2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 29, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 6, Number 14

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Travel agents

B. Belsey

Constituency offices

J. Bray

Cranbrook airport

B. Bennett

Oral Questions

Long-term care beds and transition for seniors

J. Kwan

Hon. K. Whittred

Strathcona adult day care centre

J. Kwan

Hon. K. Whittred

Halcyon Home

B. Suffredine

Hon. K. Whittred

West Coast Express contract with CP Rail

R. Hawes

Hon. J. Reid

Freedom-of-information request to Health Services ministry

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Hansen

BCTF directive to teachers

J. Les

Hon. C. Clark

Tabling Documents

Property Assessment Appeal Board, annual report, 2001-02

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2002-2003 (Bill 33)

Hon. G. Collins

Second Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2002-2003 (Bill 33)

Hon. G. Collins

Committee of the Whole House

Supply Act, 2002-2003 (Bill 33)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2002-2003 (Bill 33)

Hon. G. Collins

Second Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 11)

Hon. G. Collins

School Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 34)

Hon. C. Clark

R. Harris

W. McMahon

J. Kwan

B. Locke

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt

R. Masi

J. MacPhail

J. Bray

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

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. Coell

Degree Authorization Act (Bill 15) (continued)

K. Krueger

K. Manhas

Hon. S. Bond

[ Page 2997 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 29, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C.

Clark: Before Yugoslavia held its first democratic elections in 13 years two

years ago, members of an all-female organization called Voice of Difference

knocked on 45,000 doors to convince women to vote. Some of them were even

arrested and thrown into jail overnight for putting up posters promoting that

message. The results were astonishing: 70 percent of the voters who turned out

in that election were women, 40 percent of whom had never cast a vote in a

democratic election before.

We have

three of the ten founding members of Voice of Difference with us today. They're

here in town and attending the Women's Campaign School in Vancouver. I'm

delighted to be able to welcome them. We have with us Milica Panic, Alexandra

Petrovic Graonic and Mirajna Kovacevic. I hope the House will make them very,

very welcome.

[1405]

J. Bray:

I have the privilege of introducing two very dedicated and special people who

are visiting me in the Legislature today. Mike Demers and Dianne Clement are my

constituency assistants. The office is having some repairs done to it today, and

they're joining me here, but they'll be back at the office and available to the

community tomorrow. I'd ask that the House please make both of them very

welcome.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: Two friends of my executive assistant, Jennifer Erickson, are

visiting in the gallery today: Andrew Osterloh and Donna Leung. Andrew is from

Kamloops, and Donna is visiting from Australia. Would the House please join me

in making them welcome.

MacKay: Today up in the gallery I have a visitor from Smithers. Bonnie

McCreary is down visiting today. She's down with the B.C. and Yukon Hotels

Association. Bonnie is also a member of our northern health authority board. I

would like the House to please make her welcome.

H. Bloy:

It's with real pleasure that I would like to introduce in the House today 21

students from the second-largest club at Simon Fraser University. We have in the

gallery the Simon Fraser University B.C. Young Liberals led by their president,

Chad Pederson. They have done a great job up there and have been very

supportive. I've met with them on a number of occasions.

I would

like to introduce some members from my riding of Burquitlam. We have Chris

Ferronato, Allan Spence, Christopher Steinbach and Woosang Lee. We also have

Francesca Godwin and David Yau from Surrey-Newton, and from Vancouver–Point

Grey we have Miles Lunn and Dan Traczynski. If the House would please make them

welcome.

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two groups visiting from

Pacific Academy School in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead. First, we have 12

grade 9 students with their teachers, Mr. Douglas and Mr. Cann. Secondly, we

have 27 grade 5 students visiting with their teacher, Mrs. Douglas, and their

parents. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Brice: Along with the Simon Fraser delegation is a member from my riding,

Dom Kapac. I ask the House to make him welcome.

Sahota: I also would like to welcome all the students from SFU that are here

today. In particular, I would like to welcome Brock Stephenson, who lives in my

riding. Would the House please make him welcome.

Manhas: I'd also like to welcome all the members here from SFU. I have the

honour of rising to introduce a very special one here today. Past president as

of this afternoon, Chad Pederson is here today leading the group of students

from SFU in his last official duty as president of the Simon Fraser University

B.C. Young Liberals club. Chad has worked hard at building the club through each

and every year attending SFU. When he began his role as president some time ago,

the club was just getting to its feet. The SFU BCYL now stands as one of the

largest clubs on campus, thanks in great part to Chad's good work and tireless

effort.

Chad has

also been very involved with the Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain riding

association and has been of tremendous assistance to me in my riding and my

work. As my director of communications, he has shown tireless energy, effort and

dedication. I have become accustomed to receiving many e-mails from him sent to

me at one or two in the morning. I and the riding have benefited greatly from

Chad's involvement, which I know will no doubt continue.

I'd like to

wish Chad my congratulations on graduating from Simon Fraser University's fine

commerce program and for all his fine work. Would the House now join me in

extending a very warm welcome to an exemplary Port Coquitlam citizen, Mr. Chad

Pederson.

Hon. C.

Hansen: Joining the SFU delegation is a constituent from

Vancouver-Quilchena. I hope the House will join me in welcoming Jessica Fuchs.

Thanks very much.

[1410]

Stewart: Also in the SFU delegation are three of my constituents: Rick

Sousa, Bishnu Bhattacharyya and Mike Easton.

J. Kwan:

Paula Gunn is the opposition's superb, committed researcher. She will be going

on her six-

[ Page 2998 ]

month maternity leave after today. My colleague the Leader of the Opposition

and myself appreciate her work so much. In fact, she has actually taken on our

call to rebuild the party and rebuild the progressive forces for the future so

much that she is going to have another baby for us in the future. I would like

to ask all members of the House to wish Paula and her family well. We look

forward to seeing her new baby when she rejoins us after the maternity leave.

Locke: I also would like to welcome some SFU students today. Three people

that are important to me and have supported me in the House are Brandon

Langhjelm, Adam Picotte and David Yau. David is also graduating. Welcome, and

thank you.

Anderson: Also in the SFU group here is a very inquisitive student, I have

no doubt, and I would ask the House to welcome with me Andrew Haskell.

R. Lee:

I'm pleased to introduce Leah Muirhead from Burnaby North. She is part of the

SFU delegation. I also see Dom Kapac there. He has really helped me in my office

for four months. I would like the House to make them welcome.

J. Bray:

It's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce one of our research officers, Jamie

Gillies, into the House on this, his twenty-fourth birthday. Please join me in

giving him a very warm welcome and wishing him the best on this beautiful April

afternoon.

Chutter: On behalf of the member for Cariboo South, I would like to welcome

Jesse Eyer from Clinton. Jesse has just completed an honours bachelor of science

degree in physics from the University of Victoria. He has had many exciting

co-op terms such as working at the National Research Council in Ottawa, the

Joint Astronomy Centre in Hawaii and the Canadian Space Agency in Montreal. He's

off on full scholarship to do his master's degree in aerospace engineering.

Would the House please make him welcome.

Bennett: I rise to offer my congratulations in the House today to the

Kootenay Ice Hockey Club. They will be the western representatives in the WHL

finals against either Red Deer or Brandon, Manitoba.

I would

also, in rising, like to offer my condolences to the member for Prince George

North and the member for Kelowna-Mission, whose teams we defeated not long ago.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I don't actually have a hockey story, but I could share a few of my

past former glories on the ice. I used to play in the NHL.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Another time.

Mr.

Speaker, in the House today are eight of the ten friends I have. The other two

are my wife and my father. Anyway, these people are here today because they are

great British Columbians, and they're real team players in helping to build a

community such as those in the Cowichan and Chemainus valleys: Charlie and

Jeannie Saunders, John and Virginia Porter and the Davis family — Howie,

Colleen, Randy and Kelly.

Not only

are they great entrepreneurs and people who want to make things happen in the

province, but they stayed with it after ten years. They're still here looking

forward to a very bright future in British Columbia, here to have dinner with us

all this evening downstairs in the restaurant. I hope you would all make them

feel welcome, knowing that you have people just like these good people in your

constituency as well.

[1415]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) TRAVEL AGENTS

Belsey: Today, Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise the awareness of British

Columbians about the plight of the travel agents across our province. A few

short weeks ago travel agents throughout this province were instructed to

collect an airport security tax of $24 per round trip. This security tax has

increased financial pressures and anxiety of travellers from the north. Few, if

any, security changes can be seen by most rural airports, and we are not likely

to see any of these changes. In some short-haul flights these increases

represent a 25 percent fare increase.

Starting

last Monday travel agents will now receive no commission for tickets they sell

on Air Canada, our largest Canadian air carrier. When I was first made aware of

this situation, I phoned travel agents around the province and discussed the

impact of this loss on the base commission to their business. All indicated that

they are now faced with three options: to charge a fee to offset the $28

commission they've lost, to cut overhead by laying off staff or to close down

their business. The people of British Columbia should not accept any of these

options. Travellers know they can contact carriers directly or they can book

electronic tickets over the Internet. Bypassing travel agencies will have a

simple, painful result: the loss of these businesses.

My solution

is to raise the awareness of the difficulties of this industry and for my

colleagues and the people of the province to support our travel agencies. Until

a long-term solution can be found, I encourage everyone to support their travel

agent, to contact them and let them know they have your support and your

business.

CONSTITUENCY OFFICES

J. Bray:

Today I wish to speak about one of the most important facets of being an MLA —

that is, being

[ Page 2999 ]

accessible to your constituents. As you may be aware, an incident occurred at

my office last week. This incident closed my community office, and it is still

closed while repairs are being completed.

My staff,

Mike and Diane, pride themselves on being available to all in my community who

need the assistance of the MLA's office. The community office is where

constituents who need help with WCB, income assistance, MSP or any other

provincial agency can receive assistance. The staff that work in all 79

constituency offices are employed by the MLAs, not governments or political

parties. The community offices are non-political; there are no political

brochures or banners in the MLA's office. The office is there to serve the

public. It is where constituents who wish to bring to the MLA's attention issues

of concern can write, e-mail, fax, phone or drop in and provide that feedback

directly to the MLA. The community office is where we meet individuals and

groups and where we deal with local issues such as inner-city school funding or

community health.

It is also

a place where individuals can engage in a dialogue on issues involving the

provincial government. That dialogue is vital to a parliamentary democracy. It

is where local issues can be brought to the attention of the elected

representatives. It's where politicians can provide information to people in the

community one person at a time. More importantly, it is where the public can

provide information to the MLA one on one. The community office is where

government and community meet and connect. It is vital that we strive to

maintain the community office as a place of dialogue, problem-solving, service,

accountability and, yes, legal protests.

I am

honoured to work with two people who are dedicated to the service of our

My community office's doors will be open, as always, tomorrow at 10 a.m. to

serve any and all in my community.

CRANBROOK AIRPORT

Bennett: There are key actions taken by generations of Canadians that are

critical to the success of our economies. Such actions in Canada would be the

construction of the trans-Canada railway and, in the city of Vancouver, the

construction of the port facilities and the international airport. For the

province to gain the benefits from an Olympics, it would be the investment in

better transportation to Whistler. These are investments, not subsidies.

In my

region of the East Kootenay we also have a key action on which the further

growth of our region depends. That is the airport that serves all the East

Kootenay and much of the West Kootenay. The recent closure of the Sullivan mine

in Kimberley and the current softwood crisis in B.C. are final proof to the

people in our region that we can no longer have our economic eggs in the

resource sector basket. We must diversify. No pun intended.

[1420]

Tourism

development is a natural in our beautiful area. The Kootenays have developed

world-class tourist destinations. CNN ranked Fernie the third-best ski hill in

North America in 2002. This winter Fernie had more skier visits than Lake

Louise. Who would have thought this possible only a few years ago?

The concept

of direct charters from the U.S. and Europe to the East Kootenay is not at all

far-fetched. This sort of direct charter is already taking place at the

Whitehorse regional airport with six flights a week during the summer of 2001.

Tourists

want to fly non-stop from major U.S. and European destinations to the Kootenays.

The cost of expanding the airport in Cranbrook is a relatively small amount.

It's $13 million, which just happens to be 1/35 of what the former government

wasted on fast ferries. In the first year $13 million in new taxes will flow to

the federal, provincial and municipal governments. All it will take to make this

key project happen is recognition by the federal and provincial governments that

investment in the Cranbrook Airport will provide a full return with interest in

not more than two years and a continuing return for generations and the

recognition that the Kootenays want to play a role in the resurgence of British

Columbia as the economic engine in Canada it is destined to be.

Oral Questions

LONG-TERM CARE BEDS

AND TRANSITION FOR SENIORS

J. Kwan:

In the New Era document the Premier promised seniors that he would build

an additional 5,000 new long-term care beds. Senior citizens believed their

Premier. Now, after being caught not telling the truth, the government says it

will build assisted living spaces. Assisted living spaces don't provide the same

level of care to seniors who require around-the-clock long-term care.

To the

Minister of State for Long Term Care: will she finally just admit that her

government was not telling the truth and has betrayed seniors by closing

thousands of long-term care beds?

Hon. K.

Whittred: This government will provide the very best care for our family

members in the most appropriate setting. Our government will provide this care

at a level that is appropriate to the patients' needs. We are offering more

options and a wider spectrum of care for our seniors. If a person needs extended

care, they will receive extended care. If an assisted living facility is

appropriate for their needs, they will receive that level of care.

Now, I know

that some seniors will welcome this change. I know that some will find it

difficult. That is why I have insisted, and the cabinet has agreed, that the

health authorities must have transition plans in place. Health authorities are

required to meet with families that are affected and to outline plans for care

[ Page 3000 ]

that will be appropriate for the affected family member.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

There is an enormous credibility gap between what this government says and what

it does. Last week, after bungling the health care announcement, the Premier

promised seniors that they would not be forced to move from long-term care

facilities until they were fully consulted. Today we see again that seniors are

being forced to leave their homes without having any idea where they will end

up. It is cruel to treat seniors this way, and it shows that the government has

lost…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…quite frankly, its moral compass.

Again, to

the Minister of State for Long Term Care: why are seniors being forced to leave

their homes when the Premier promised them that they would be fully consulted?

Will the minister provide and promise that seniors will not be treated in the

nightmarish way that this government is treating them right now?

[1425]

Hon. K.

Whittred: I am committed, as I said before, that every senior in this

province who may be affected by this change will be thoroughly consulted. Plans

will be discussed not only with the senior but with that person's family, and

there will be much notice in advance that an appropriate care solution is in

place. This government is committed to building 5,000 additional intermediate

and long-term care beds. We are on track with that commitment to meet our target

in 2006. The health authorities have their three-year budget plans, and we are

working with non-profit agencies and the private sector to deliver on this

commitment. There are many organizations in this province who want to be part of

this solution, and we are going to make that happen.

STRATHCONA ADULT DAY CARE CENTRE

J. Kwan:

This government has flipped and flopped all over the map on the long-term

care issue. The minister says…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…that assisted living and community-based supports will be there for seniors,

but the fact is that the government is cutting these services. In my own

community the government is closing the Strathcona Adult Day Care Centre

tomorrow. This centre is the only one that serves the Chinese-speaking

community, but instead of supporting them this government is sentencing them to

spend their days in isolation and alone in their homes. Will the Minister of

State for Long Term Care step in today and make sure this centre stays open so

that these seniors will have a place to go after tomorrow?

Hon. K.

Whittred: This member is well aware that the society which ran that

organization no longer wishes to continue with it. She is also well aware that

the Vancouver coastal health authority is actively engaged in trying to find

another provider for that service. I agree with the member that this is a

valuable service. I agree that adult day that is culturally appropriate is very

necessary, and the issue is in the hands of the Vancouver coastal health

authority, whose obligation it is to provide the service.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

The minister ought to know it was the health authority that approached the

society and asked them if they would be prepared to give up their funding to

another society to provide for that service. When the society dissolved their

association with the understanding that the money would be offered to another

organization, that money was not offered to the other organization. Now the

centre is shutting down.

I hope this

minister goes out and makes sure this service is provided to the community,

because this government has taken away the money and they have flip-flopped on

their commitment to seniors. It is clear that this government does not care

about seniors or understand their needs. They have broken promise after promise.

Every day they're causing pain, hardship and uncertainty.

Mr.

Speaker, will the Minister for Long Term Care admit her government has got it

wrong, go back to the drawing board and consult with seniors and their families

before she makes this disastrous situation even worse?

Hon. K.

Whittred: This government is the first government anywhere in Canada that I

am aware of which has the courage to put forth a long-range plan that will

ultimately address the needs of our growing seniors population. We are committed

to putting more options in place to create a wider spectrum of services of care

for our seniors. We will meet that long-term plan by the year 2006.

HALCYON HOME

Suffredine: This morning on CBC radio it was reported that at Nakusp,

seniors who reside in the Halcyon Home were told that it's closing and they have

to move. They have not been told about alternatives, and in fact there are no

other facilities at Nakusp. Understandably, they and their families are worried.

Can the

[ Page 3001 ]

Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care give any

assurance to residents of the Halcyon and other seniors in the province that

they will be cared for?

[1430]

Hon. K.

Whittred: I would like to say right off the top of my answer that we are all

concerned about the anxiety that has been created amongst the seniors homes, and

I find it most regretful. However, this government is committed to providing the

very best care we can in the most appropriate setting for our senior members.

While I know that the members in the Halcyon home are finding this announcement

difficult, I can assure them and their families that the interior health

authority will be meeting with them, that they will be discussing what is the

appropriate level of care and the appropriate options and that no change will

take place until those discussions have taken place.

It's also

my understanding that these changes will take place well down the road, I

believe, in something like 24 months.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston has a supplementary question.

Suffredine: The families of seniors living in the Halcyon Home are very

concerned that they have not been and are not being consulted on the changes.

Can the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care tell us what

steps she's taking to ensure that family members will be included in any plans

to move residents of Halcyon into their new homes?

Hon. K.

Whittred: Last Monday during open cabinet I announced that health

authorities must submit comprehensive transition plans about the way they are

going to implement the new-era commitments to home and community care. The

health authorities understand that must be done, and they will be complying with

that.

I want to

make it very clear to the public, to our seniors and to their families that no

facility will be closed until the health authority has developed a plan of care

for the individuals affected by this change. As my colleague said so eloquently

the other day, no door will be closed until another door opens.

WEST COAST EXPRESS CONTRACT

WITH CP RAIL

Hawes: A Supreme Court ruling has finally allowed the public to look at a

badly negotiated contract with CP Rail, a 20-year contract that's costing the

taxpayers of this province an absolute fortune. Taxpayers are on the hook for

millions of dollars that West Coast Express has to pay to CP Rail for the use of

its tracks and its crews. In fact, news reports quote a member of the TransLink

board as stating that $4 out of every $4.50 ticket goes to CP Rail.

Can the

Minister of Transportation tell my constituents how we got into this ridiculous

mess?

Hon. J.

Reid: I'm sorry, I really can't enlighten the member about the rationale

behind this, other than to say that the minister responsible at the time was

Glen Clark.

This deal,

being a 20-year deal without the opportunity to renegotiate the contract, is

onerous, is difficult for TransLink and is obviously a problem in being able to

provide cost-effective transit services.

Hawes: My constituents rely heavily on the West Coast Express. It has now

reached capacity and needs to expand, but this contract is getting in the way of

expansion.

Can the

minister tell my constituents if she's able to offer anything to West Coast

Express to ensure that it continues to be viable?

Hon. J.

Reid: This deal is under federal jurisdiction because of federal

legislation, so the appeal has been to the federal government to allow this to

be examined. TransLink has been spearheading that effort quite effectively.

Certainly, we have joined in to request the federal government — I've spoken

to the federal minister responsible — to indeed look at this deal.

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUEST

TO HEALTH SERVICES MINISTRY

J. Kwan:

My office has made a request under the Freedom of Information Act for a list of

communications contracts let by the combined Health ministries. This request was

due on March 28. It is now April 29. Calls by my office over the last few weeks

have resulted in the repeated response that it is in sign-off stage.

[1435]

To the

Minister of Health Services: now that he has thrown the health care system into

chaos, is he now afraid to release the amount of money spent on spin doctors?

Can I have a commitment from this minister that the materials will be released

today?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I'll take the question on notice.

BCTF DIRECTIVE TO TEACHERS

J. Les:

My question is to the Minister of Education. There are media reports that

indicate that the B.C. Teachers Federation is encouraging teachers to read a

statement that discredits foundation skills assessments before they distribute

the tests to students. In the statement it states that the FSA tests are not

designed to test all that you have learned. They are not designed to help your

teachers know how to help you to learn.

To the

Minister of Education: what is her response to these disruptive and juvenile

tactics?

Hon. C.

Clark: The member's got it right on. They are disruptive. They're not just

disruptive; they're irresponsible, quite frankly. It's irresponsible for the

union

[ Page 3002 ]

to be counselling its members to undermine children's education in the

classroom. I know the BCTF has a political campaign they're embarking on.

They've decided they want to try and defeat the government over the next five

years. They are a political organization. That is their right, but they have

absolutely no right when they undertake that campaign to start undermining

children's education in the classroom.

We send our

children to schools in British Columbia hoping that they will get the best

education that they can. Politics has no place in the classrooms of this

province, and I would suggest to the BCTF that it's time that we drew the line.

It's time that they drew the line that says no, they're not going to disrupt

those kids' education. Every child in British Columbia certainly deserves better

than that.

[End of question period.]

Hon. S.

Hagen: I seek leave to table an annual report.

Leave

granted.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm pleased to present to the House today the annual report of the

Property Assessment Appeal Board for the year 2001-02.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call consideration of report of the resolutions from Committee of

Supply. I move that the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply on

March 6, 7, 11, 25, 27, and April 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11 and 17 be now received,

taken as read and agreed to.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated

revenue fund the sum of $25,197,517,000. This sum includes that authorized to be

paid under

section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2002 and is granted by Her

Majesty towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the

province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated

revenue fund the sum of $1,403,004,000. This sum includes that authorized to be

paid under

section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2002 and is granted by Her

Majesty towards defraying the capital, loans, investments and other financing

requirements of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003.

Motion

approved.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 2002-2003

Hon. G.

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

intituled Supply Act, 2002-2003.

Hon. G.

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

Motion

approved.

[1440]

Hon. G.

Collins: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the operation

of government programs for the 2002-03 fiscal year. The amount requested is that

resolved by the Committee of Supply after consideration of the estimates. The

House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the report of

resolutions from the Committee of Supply and, in addition, has resolved that

there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the necessary

funds toward defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the

province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003.

Mr.

Speaker, it's the intention of the government to proceed with all stages of the

supply bill this day.

Bill 33

introduced, read a first a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading

forthwith.

[1445-1450]

Second Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 2002-2003

Hon. G.

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

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, in keeping with the practice of this House, the final

supply bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the bill be now referred to a Committee of the Whole

House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 33,

Supply Act, 2002-2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the

Whole House for consideration forthwith.

[1455]

Committee of the Whole House

SUPPLY ACT, 2002-2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 33; H. Long in the chair.

[ Page 3003 ]

The

committee met at 2:55 p.m.

Sections 1

and 2 approved.

Schedules 1

and 2 approved.

Preamble

approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:56 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 33,

Supply Act, 2002-2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 11.

Second Reading of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. G.

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

The repeal

of the Access to Education Act will return autonomy to the boards of public

post-secondary institutions to set tuition fees and mandatory ancillary fees.

This will enable institutions working with students to determine what level of

fees is reasonable, fair and affordable. It will also enable institutions to

meet the demand for increased student access and improved quality of education.

This bill

contains a housekeeping amendment to the Assessment Act that will clarify that

towers used for broadcasting and rebroadcasting are assessable improvements. As

a result of the change in regulation requested by the B.C. Association of

Broadcasters, these improvements are now assessed in a lower property tax class.

They are no longer defined as telecommunications improvements. This legislative

amendment is required to ensure that they are, however, still defined as

improvements.

The Family

Relations Act will be amended to repeal a

section which has been held to

discriminate against unmarried mothers and their children. Bill 29, the Health

and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, contained a consequential

amendment to the Health Authorities Act, restoring separate bargaining units for

community health and health facilities workers. The amendment in this bill

identifies the correct Labour Relations Board decision that the Labour Relations

Board must now reference and extends the time period available to the Labour

Relations Board from 30 days to 90 days to give effect to the restoration of the

separate units.

The

amendment to the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Act will provide for the

appointment of a one-person transitional board to wind up the Industry Training

and Apprenticeship Commission, ITAC. The core services review of ITAC led

government to the conclusion that it should be phased out and a new approach to

industry training and apprenticeship be developed. New legislation will be

introduced in a future session to implement a new approach to industry training

and apprenticeship for British Columbia.

The

amendments to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3) and the

Vancouver Charter will transfer legal authority for the Gastown and Chinatown

provincial heritage designations made in 1971 to the city of Vancouver and will

provide the city the authority to create heritage conservation areas, a power

already available to all other local governments.

The

amendment to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act will delete the

following four parts from the schedules under the act:

(1) Beaumont Marine Park,

(2) D'Arcy Island Marine Park,

(3) Princess Margaret Marine Park and

(4) Sidney

Spit Marine Park. These parks are being deleted from the Protected Areas of

British Columbia Act in order to enable their transfer to Canada for inclusion

in a new national park reserve in the southern Gulf Islands.

[1500]

These

deletions will come into effect by regulation to coincide with the national park

establishment agreement to be signed later this year.

Deputy

ministers currently earn 1.5 years of pensionable service for each year of

service as a deputy minister. The amendment to the Public Service Act will

reduce it to one year of pensionable service for each year of service as a

deputy minister. This is necessary to ensure that deputy ministers' pensions are

consistent with other public service employees and deputy ministers in other

Canadian jurisdictions.

Bill 11

also amends the Strata Property Act to reinstate the superintendent of real

estate's role in approving changes to schedules of unit entitlement and voting

rights. These amendments are necessary to protect strata property owners from

inadvertent errors where a strata plan has been amended. This bill also amends

the Strata Property Act to provide Nisga'a government bodies with the authority

to make decisions on land use with respect to strata property developments on

Nisga'a lands.

Bill 11

also amends the Taxation (Rural Area) Act to recognize a longstanding

administrative practice. The Ministry of Provincial Revenue issues copy taxation

notices to rural property taxpayers who report by the tax due date that they

have not received their annual tax notice. This practice, which extends the

penalty-free time for payment in these institutions, reflects the government's

new-era commitment to help maximize revenue collection within the principles of

fairness and equity.

[ Page 3004 ]

In closing,

the Vancouver Charter investment authority amendments will broaden the

investment powers of the city of Vancouver, providing it with authorities to

invest its moneys that are more equivalent to those currently available to all

other B.C. municipalities and to the Municipal Finance Authority. The amendment

responds to requests for this change from the city of Vancouver.

I move

second reading.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Burnaby North.

R. Lee:

I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Lee:

I am pleased to introduce some students and their teacher in the House today.

They are from St. Helen's School, which is located in Burnaby North. Twenty-nine

students and their teacher, Ms. Natola, are having a tour of the Legislature.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Mr.

Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 11.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

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

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11,

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a

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

after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 34.

[H. Long in the chair.]

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. C.

Clark: This act introduces a number of broad reforms to the School Act. All

of them are about our number one priority, and that's improving student

achievement.

We want to

create a top-notch public education system for young people in British Columbia:

a system that recognizes the importance of parental involvement and gives

parents a more meaningful voice in how our schools are run, a system that gives

students more choice about the school they attend and the educational program

they follow, a system that provides school boards with greater financial

flexibility and enables them to become more entrepreneurial and, above all, a

system that's focused at every level on improving student performance.

I've spoken

many times about the importance of parental involvement and its clear link to

student achievement. It cannot be ignored, and it is paramount in this

legislation. Students do better when their parents are actively involved in

their education. The most important determinant of student success is parental

involvement. Schools do better when they have parental support, and satisfaction

levels increase across the entire school community.

But parents

don't always have the opportunity to be true partners at the school level. All

too often parents and parent advisory councils, they tell me, are seen primarily

as the folks who organize the bake sale. They feel like they're given little or

no input into discussion or decision-making around the big issues that affect

their children's education. In fact, much of the criticism of the school system

comes from parents who feel they've been ignored or patronized or pushed aside.

[1505]

It's time

we welcomed them back. It's time we let them know we value their energy. We want

their enthusiasm, and we are prepared to harness their creativity.

Today's

legislation will give parents at every school a meaningful voice in how our

schools are run. The legislation will see a school planning council established

in every single public school in British Columbia. Each school will have five

members: the principal, who will lead the council; a teacher, who will be

elected by other teachers at the school; and three parents, who will be elected

by the parent advisory council from among its members. I'm sure you, hon.

Speaker, and all members of this House know that every parent whose child

attends a school is automatically a member of that school's PAC.

Together,

the school planning council will be responsible for drawing up an annual plan

that identifies the school's strengths and weaknesses, sets goals for

improvements and monitors their progress towards getting there. The school plan

is in essence a mini–accountability contract. It will serve the same purpose.

It's part of the accountability cycle that will be centred on the goal of

improving student achievement, but this time the council will focus it at the

school level. The new accountability cycle incorporates some of the best

elements of the former accreditation process. It ensures that parents have

continuous involvement in what happens at their children's school every single

year, not just every six years.

Councils

will submit their annual plans to their board for approval, and the board will

be able to ask for revisions if they feel that the plan is not sufficiently

focused on student achievement. Once approved, school plans will become the

basis of the boards' accountability contracts.

School

planning councils will not replace parent advisory councils, which have long

been an important part of our education system. Rather, councils will en-

[ Page 3005 ]

hance the work of PACs and give them a stronger voice. They'll be able to

advise councils on any matter relating to the school. If requested, PACs will be

able to assist councils in carrying out their functions as well. Refocusing

public education at the school level will encourage local responsibility and

accountability and help public schools reconnect with their communities.

Then

there's the issue of choice. Everywhere I go, parents talk to me about choice,

because they want to choose the school and the educational program that are

right for their child. Students in our system are someone's children. When we

send our children to school, we're asking professionals to take care of

something that we may not know how to do as well, but that doesn't mean that we

give up the right to make decisions about how we'd like it done.

This

legislation provides choice. School boards will now be required to establish

catchment areas, and subject to space availability, students will be able to

attend schools in any catchment area anywhere across B.C.

I know many

students will continue to attend their neighbourhood school, but now we're

ensuring the additional opportunity for children to go to other schools, as

well, so that individual children can access the educational program that's best

for them. If every child is different, then why should every school be the same?

We need to allow parents to choose the school for their children, because they

know what's best for their children.

If a school

isn't performing, as long as parents are required to send their children to a

local school and that school has a guaranteed customer base, there is very

little incentive for the district to improve that school. We want to change the

incentives in the system by providing choice. It's that simple.

We want to

give school boards more freedom and flexibility. They've told us they need it to

bring about improvements in their districts, and we're delivering. Board powers

will be increased by this legislation. It will allow boards to do a number of

things.

First, to

open or close a school without the approval of the Minister of Education. Those

most affected by those decisions should be the final decision-makers, not the

folks in Victoria. It will allow them to share administrative services with

other boards, municipalities or corporate entities, thereby lowering

administrative costs. We need to make sure that we can find every saving that we

can in administration across the province so we can redirect every dollar back

into the classroom.

[1510]

It will

allow districts to share in the financial gain from the sale of surplus capital

assets, proportionate to their share of the purchase. This returns local funds

to school boards for capital projects, and it reduces the need to reallocate

scarce operating funds to capital purposes. It will allow them to create

separate entities through which they can engage in a variety of entrepreneurial

activities — something school boards have been asking for, for many, many

years.

That might

mean school boards could offer consulting services, or they could develop and

provide administrative or educational expertise. It might mean offshore schools.

One for-profit school is already operating in China, and the money we are making

there we are bringing back to British Columbia to support students here.

We have,

thanks to the staff at the Ministry of Education, the best curriculum on offer

in the world. We should be maximizing that benefit for B.C. students. We have

made a huge investment, as taxpayers, in creating that curriculum. Let's

maximize our investment. Let's export our intellectual capital. Let's go

overseas and market our curriculum to people who don't have access to it so that

they can benefit too. Then let's bring the benefits home for kids in our schools

in British Columbia.

When we

created these corporate entities in the legislation, we also did it to make sure

school districts, when they engage in entrepreneurial activities, do not become

liable for debts, obligations or the acts of the company they create. The

liabilities of these corporate entities will be confined to the separate entity

and not the school board, and it won't put taxpayers' assets at risk.

We're

fulfilling here a commitment to develop a new funding allocation system, one

that gives school boards much more flexibility. The new funding formula, as I've

said a number of times in this House, unties many of the strings that were

previously attached to education dollars, and it allows districts to allocate

more resources based on the needs in their local community. They are locally

elected; they know what's going on in their local communities; they should be

making the decisions that meet the needs of the children in those communities.

I've also

talked a lot in the past about the importance of accountability in our school

system, and I'm pleased to say that this legislation addresses accountability in

a number of ways. It requires school boards, for the first time, to complete

accountability contracts to hold every board publicly accountable for student

achievement, and it allows the appointment of special advisers to review the

progress of boards in improving student achievement. It also allows an official

trustee to replace the board of student achievement if a district is at risk and

if it is in the public interest to do so.

It changes

the title of administrative officer to principal, vice-principal or director of

instruction to recognize that principals are not just paper-shufflers. They are

leaders in our schools. We are counting on them to provide leadership in the

school planning councils. We are counting on them to provide the vision and to

build the team behind them that will ensure that every single school will see

increased success every year.

The

legislation requires that a certified teacher assess and evaluate the progress

of every enrolled student, including those receiving their education via

distributed electronic learning. It requires a francophone education authority

to employ a chief financial officer

[ Page 3006 ]

to ensure separate representation of financial and educational issues at the

board of director levels.

This

legislation is a reflection of our government's vision for a new era in

education. The amendments will guarantee parents more opportunity to have

meaningful input in their children's education. It lets students and parents

choose the schools that best meet their needs. It restores legislative

recognition that principals and vice-principals are indeed leaders in our

schools. It gives school boards more autonomy to make decisions based on the

needs of their local communities, and it allows them to be more entrepreneurial.

Most importantly, this legislation puts student achievement firmly at the

forefront of our priorities.

With these

legislated amendments to the School Act, the public education system in British

Columbia will do what it should do: serve our children, who are the future of

our province. I move that the bill now be read a second time.

[1515]

Harris: I'd also like to speak in support of this bill today. I'm really,

really excited by the opportunity this bill is going to present to all the

schools in this province and to parents and to students. During the election

last year, certainly one of the areas that excited me the most to talk about was

in fact our new-era commitments around education — the fact that we were going

to bring an education system into place in this province that actually did

reflect the local values and priorities of the communities we live in. That

really is important.

I know,

having three sons go through the education system myself and having been an

active member of a lot of the PACs, certainly the frustration that…. When I

meet with parents, what I hear today is that there's hardly any attendance at

these PACs. There's good reason for it. These PACs have been frustrated. They've

never really had any real input into the education system. They have been

treated for the most part as fundraisers, and their views have been trivialized.

It's little wonder today that we get so few people turning out at PAC meetings.

But there's no doubt that the parent is the most important component of a

child's education. If we want to bring parents back into the education system,

we have to give them real meaning and real input, and we have to give them real

participation.

With this

bill, every part of it is excellent. It really is, and it answers it all. I

could probably stay here and talk to every one, but I'm going to concentrate a

bit on a few of the items. I think the school planning council is where it

really begins in terms of generating parent participation in the education

system. We really have to give parents a real choice. We have to give them real

input and allow them to be a part of what's going on in the day-to-day

activities of their school.

It's also a

double-edged sword in that it helps educators and teachers educate parents on

the issues they face every day in that school. That's how we build an education

system that actually provides for our children and provides for their future. As

we all learn of the challenges we each face, it allows us to put a better plan

together. The school planning council will, in fact, act as a great instrument

for that.

I said

earlier that the input and influence of parents is a big part of it. Where

school planning councils will become more effective, I think, in the future is

as we move to developing the more charter systems of schools and how schools

become…. The minister just said: "If every child is different, why should

every school be the same?" It'll actually help them lay out the groundwork

for how we develop the schools in our communities and how they will look in the

future. That really is critical for moving forward and developing a system

that's going to work for parents, children and teachers.

I want to

talk a bit about accountability, because I think this is the part of the puzzle

that's always been missing in our education system. I am excited by the aspect

of having the province be able to appoint a special adviser — finally having a

school and education system that has accountability not just for financial

matters but also for student achievement. The fact that we'll have an education

system where we're going to design and measure student achievement by each

student…. We do have that capacity in our education system. That is where it

links this whole accountability together so we actually start to get results.

School boards are not looking just at numbers; they're actually looking at

outcomes. It is, in fact, outcomes that we're concerned about. I know it was

outcomes that I followed through my life with my children in school. I think

that is what all of us put our kids in there for: to make sure they get the best

education they can. Measuring the outcomes on an individual student basis rather

than a total school outcome will, at the end of the day, provide a much better

system for us.

I'm

actually excited by the fact that as a province, as a ministry, we have an

opportunity to use a special adviser. Historically, what had to be done was

removal of the whole board if in fact the financial numbers weren't met. We now

have an opportunity to get involved with school boards before it ever reaches

that point and to make sure they're providing the service and getting the

outcomes that are in part of their school accountability contracts. Certainly,

the accountability contracts are the basis on which everything will work.

Knowing and reviewing the one we have in the riding of Skeena, I'm certainly

encouraged that we're actually starting to look at the right things.

[1520]

I want to

talk a bit about financial flexibility. It's nice to say that we're going to

make school boards accountable for academics and financially, but if we're going

to wrap the whole puzzle together, it's really critical that we also give them

the tools they need in terms of financial flexibility to meet those outcomes and

to meet those goals. I think this bill finalizes the part of the puzzle that

actually provides the tools that school boards are going to need down the road

and in the future as they design a school district and as they design schools

and an education system that fit our

[ Page 3007 ]

local communities, fit the profile and the culture of the places we live in.

You know,

this is exciting, and it is innovative times in education in this province. I

know that every time I've talked to people about education and what we're doing

with it. There has been a lot of confusion about how it's been communicated, but

every time I sit down and talk with another group, at the end of it people are

actually excited about it. When you start to finally wrap your head around the

cultural changes we're making in education, the fact that we're giving people

real input and giving them choices and allowing them to design a curriculum, a

timetable, that actually fits our communities….

I know that

in the north, parents have always said to me: "How come we have the kids

off at spring break and then all the loggers are off work during breakup? Why

can't we have spring break with breakup at the same time?" They're excited

by the fact that once they start to wrap their head around that aspect, they

realize there's a whole bunch of other opportunities from year-round schooling,

extended times…. This is, in fact, a great time for education in the province.

In order to get to that point, we've got to start to tap into the creative

spirits of people that live in those communities.

You know,

it was interesting. I heard on CBC the other day that Port Simpson was

announcing that they're going to be going to a private school system model. When

the reporter asked them why they would look at doing that, the response was

quite interesting. He mentioned the fact that they can't get their elders

involved with the school. The system and the curriculum don't jibe and line up

with the cultural seasons that they have, whether it's herring roe or whatever

other issues they face in terms of their scheduling. They can't bring the

parents into the school system, and the school system wasn't reflecting their

values.

All they

wanted to do was have more meaningful input into what was happening today. Those

comments are being echoed all over this province. I think this is the kind of

stuff that in fact is going to bring people back to the public education system.

It's actually going to make it the first choice where you want to send your

child. The people who are critics that say people are going to leave our system

and move to the private education system…. This in fact solves that problem,

because — you know what, Mr. Speaker? — they've been going there for a

while.

This is how

we're going to move it forward. It takes a whole community to raise a child, and

I think this legislation makes that quite possible. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and

thank you, minister, for advancing this legislation.

McMahon: It is a privilege to rise in the House today to speak to Bill 34,

School Amendment Act, 2002. We all know that education is the cornerstone of our

society. Two weeks ago my colleague from Delta North commented on the Select

Standing Committee on Education's report, A Future for Learners: A Vision for

Renewal of Education in British Columbia , the first report from this

committee since 1971. It is important to share what we heard from British

Columbians as we brought the public back into discussion about the state of the

education system and how it should serve the needs of students as well as the

province's employment needs.

The report

noted that "with respect to local involvement, parents of students in the

K-12 system wish to be involved, not necessarily in active governance matters,

but in a meaningful advisory capacity. Unfortunately, for a significant number

of parents, the current role of parent advisory councils and opportunities for

parent input into significant decisions affecting their children are not seen to

be as comprehensive or effective as they could be."

Parental

involvement is a key indicator for improved student achievement. Under Bill 34

school planning councils will be established in every public school in British

Columbia this year. Parents will have an opportunity to provide real and

meaningful input at the local level. The council has the ability to become

directly involved in the goal of helping to improve student achievement on a

continuous basis by developing an annual school plan. The school plan will form

the basis of the board's accountability contract.

The

minister has stated that the accountability contract will reflect the different

needs and the different goals of each district. As the Education Committee

travelled, we certainly heard about accountability. Accountability for

performance with a focus on improving student achievement is, as it should be,

the number one priority. We heard from many parents about parent involvement and

what it means to them. They want to have greater participation, they want

opportunities to give input, and they wish to have more access to information

that will enable them to make better choices on behalf of their children.

[1525]

It was

interesting to note that there has been an amendment to ease financial

restrictions that have tied the hands of school boards to allow them to share

administrative services with other boards, municipalities or corporate entities.

I was for many years employed by a rural school district in the administration

office. The concept of shared services was discussed years ago. It was discussed

but not implemented. If school districts had been allowed to share

administrative services within their own communities, what a difference it would

have made. Whether it was administrative offices or payroll services, the

opportunities were many. It was the ability to effect the change, to find cost

efficiencies, that was limited.

With

creative thinking, this new legislation offers so many opportunities for

districts. Through these opportunities, districts will be able to put students

first, which is what education is all about. The legislation will stop the

confusion about the term "administrative officer." We will again have

principals and vice-principals. They are leaders in their schools and should be

recognized as such. I noted my colleague from Delta North was the first to lead

the applause when this was

[ Page 3008 ]

announced. As a former teacher and principal, he understands.

The Select

Standing Committee on Education recognized that the system tends to be focused

on the means of education without sufficient attention to the outcomes. The

system is often seen to be driven by the interests of the system or the service

providers rather than by the interests of the learners and the public. This

legislation addresses some of these concerns.

I was

reviewing some of the submissions the committee received, and I noted with

interest the presentation made by the B.C. School Trustees Association on

October 6, 2001, entitled Improving Flexibility, Choice, Access and Quality

in Education: Principles and Issues . In their presentation, they proposed

nine general principles for the committee's consideration. The first two formed

the foundation on which the other seven principles were built.

Their first

principle was that school boards are responsible for balancing flexibility,

choice, access and quality in education programs and services, and, secondly,

that flexibility, choice, access and quality are linked. As they went on to talk

about addressing the issues of flexibility, choice, access and quality, they say

that flexibility is the ability to respond to the needs and changing

circumstances.

They stated

that if school boards were to get the enhanced flexibility they seek, we would

see school boards with more authority to go along with the responsibilities they

already have; school boards with more and tougher choices to make around the

allocation of resources; school boards working even harder to build community

understanding of tough issues, to understand community perspectives on these

issues and to forge community support around school board decisions; increased

expectations and school boards being held to a higher standard of accountability

by students, parents, the community and the provincial government for the

directions they set and for the results they achieve; increased opportunities

and enhanced potential to improve achievement for all students, to address

community priorities and expectations, to support educators in their work, focus

resources in more effective ways and become more responsible to local needs and

changing circumstances.

personally feel that autonomy and accountability go hand in hand. The

accountability contracts that the minister has introduced will allow government

to work with districts on student achievement together.

They talked

about many things in the report, and I noticed that some of the things they

wanted to see are actually going to be happening. When they talked about choice

and the array of educational programs and services available, they stated that

increasing choice can be understood differently. It could include enhancing

program and service options, reducing or eliminating school boundaries and

enhancing parent influence in the classroom. This bill is what this is all about

— exactly what they were asking.

Access.

School boards address access — the ability to take advantage of available

choices in a number of ways, including balancing program offerings across

schools, allowing students to register outside catchment areas and offering

programs in alternate settings. I think that this new legislation is simply what

they wanted, so it's good news for school boards.

[1530]

conclusion to their report, they talk about how school boards' efforts to

understand and improve quality also dovetail with provincial initiatives around

assessment and accountability, including an improved accreditation process for

schools and, most recently, the establishment of ministry school board

accountability contracts. While there is still a great deal of room for

improving these mechanisms for understanding and monitoring improvements in

student achievement, they represent significant steps in this direction.

They

conclude by saying: "To govern is to choose, to make decisions. School

boards must constantly make decisions about the programs and services they will

offer and about the trade-offs that they, like every level of government, must

make in the public interest within the resources provided by the public. Through

it all, school boards remain focused on their key work: improving student

achievement."

Let me also

share with you an e-mail received from an individual in Vancouver who had made a

presentation to the committee when we were there. Her e-mail states:

felt I had to e-mail you to thank you for the excellent work that you and

your committee have done in producing the report on education. It is

encouraging to see that the committee has been able to reflect so well the

need to effect some fundamental changes to our education delivery system. As

an involved parent for over 25 years, with three children aged 14, 21 and

27, I was very happy to see that the report can lead in the right direction

— to bring the student back to the forefront in our planning and delivery.

I have a strong sense that very many people will see that this report is

honest, truthful, timely and a long time in coming."

Mr.

Speaker, I am using these examples to show that British Columbians will embrace

the changes the minister has introduced. This is about putting students first.

This is what is important to British Columbians. Here's a quote from one of our

presentations: "Nothing stops an organization faster than people who

believe the way they worked yesterday is the way to work tomorrow."

We are

changing yesterday — and for the right reasons: the students. We are changing

yesterday to ensure students have the education they need to ensure their

success. This is why I will be supporting Bill 34, School Amendment Act, 2002.

J. Kwan:

The minister seems to believe that Bill 34 will fix all of the problems that

currently exist in the K-to-12 education system. In reality, this bill does not

address the principal reason for the rapid deterioration of the quality of

education and the capacity of educators to perform their jobs provincially under

the funding from this minister.

[ Page 3009 ]

This bill

is also based on an assumption that the parents aren't already very involved in

their schools, and what is unfortunate is that many parents, especially those in

my riding, are. They're so involved in trying to save important programs in our

community. One example, which I know the minister knows, would be the inner-city

school funding. After much lobbying of the government, finally this government

committed this week that they would fund inner-city school kids and provide for

the funding. Parents have spent so much time and effort in lobbying this

government and showing this government the worthiness of this program, and up

until now this ministry, this government, ignored them.

I remember

when I asked the Minister of Education in the estimates process earlier on if

the government would reinstate the inner-city school funding. The minister said

no. The minister actually went down to a school in Vancouver-Burrard and told

parents point-blank that she would not reinstate the funding. The parents, to

their credit, redoubled their effort and did not give up. They did not give up

their fight. Then to that end they were able to get the government finally to

admit that they were wrong, that they were wrong in cutting the inner-city

school funding.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The Minister of Education is sitting there, just going: "Yeah, yeah. We

listened. We listened." I wish the minister would actually listen some more

to what the parents have to say, because I have a long list of areas where

parents are calling on this government to make sure that education programs are

adequately funded by this government.

[1535]

The

Minister of Education says: "Well, we listen. We always listen. That's the

kind of government we are." You know what? A group called Save Our Schools,

SOS, were down in the community in Vancouver in front of the cabinet offices.

They had over 15,000 signatures on a petition calling on the government to

support educational programs and to fund education adequately. You know what?

Nobody on the government's side even bothered to show up, to listen to the

parents, to receive their petition.

Shame on

the government to claim they actually listen when, in fact, they don't. They

only listen to the people that, I would submit, fund their campaign. Those are

the people, quite frankly, that they listen to. They don't listen to the

parents, the SOS. Fifteen thousand names on the petition calling on the

government to support education programs, and they ignore them.

The

minister is sitting there belittling the people who are involved with SOS, with

the Save Our Schools committee. And she's saying: "Isn't so-and-so somebody

who's involved with the communications firm, etc.…?" You know what? Those

individuals are parents too, and they have every right. I have spoken with some

of the parents with SOS. They're not politically active. Many of them are

actually from the Premier's riding, who came forward and asked for the minister,

asked for this Liberal government that promised they would fund education

adequately. In fact, they have broken that promise once again.

Many

parents contribute much of their time, as much time as they can in their

children's education system. They do; there's no doubt about it. But many

parents have a difficult time contributing time, not because they don't care

about their child's education or what happens with the school system, but

because it is a struggle for them to balance work and home life. It is a very

difficult task for them, especially for parents who are low income, especially

parents from my riding who face multiple barriers. They have a very difficult

time sometimes to be involved on a day-by-day basis.

Some

parents have a difficult time getting involved because of language barriers.

Those are some of the reasons why people find it difficult to participate.

Parents who work shift work — that, too, creates a problem for them. Children

who have elderly parents that face health challenges…. Those create additional

hurdles for parents' participation. I think it is important to recognize that

not all families are able to contribute to their children's schools as much as

they would like.

Many of

those that are now are so busy trying to lobby the government to fund education

adequately, they barely have time to look at some of the other creative

solutions. I spoke with about 40 parents just this last week when we were home.

Parents are just exhausted trying to hold this government accountable on the

issue around education funding.

The

government had promised they would protect education when in fact what they have

done is bring forward a three-year funding freeze in education that results in

severe funding cuts, severe program cuts all throughout British Columbia in the

educational system.

[1540]

This

reality is, of course, borne out by the fact that fully one-third of the schools

in B.C. do not currently have parent advisory councils. This raises concerns

about the downloading of the responsibility by this government to parents

through PACs and through the new planning council. The minister laughs, and she

thinks it's funny when one-third of the school system doesn't have PACs because

parents are too busy. They have too many challenges in their lives to be

involved. It does raise a question: what happens to that one-third of the school

system where they won't see individuals elected to form the school planning

councils? It does raise a serious question, and the minister just laughs as

though somehow it's funny, as though some of the schools, some of the

children…. Their education is somehow less important, less relevant.

The issue

around accreditation. Despite all of the minister's fine words about increasing

parent involvement, there's one key tool for parent involvement from the current

School Act, and that appears to have disappeared completely. What has happened

to the accreditation process? This bill replaces the very binding accreditation

process, which was strongly supported by

[ Page 3010 ]

parents and parent advisory councils, with school planning councils. Here's a

quote from a June 15, 2000, news release from the B.C. Confederation of Parent

Advisory Councils: "Parents continue to firmly believe that accreditation

is essential for both school improvement and accountability within the public

school system."

At BCCPAC's

recent annual general meeting, delegates voted overwhelmingly in favour of a

resolution supporting accreditation and the critical role of parent advisory

councils in accreditation. September 27, 2000, BCCPAC update:

"…accreditation is essential for both school improvement and

accountability within the school system; the new process is both meaningful and

manageable while fulfilling the goals of accreditation…." The question

must be raised: have parents and the PACs gained, or have they actually lost in

our schools in terms of input as a result of losing the accreditation process,

with this new bill? That question has to be raised in this House.

This

government, quite frankly, is causing conflict and chaos in yet another area of

our most important public services. Health is one of them. Now we see this in

our public school system. There is a real concern amongst parents that this

downloading of responsibility of the government's cuts to education…. What it

will do is set parent against parent, school against school.

If schools

were receiving the funding they require, they wouldn't need to allocate the time

and energy of the boards and school staff towards working on educational

projects that could be sold to schools in other provinces and other countries.

If schools were receiving adequate funding, boards would not need Bill 34 to

give them more power to sell off property and other assets to make up for the

revenue shortfalls.

Let me just

go into the record, because I know this Minister of Education is very proud of

the damage that this government has done in the education system. She goes and

brags about how they've protected education. Let's just measure those words in

reality. Let's just do a reality check in terms of what's happening in our

education system today as a result of this minister's and this government's cuts

to education funding.

Gordon

Comeau, president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, said that the

province's education budget has been cut by about $300 million over the next

three years because the government has piled extra costs on school districts,

including $150 million for the teachers' wage hike. The minister is saying that

he's wrong. This is what Gordon Comeau had to say: "Protected is not an

accurate reflection — it's just a play on words. Cuts are happening, and

they're happening in the classroom. Schools are going down." This is a

recent quote: April 28 in the Vancouver Province .

Let's just

look and see what's happened in Port Alberni in terms of what this government is

doing in the area of education: a $2 million shortfall. I don't hear the MLA

from Port Alberni rising up in this House speaking and advocating for the

students in her own community. I don't hear that at all. A $2 million shortfall.

What are the proposed cuts? Teachers — fewer teachers in the education system

so that there will be higher classroom ratios. Everybody acknowledges that

classroom size makes a difference. It does make a difference in the educational

outcomes for students.

[1545]

Teacher

assistants are now being eliminated — up to 20 teacher assistants in Port

Alberni. What do teacher assistants do? They help in the classrooms,

particularly children who have special needs perhaps, so that they can integrate

into the classroom and learn with other students, and make sure that the other

students who don't have special needs have adequate quality time in the

classroom as well. The teachers and the children need the special needs

assistants, and they're now going to be gone.

Maintenance

workers who are just keeping the school clean, as an example — that is going

to be on the chopping block as well. Clerical positions. Changes to the bus

drivers' job descriptions. Non-enrolling teachers such as librarians will also

have their hours cut. Librarians add to the learning outcomes of students —

absolutely. There's no refuting that. With a $2 million shortfall in Alberni,

these programs will now have to be reduced. The children and their educational

opportunities will be hurt by the action of this minister.

Let's just

go to Burnaby for one minute, to a Burnaby school trustee: a $7.5 million

shortfall. What are they faced with in terms of proposed cuts? Eighty teaching

positions, including classroom teachers, ESL teachers and librarians. Burnaby is

not my riding. There are members here who represent the city of Burnaby. They

ought to be rising up and asking this minister the questions.

How would

this bill help in the classroom to restore the teachers, the ESL teachers and

the librarians? Counsellors will be lost in the Burnaby school district. Again,

janitorial positions. Cuts to school supplies, impacting the children. Career

programs. The list goes on, and that's in the area of Burnaby.

Coquitlam, a $6.9 million funding shortfall. Proposed cuts? Curriculum experts,

groundskeepers, resource staff — all of the extras that make the school run.

The minister is making sure that funding is not available for many of the school

districts, with the rhetoric about protecting education when in fact she isn't.

Bill 34 does not adequately address these issues, and the effects of the cuts to

education are going to be felt by students and parents throughout British

Columbia.

Kootenay-Columbia

school district. What's the proposed cut there? Closure of eight schools. Maybe

the minister can sit there and say that is good for education and that Bill 34

is going to address it. Bill 34 is going to address the closure of eight schools

in the Kootenay-Columbia school district. Parents, instead of perhaps trying to

think about how they could be creative in terms of bringing in additional

programs, will be stuck with trying to figure out how they're going to make up

for the shortfall. How are they going to lobby government so that the government

would listen to them and

[ Page 3011 ]

put money into the education system that would assist the learning outcomes

for students?

Langley

school district. What is the proposed shortfall there? It's $6.5 million. This

is what the school trustee, Diane Pona, has to say: "This particular

government I don't believe has a clue about what education is." That's the Province ,

April 25, 2002.

Nanaimo-Ladysmith

school district. A $7 million shortfall. Proposed cuts? What are those?

Forty-five teaching positions, 11 support staff, four administrative staff,

increased class sizes between grades 4 and 12, impacting once again directly in

the classroom and the opportunities for children to learn.

In New

Westminster, a $2.3 million shortfall. Proposed cuts? Charge students and staff

for parking at the school. Eliminate 24 teaching positions and a community

education night school program. Eliminate some or all of the crossing guards.

Postpone or even cancel an early French immersion program that was meant to

start during the upcoming school year.

This is

what New West is faced with: $2.3 million worth of shortfall. Ending the

education night school program. Eliminating crossing guards. The minister can

maybe sit here with a straight face and say: "We're protecting

education." Tell that to the students, the teachers and the parents in New

Westminster to see what they have to say, because that, in my definition of

protection, is not protection.

[1550]

It is

absolutely an affront to the people who advocate for the education system, who

asked the government — and the government had promised — to fund and protect

education. In fact, what this minister is doing is cutting educational programs.

Make no mistake about it.

North

Vancouver school district, a $6.7 million shortfall. The proposed cuts?

Increased class sizes in grades 4 to 7 and increased fees for band programs,

outdoor school and summer school programs. Aging furniture and equipment won't

be replaced.

This

government says on the one hand: "Hurray for us. We gave you a tax

break." Guess what. This government giveth, and this government taketh. You

know what? They have cut education in terms of the support for the educational

system.

They have

increased tremendous pressures in the area of health care and taken away health

care services. We've talked about that at other places in this Legislature

during the estimates, during question period and even today. This government is

not fulfilling its commitment on long-term care facilities for seniors. In my

own community they're shutting down an adult day care for seniors.

This is

what this government is doing in the area around education. They're going to

increase fees for band programs, outdoor school and summer school programs.

Prince

George school district, $9.2 million worth of shortfall. Proposed cuts: 160

teaching positions this year with an additional 57 next year. There will be 12

school closures, including these rural schools: Mcleod, Mcleod Lake, Hixon, Bear

Lake and Blackburn Jr. Secondary School.

I'd like

the minister to get up and tell the parents, students and educators in Prince

George how Bill 34 will help them. How would freezing the education budget over

the next three years, increasing pressures in terms of cost of education, and

the government not funding those increased pressures, help the school district

of Prince George?

Quesnel

school district, $1 million worth of shortfall. Proposed cuts? Two elementary

school closures. "To help address a budget shortfall of more than $1

million, the Quesnel school district board of trustees has decided to proceed

with plans to close Wells Barkerville and Rich Bar elementary schools in

September. Students from Wells Barkerville Elementary School will be bused 77

kilometres one way from Wells to Barlow Creek Elementary School," said Ed

Napier, the school district 28 superintendent. Barlow Creek Elementary is 11

kilometres northeast of Quesnel on the Barkerville Highway.

Other

impacts in the Quesnel area: 12 teaching positions and reductions in the number

of trustees from seven to five.

Saanich,

$1.5 million worth of shortfall. Proposed cuts? Three special needs education

assistants and 22 full-time teaching positions. Support staff: 20 non-unionized

support staff and four administrators. The McTavish and Sansbury Elementary

Schools will have to share one principal. That's what Saanich is faced with.

Special needs education assistants make a difference in the classroom. Saanich

is going to lose three of them, three that I know they cannot afford to lose.

Sooke, $3

million worth of shortfall. Proposed cuts: 26 classroom teachers, four

behavioral specialists, two teacher-librarians, ten teaching assistant positions

and one youth and family counsellor; closure of two special education offices;

increased class sizes between grades four and 12. Sooke is faced with a major

impact as a result of this minister's lack of commitment in supporting education

for British Columbians and this government's broken promise of protecting

education. This is what the district of Sooke is going to be faced with.

Surrey

school district, $17 million worth of shortfall. Proposed cut: special

education. Once again the children who are most vulnerable, who need supports in

the school system, are not going to get it.

[1555]

The

minister sits there and yawns loudly when I talk about special needs and the $17

million cut in the Surrey school district. Shame on her.

Tell it to

the parents that maybe it's boring to her when the issue of special needs and

the pressures being faced by the Surrey school district are being brought up.

When their classrooms are being cut, tell them it's boring, unimportant and

worthy of a loud yawn from the Minister of Education sitting in her chair when

this matter is being raised.

Richmond,

$9.6 million of funding shortfall. Proposed cuts: 156 teaching positions

including ESL teachers and learning assistants. You know, the Minister of

[ Page 3012 ]

Education and the member sitting behind me are heckling me and trying to

imply that my discussion is because I don't want to focus on the bill. This is

exactly related to the bill because the minister says she wants to make sure

there are more educational opportunities for students.

I fail to

see in this bill, with these cuts, how parents will be better able to

participate and how the outcomes for students will be better as a result of

these cuts. Maybe these members don't care, or maybe they don't want to admit or

be held accountable, because this government has cut education severely. Who's

going to pay for that? The children in British Columbia are going to pay for

that.

Maybe the

government MLAs and the minister don't want the opposition talking about what

the cuts are in the education system as a result of this government's direction,

policy and priorities. But you know what? I am going to raise these issues

because they do impact the educational outcomes for every single child in

British Columbia. They are important.

If this

minister says she will be open, accountable and consultative, well, then talk to

the people who are faced with these cuts and reinstate the moneys so that they

can provide the funding for these programs.

The

Vancouver school district, my own community — a $25.5 million shortfall; 200

teachers will no longer be in the classrooms, 121 other full-time positions, 9.5

multicultural home-school workers, and a raise in fees in the school system.

That's what the Vancouver school board will be faced with: the largest deficit

in the history of British Columbia, and this is only for year one.

The Liberal

government has committed to a three-year funding freeze in education. There will

be additional cuts in programs next year and the year after as a result of this

government's lack of priority in funding education.

The greater

Victoria school district, $6.4 million shortfall. Proposed cuts: 58 full-time

teaching positions, $50,000 cut to the gifted program, 6.4 special education

teachers, 20 elementary school staff positions, 20 secondary school staff

positions, increased class sizes between grades 4 and 8. And management

positions will also be eliminated.

This is

just a glimpse into what this government is doing in the area of education for

this year — just a glimpse into some of the school districts in terms of what

this government is doing. And next year? Let me just take one example in terms

of what will happen next year. The school districts are going to be faced with

increased pressures — additional pressures to what they face now in terms of

the cuts. Those cuts next year will escalate and therefore further compound what

this government is doing to British Columbians in the area of education.

[1600]

The

minister may be thinking: "Well, you know, it's just the opposition that's

saying these things." Maybe she's proud of her education cuts. Maybe that's

the mark she wants to leave as the Minister of Education. You know, it's

interesting to me because when I look at other comments from other people…. I

look to the media, for example, to see what they have to say about the actions

of this government. After all, the media is supposed to be independent, and they

offer an independent voice. Here's what Michael Smyth had to say on Voice of

B.C. most recently, April 17, when Bill 34 was introduced.

think, though, what a lot of the critics of this are saying is that this is

kind of a diversionary tactic, a bit of a smokescreen, to make it look like

government is actually doing something when in fact many people say they are

severely underfunding education. You've got school districts around the

province that are facing record deficits — $25.5 million in Vancouver, the

biggest school board deficit ever in the history of B.C. They're having a

lot of problems. They might have to close schools. They may have to cut

library budgets, all kinds of nasty things. So she" — meaning, in his

statement, the Minister of Education — "can go on and talk about how

great it is to have specialty schools and have all those great new programs.

If the money is not there, it's just not going to happen."

That is a comment from Michael Smyth on Voice of B.C .

Keith

Baldrey has another comment relating to this bill. "She" — again,

meaning the Minister of Education — "can send a special adviser into a

school district. The school district has to pick up the salary and the expenses

of that special adviser. So you've got this person from Victoria, from the

minister's office, sitting there looking."

Vaughn

Palmer then interjects and says: "Kind of a spy for Christy Clark."

Then Keith Baldrey goes on to say:

"Exactly.

A spy for Christy Clark, looking over the shoulders of those school trustees

as they make decisions. There is a lot more power. It's a power grab by

Christy Clark in one way. On the one hand, she gives some power to the

school boards and the parent advisory council and these new planning

councils in schools. On the other hand, she's now exerting more power than

any Education minister has had before over the education system.

"Mike

is right. At the end of the day, it comes down to money. We're talking about

a three-year problem here. It's not just one year; it's three years of

severe underfunding. They're forcing school districts now to think way

outside the box. We're not talking about cutting classes here or even

closing schools. There are going to be a lot of school closures, but there

are going to be a lot more cuts than just that."

Keith Baldrey on Voice of B.C. You know, hon. Speaker, that says it in

terms of what this government is doing. This government is cutting the education

program left and right.

Deputy

Speaker: Member, your time has expired for speaking.

J. Kwan:

I am the designated speaker.

Deputy

Speaker: Proceed.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, hon. Speaker.

[ Page 3013 ]

You know,

the impacts of the cuts by this government are severe. The opposition knows it.

Teachers know it. Parents know it; children know it. Commentators from the

media, as they observe this government, know it as well. The only people who

seem not to know this government is hurting education by their so-called freeze

of the education budget…. The minister has created a new meaning for the word

"protection." That's what she calls it: protection for education. What

it really translates into is cuts in education programs throughout British

Columbia. She, the Minister of Education, is the only one who doesn't know that

she's hurting the children. This government are the only people that don't know

they are hurting the children in British Columbia.

The school

boards are already saying there's not enough money to run current school

programs, never mind the minister's much-bandied-around notion of magnet

schools. Vancouver school board chair Barbara Buchanan, asked to comment about

the possibility of bringing in magnet schools, told CBC radio: "Without

more money from the province, she'll be focused on making cuts, not delivering

new programs." That was Barbara Buchanan, April 17, 2002.

I wonder

how the minister feels about that. She says Bill 34 gives them all kinds of

opportunities to create better education systems. You know what? Trustees

themselves will be frantic just in trying to figure out how they're going to

deal with all these cuts in the school system, never mind looking at delivering

new programs.

[1605]

To the

extent that there is funding, school districts are already providing choice to

parents. Witness the Vancouver school board opening of the fine arts school at

Nootka Elementary School just recently. This is prior to any changes to the

School Act. Choice is already being offered in the school system. The Nootka

School of Fine Arts has nothing to do with this minister's or this government's

efforts — or the bill, for that matter.

The

minister's idea of expanding school choice, in particular magnet schools and

intra-district mobility, seems entirely dependent on the ability of parents to

get their kids to those non-local schools. It is important to recognize that

choice in some jurisdictions has meant additional options for some families and

far fewer for others. Without addressing this, the minister's plan will benefit

only one segment of the children in British Columbia: perhaps the children who

have the socioeconomic resources to make and exercise this choice. Those are the

kids who have mobility and whose parents will have the energy and the resources

and the time and the expertise to do the shopping around for the programs. They

will be able to access this choice.

However,

there will be children who will be left out if parents don't have the ability to

drive their children from one school district to another to attend the school of

their choice. Will the minister be providing support to those children so they

can access and exercise that right to choose? No, I don't think so. I hope I'm

wrong, but I don't think so. I don't see anywhere in the bill that addresses

that issue.

In fact,

one Vancouver-area school basketball coach is warning that the whole idea of

magnet schools will lead to a free-for-all in sports with all the top players

migrating to a handful of teams. I quote: "This will be real good for a

handful of kids but real bad for most. We're heading towards all-star

basketball. I think you're going to have three or four or five schools that win

all the time, and nobody else will have a chance." This is from a longtime

Maple Ridge boys basketball coach, Ken Dockendorf, who was quoted on April 18,

This isn't

just a problem with so much of the B.C. Liberal government's vision for British

Columbia. This isn't just the one problem — policies that are good for a

handful and terrible for everyone else — where a small number of people in

B.C. society get to be the ones winning all the time. That seems to be the

mandate of this government. That seems to be the approach they have adopted in

almost every single policy area.

If our goal

is to provide choice for families, we need to make sure they're accessible

choices for all students and that all B.C. families can benefit. That is equity

— true equity. Every child will have equal access, not just for some but for

all. That's fairness. I don't see the bill that's being introduced, which is

being debated right now in the Legislature, addressing this issue.

Maintaining

It's crucial that providing more choices doesn't take away money from the

regular programs the majority of kids are going to be part of. That is

essential. We've seen that in the current climate of massive cuts to education.

School boards are saying they can't even consider providing more choice. This

raises the question of how the minister will use her new powers — the special

adviser — with school boards that right now have to be more concerned with

maintaining programs than pursuing the minister's magnet school concept.

[1610]

Other areas

of concern. The special adviser. The new powers given to the minister to send in

a special adviser to interfere in the workings of a democratically elected

school board and to make the school board pay the costs of that adviser fly in

the face of the minister's rhetoric about increasing the autonomy of school

boards. Here's what the minister likes to say about the democracy and autonomy

of school boards: "They're accountable for their local communities. They're

locally elected. They know better what goes on in their local communities than I

do in Victoria, so we've complied with their requests. We've given them the

autonomy they've been asking for. I truly believe that most schools around this

province are more than capable of making decisions that we're asking them to

do."

That was

reported by Keith Baldrey on Global B.C. — by the minister on April 15, 2002.

Yet despite this fine rhetoric, she has created, through this legislation, this

new position of special adviser that allows the government and this minister to

send in a non-elected

[ Page 3014 ]

person to impose the government's will on school boards.

Gordon

Comeau of the B.C. School Trustees Association thinks this new position is

unnecessary and should be removed from the legislation. Here's what he had to

say about the special adviser.

don't see the need for the minister to have the power to appoint any

non-elected person to intervene in the work of an elected school board and

then ask the school board to pay for the expenses of that person. We have a

system in place now that we can ask for the teams to come in from the

ministry. The ministry has the right to eliminate school boards if things

are really totally dysfunctional. I think this adds another factor in which

they can influence the public education system the way they see fit, rather

than the people that were elected to represent their communities and what

their community interests are. I think it's an unnecessary thing, and it

should be taken out."

This was a comment by Gordon Comeau of the B.C. School Trustees Association.

In fact, he has urged the opposition to explore, in committee stage, the

conditions under which the minister will feel it is necessary to send in a

special adviser which the minister can force the school board to pay for

themselves.

Another

area for exploration: the expansion of grounds for intervention of official

trustees. The minister has made much of the fact that the government is

broadening the reason for intervention from mainly financial mismanagement to

school achievement, but the current act already contains provisions for the

government to intervene in such cases. It raises the question of whether, like

the special adviser, this is just another government hammer for interfering with

school boards whose policies it doesn't agree with. We'll be exploring this

area, also, during committee stage.

Another

area we will want to explore in detail in committee stage is the introduction of

accountability contracts. These contracts aren't defined in legislation, and

it's not clear what form they'll take, how they'll work or how they or the

annual school plans that the accountability contracts have replaced work or

don't work — and the annual reports that the current School Act mandates.

The issues

raised by the members of the public, by parents and by educators are important.

They are significant. The opposition will continue to question the minister

during committee stage around these areas.

Before I

yield the floor to other members for their comments, I just want to provide some

information to the House with respect to some of the changes around the school

system in Alberta. The reason why I want to raise this issue is, of course, that

the deputy who is now here in British Columbia is the same deputy who made the

changes in Alberta, so we can look to Alberta to see at least some of the issues

they're faced with and look to see what will happen in British Columbia.

[1615]

One of the

most important issues, as I mentioned earlier, is around class size. We know

that class size impacts the learning outcomes for students. In fact, in talking

with a government member, I asked what the optimal class size is for children. A

former educator in the system, the member for Delta North tells me the optimal

class size is 17. If my memory serves me correctly, that was the conversation we

had — that the optimal class size is 17. Instead of moving toward lowering

class sizes, what we see now is increases in class sizes. I read off earlier

just some of the school districts in terms of what they're faced with. The

majority of them are going to see an increase in class sizes. Instead of moving

in a direction that would enhance the classroom environment for both students

and educators, we're moving in the other direction.

What's

happened in Alberta? Let's just take a look. A recent government survey found

that the average class size for grades 1 to 3 is 23 students per class. This is,

of course, significantly above the ideal, which is 17 students per class. The

same survey found that approximately 41 percent of the classes in Alberta have

25 or more students. Further, 71 percent of classes have an average of four

students with special needs. How can students receive the sort of individualized

attention they need and deserve, when they're being packed into the classrooms

this way?

Does Bill

34 address that issue? No, it doesn't, hon. Speaker. What the government has

done is creating a worsening of the learning environment in British Columbia.

This has just been reviewed in Alberta, I believe, as recently as February 2002.

The class-size issue is a growing concern for the people in Alberta. In fact,

other information around class size in Alberta…. Over half of the grade 1

students in the schools are in classes with over 17 students. Many of these

classes range upward between 25 and 30 students. These are the challenges

they're faced with.

The other

issue that has been raised, of course, is the controversial issue of bringing

business, because for this government their operation for everything ought to be

utilized under a business model, inclusive of schools. What the government wants

to do is look at the public school system as though it was a business. You know,

there are some issues that one needs to be concerned about in our public

education system. Students in schools…. We ought to be concerned that they

would become a captive audience and should not be subjected to advertising and

corporate promotional programs, as an example.

Let's have

a closer look at what's happened in other jurisdictions that value the notion of

a business model in the school system. Some businesses are supporting schooling

as part of their commitment to the community in which they operate. Others see

long-term benefits in placing products in schools and creating brand awareness

among students. Still others seek to sell their services and products directly

in, to or through schools.

When

entering into a business partnership or deciding to contract out services,

schools should note the following. Partners' expectations must be clearly

defined at the outset. The goals of public education must not be compromised.

Teacher and student participation must be voluntary. The partnership must not

exploit students or their families. Business partners must not

[ Page 3015 ]

promote specific products to students, determine curricula or influence

education policies.

Dependency

on corporate support undermines the independence of schools and allows the

government to evade its responsibility to appropriately fund public education. I

do fear that this is what the government is going to do.

[1620]

On the

issue around accountability and these accountability contracts, I'm particularly

concerned about the accountability or lack of accountability from this Minister

of Education and from this government. Whether or not the minister will rise in

the House and say, "You know what? If Johnny or Mary in a particular school

is not getting the education program they need because of cuts in the special

needs area, in special needs assistants, counsellors or ESL support…"

Will the minister make sure that support is there for the children in British

Columbia? Will this bill address that issue to ensure that this government, this

minister, will be held accountable?

This

minister has brought forward significant cuts in our school system and forced

the school boards to make these cuts. She has threatened and strengthened that

threat in the legislation. If the school board trustees do not bring forward a

balanced budget or run into financial difficulties, the minister may well fire

them. Yet we see record deficits for school boards throughout British Columbia.

The issue

around choice, as I mention again, in the Alberta system…. One of the issues

that people were concerned about, which has been raised, is that school choice

tends to favour the advantaged students in our society, if you will, and

fragments public education by creating have and have-not schools and programs.

There will be two-tier education opportunities even in the public school system.

The other

issue around a market-driven reform approach — others have looked at the

Alberta system and raised these concerns — is that the market-driven approach

to reform creates and puts emphasis on competition, which then increases the

inequities between the have and the have-not schools.

In fact,

there was an extensive review of the research on the impact of school choice in

England, Wales, the United States, New Zealand and Sweden. It was documented in Devolution

and Choice in Education: the School, the State and the Market, Open

University Press 1998 . The British researchers concluded that the

market-oriented approach led to good schools choosing good students, usually

those who are academically and socially advantaged, while failing schools were

thrown into a steady decline. That's the risk British Columbia could well face

now as a result of the actions of this government.

Finally,

I'd like to put on record a letter from a teacher in Saanich. It's a letter to

the editor written on April 24. It headlines: "Never Before in B.C. Has

Teachers' Morale Been So Low."

"This

letter is written with deep concern regarding the devastating legislation on

the public school system. We find it outrageous that the government

maintains that the increased flexibility imposed will improve the quality of

our education system. We'd like to know how the government believes that

less funding, larger class sizes and less support for special needs students

can possibly improve the learning environment of our schools.

"We're

deeply dismayed at the recent comments to the media by the Minister of

Education about making our schools accountable. Goal setting, personal,

school and district, has been an integral part of our profession for many,

many years. Setting standards and criteria referencing have been a critical

part of our teaching practice.

"Our

wish is to provide each student with the best possible learning environment

in order for them to reach their full potential. The new legislation will

make this monumental and, we fear, an impossible task. However, teachers

working longer hours and with fewer resources will undoubtedly lessen the

impact on student learning.

"Over

the long term, teachers will leave the teaching profession, and it will be

more difficult to attract bright, energetic youth into what has always been

considered a noble profession. We worry that our current government

considers us unaccountable, unimportant, unprofessional. In our considerable

experience never before has teachers' morale been lower.

"Saanich."

[1625]

Earlier I

mentioned that I thought the optimal class size was 17. The member for Delta

North has just sent me a note, and he says, in fact, the optimal class size is

16. I'm just trying to understand the note here. I'm sure he will speak to the

issue.

The optimal

class size question. I want to go back to this just for one moment — whether

it's 16 or 17. Maybe I'm off by one. Maybe I misremembered the conversation that

I had with the member for Delta North, but when I had a conversation with him

about what the optimal class size is, it was understood, as I remember it, to be

17. Maybe it's 16.

The fact is

this. This is the point. The government is moving in the other direction. This

gets more complex for classrooms where there's split classes, as an example,

where sometimes you would have a couple of different grades, sometimes even

three.

I was just

visiting in different communities over the weekend in Prince Rupert and speaking

with parents and educators there. What they told me was that class sizes do make

a difference for students. They do make a difference. One educator advised me

that she has three different grades within her class. That, compounded with

special needs and with the reduced assistance that she's going to get…. She is

unsure how she is going to deliver quality education to the students. She's very

worried about it.

Yet the

government is going to plow along with the cuts in education. The government

believes that this piece of legislation, which is being introduced, will fix all

of the ills that they have caused as a result of the cuts to education programs.

I don't

believe that it will fix all of the ills. I worry very much that it's going to

create inequitable systems within our education system, that it will create have

[ Page 3016 ]

and have-not schools and that it will further jeopardize the parents who

don't have the resources to participate. For the schools that don't have a PAC

already, as it were…. Who will be representing them? Those voices will likely

be from the school trustees, because they will appoint someone. That does not

create a strong voice for the parents in the school system at all.

I will have

more to say with respect to this bill in relation to the different clauses that

exist in the bill and questions for the minister. I will be raising my concerns

with the minister and asking my questions during committee stage.

Locke: First of all, I'm going to put the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant's mind at ease. Perhaps she should get her facts right. In fact, Surrey

school district, the largest school district in the province, because of the

tools provided by this minister, has balanced its budget, and there will be not

one more child in a classroom. We'll be using the same class formula as we did

last year. I'm very sorry to disappoint her, but there's no story for her in

Surrey, and she should probably pay attention to her own riding.

It's my

pleasure to rise and speak in favour of the School Amendment Act, 2002. As a

mother of two school-aged daughters, the changes to the School Act come close to

home. The changes will give me, as a parent, more meaningful involvement in my

children's education. Parents are crucial to a child's education. It has been

proven time and time again that kids do better when their parents are involved

in their learning, when they provide a source of motivation and inspiration.

The

legislation brought forward by our Minister of Education addresses this. It

realizes that when parents are involved in their children's learning, we are

creating a win-win situation. The School Amendment Act has created school

planning councils which are made up of a principal, a teacher and three parents

elected by the PAC. The school planning council has an important mandate. It is

responsible for setting goals for student performance and developing an annual

plan to achieve those goals.

[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

[1630]

This is the

first time that parents have been included at this level of educational

planning. Previously, PACs were the main method through which parents could make

their voices heard, but parent advisory councils had no teeth. Too often parent

participation and PAC participation was relegated to raising money for

playground equipment or computers. Too often PACs didn't even have the

opportunity to direct where those funds should go.

There was

nothing in legislation stating that schools must listen to parents. The newly

formed school planning councils give parent advisory councils some weight in

determining the direction of education for their children. As they're elected to

school planning councils by the parent advisory, the three parent

representatives will be accountable to the parents and will represent issues

that they feel are important.

The School

Amendment Act, 2002 will also make district parent advisory councils mandatory

in school districts. In the past, parent advisory councils developed from a need

for parents to have more input in the school system. Presently they exist

throughout school districts in various forms — some more active than others.

Not all school districts necessarily have a PAC.

With this

act, we are bringing some uniformity to parent advisory councils by ensuring

that they do exist in every school district. Parents need a venue to express

their ideas about education for their children. By ensuring that parent advisory

councils exist, we are making that happen.

The act

also lifts restrictions on school catchment areas so that students are no longer

forced to attend the public school in their catchment area. They can now decide

which school they want to attend. I am sure everyone is familiar with stories of

children who, for whatever reason, cannot attend their neighbourhood school.

This system simply did not meet the needs of students or families.

As schools

develop areas of specialization, such as the fine arts school at White Rock

Elementary or trades training that's offered at Johnston Heights Secondary in

Surrey and so many other Surrey senior secondary schools…. In fact, school

district 36, while having only 10 percent of the provincial student body,

graduates 20 percent of the high school apprenticeships — a tremendous

achievement, thanks to the work of the Surrey school trustees, the

superintendent and outstanding staff.

What a

great concept: to allow, encourage and create areas of specialization — be it

the music department at North Surrey Secondary or chefs training programs at

Queen Elizabeth Senior Secondary and L A Matheson Secondary, or the fabulous

inner-city school programs offered at Betty Huff Elementary. Boards want these

opportunities, but so do teachers, parents and principals.

The new

legislation will mean that students and their parents can decide which school

they want to attend and eliminate problems associated with catchment areas. This

act also gives school boards the power to engage in entrepreneurial activities,

which will help save administrative costs and improve delivery of services.

This bill

looks forward to the future of education in the province. The face of education

is changing, and it's changing to meet the needs of students who are

increasingly making use of new technologies and requiring new skills in today's

job market.

As a member

of the Select Standing Committee on Education, I believe it is time for some

fundamental changes to the delivery of educational services in our province. I'm

very proud of this new legislation which increases choice for students and

participation opportunities for parents.

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: This afternoon it gives me great pleasure to speak in favour

and on behalf of Bill

[ Page 3017 ]

34, the School Amendment Act, 2002. I believe this legislation will help us

open up our schools, rebalance the education system and, I think, unleash a lot

of energy that our parents and school trustees have.

[1635]

As the

previous speaker was talking, she mentioned that she was the parent of a couple

of children who had been through the public system. I was just making some

calculations. I've got four children. It spanned a period of over 21 years when

I had children in school. I think that certainly gives me some experience in

working with them and working with the school boards.

I'm very,

very proud of the public education system that we have in British Columbia, but

we can always improve. We can always do better. I think that by allowing the

parents a greater role in the school, by allowing greater choice for the

students and by allowing greater freedom and flexibility for the school boards,

we can move that whole process along.

In terms of

school involvement by the parents, I can remember the days when perhaps I drove

some of the students somewhere or took them to the local swimming pool or took

them on a field trip. Perhaps I participated in their sports day or acted as a

chaperon or perhaps attended a bake sale to raise some money. In those days it

was to buy computers for the schools. That was sort of where the parents fit

into the overall scheme of things.

I'm very,

very pleased to see in this legislation we'll now have real, meaningful input

for the parents through the school planning council, which includes not only the

principal but a teacher chosen by their peers and three parents elected from the

parent advisory council. I do agree with one of the comments earlier that we

don't have enough parent advisory councils in schools around British Columbia. I

think this legislation, by giving parents a greater say in their schools, will

in fact encourage the growth of PACs in all our schools.

It will

enable the parents to have a look at the school plan, to participate in looking

at targets. When you think that our children are usually seven years plus

kindergarten in elementary school and five years in secondary school, surely

there should be a school plan and a target of where this school is going. I know

that as responsible parents, we want to participate in that to see what growth

is going to take place with our children during their 12 or 13 years at school.

That accountability contract, I think, will help measure our schools as well and

give us pride as parents in the growth of our schools and the targets they have

achieved, so that they can stack up to schools anywhere in the world.

The second

point is really around choice. As the previous speaker mentioned, all our

schools, in fact, are really quite different today. This will, I think, create

an even greater sense of choice for the students. Whether some schools excel in

certain types of sports, whether it's fine arts or perhaps they're lucky enough

to have a theatre right in the school and have classes built around that,

whether it's science, whether it's a food program, whether it's a traditional

school…. Now children from anywhere in British Columbia can attend that

school, subject to availability.

The third

point, as the minister ment