised, from those who have worked in this area for a very long time, that year-over-year changes are never huge and significant. They may be minor. I think from year to year there is going to be a fairly predictable body of need within any cohort of five-year-olds, six-year-olds, seven-year-olds and so on.

Section 18 approved.

section 19.

R. Austin: Can the minister explain the purpose of

section 19?

[ Page 10287 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: This goes to the discussion we had earlier about how this will be undertaken in year one versus year two. Generally, the added element in year two is a more specific and formal reference to consultation with the BCTF.

Sections 19 and 20 approved.

section 21.

R. Austin: I think we've discussed some of this, but I'd like the minister just to put on the public record what the purpose is of

section 21.

[1630]

Hon. G. Abbott:

Section 21 enacts

section 168.01 of the School Act, which creates an authority for the minister to make regulations respecting the learning improvement fund grants, including but not limited to consultations that boards have to carry out in deciding how to spend the lift, spending plans detailing how boards intend to spend the grant and acceptable uses for lift funding.

Section 21 will come into force on April 14, 2012, when the learning improvement fund provision,

section 18 of this act, comes into force.

R. Austin: With respect to the board having to carry out some consultations, does this mean that this is where parents get to go and meet at the board office? Or is there an expectation that at each school level, through the PACs or whatever, there will be a consultation with each school so that parents feel that they're part of the decision-making process in terms of their own board putting forward their application to the learning improvement fund?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is yes, and it will be specified in the regulation.

R. Austin: Can the minister tell the House what regulations he anticipates will be made with respect to consultations that the board must ensure are carried out before requesting a grant?

Hon. G. Abbott: I know the member will respect that this hasn't received any final drafting. What we would contemplate, in terms of the consultations from the beginning to the end of the processes here, would be a consultation between principal and staff, between the superintendent and the district teachers association president, between the principal and parents, and between — in all likelihood — the superintendent and the district parent advisory council.

R. Austin: Thanks to the minister for that answer. Can the minister also explain what regulations he anticipates will be made with respect to a spending plan that a board must submit on request for a grant? Obviously, the things that we've discussed as to where the minister believes the money should go in terms of helping kids with special needs…. That, presumably, would have to be fairly prescriptive. Am I right in saying that?

[1635]

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the spending plan…. I'll have to preface this by saying we've not yet had that full and proper discussion around this with the Teachers Federation, and we want to have that discussion. Clearly, they will bring some ideas, experience, expertise to the table that will help us better understand how we can get best utilization of the learning improvement fund. But the spending plan would certainly include the elements which we discussed in some detail earlier, which would be additional teachers and additional teaching assistants — sometimes styled special education assistants or education assistants.

It may be an expanded contact day for either teachers or for learning assistants or educational assistants. It may be an expanded skill set for either or both of those groups. It could be innovative programs which help us meet unmet needs in terms of paraprofessionals dealing with skill shortage areas. These would be the kinds of things.

I don't think we're at a stage in the discussion yet where we have the