H0527am 03

H0527am 03

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, May 27, 2003 Morning Sitting Volume 16, Number 3 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca/hansard In addition to printed transcripts, Hansard Services publishes transcripts on the Internet and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Tuesday, May 27, 2003 Morning Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 6959 School Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 50) Hon. C. Clark J. Kwan Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 51) Hon. C. Clark J. Kwan R. Masi Hon. C. Clark Point of Privilege............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 6972 J.

Kwan Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................ ................................................... 6973 Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued) Hon. G. Cheema J. MacPhail

6959 TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 The House met at 10:04 a.m. Prayers. [1005] Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call continued debate of the estimates for the Minister of State for Mental Health. In this chamber I call second reading of Bill 50. Second Reading of Bills SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. C. Clark: I move that Bill 50, School Amend- ment Act, 2003, be read for a second time. This act introduces a number of changes to the School Act to give students a larger voice and fur- ther eliminate red tape for school districts.

We want to create a quality public education system for every young student in British Columbia, a system that values student input and recognizes the importance of student involvement in planning what happens at their schools, a system with choices so that students can continue to attend the school that they choose even if it's not within their catchment area, a system that recruits the brightest and the best educators and that gives boards the maximum flexibility to recruit, a system with fewer barriers and one that allows districts to spend revenue where it will benefit stu- dents most — and that is undoubtedly in the class- room.

Last year government created school planning councils, one at every school, as part of our commit- ment to improve student achievement. The councils examine how well students are performing, and they develop an annual plan that identifies a school's strengths and weaknesses, sets goals for improvement and monitors progress towards that improvement. The planning councils currently consist of a principal, a teacher and three representatives elected by the parent advisory council.

Today's legislation adds a student representative from grade 10, 11 or 12 to secondary school planning councils, and it ensures that students have real and meaningful input into how their schools are run. Students are not just key partners in our education system. They are the most important people in our education system. They have a keen interest and are able to contribute the firsthand information that we need to improve student achievement in our schools.

A quality education system with improved student achievement and more student involvement are new- era promises that we made in the election and that we remain committed to. Including students in grades 10, 11 and 12 on secondary school planning councils puts us one step closer to that goal. Last year we created open school boundaries as part of our commitment to provide greater choice for students and parents in public schooling.

We believe that student success rates will increase when we allow students to take the courses in which they believe they may excel, whether those courses are in the neighbour- hood school or in an entirely different school district. Today's legislation will permit boards to establish rules for students wishing to continue to attend schools outside of their enrolment boundaries or what we call the catchment area.

Specifically, the amendment will permit school boards to create rules that allow for out-of- catchment students who attended a particular school in the previous year to remain with enrolment priority the following year. It will allow students access to certain schools to ensure continuation of their educational pro- gram. It will make it easier for siblings to attend the same schools, and it will make it easier to determine which stu- dents have enrolment priority. School boards asked for this change to ensure the continuity of educational oppor- tunities for students in their schools.

This amendment will ensure that boards have the flexibility they need to deter- mine how to prioritize students fairly. Today's amendments also allow principals to ac- crue seniority as teachers during their tenure as princi- p a l s a t B . C . s c h o o l s . T h i s a m e n d m e n t i s i m p o r t a n t . I t will give school boards the flexibility to maximize much-needed recruitment efforts as more and more principals reach retirement age.

This means boards will h a v e m o r e c a n d i d a t e s t o c h o o s e f r o m , a n d w e c a n b e sure we are hiring the most qualified professionals to lead in our schools. [1010] Today's legislation will also give school boards more flexibility in allowing them to use short-term leases of school property to generate operating reve- nue. At least 50 out of 60 school districts in British Co- lumbia right now are facing declining enrolment. Boards have indicated that leasing surplus school property has the potential to generate thousands of dollars in operating revenue over a period of years.

Currently, boards can lease property, but the revenue generated must be placed in their capital reserve ac- count. Under this new legislation, boards will be given the freedom to spend short-term lease money where it will benefit students most, and that again, unques- tionably, is in the classroom. We promised more autonomy for school boards, and this change to the School Act lives up to that prom- ise. These changes to the School Act will ensure that students have real, meaningful input in school plan- ning.

They will allow boards to prioritize enrolment applications fairly and equitably in order to ensure the continuity of education programming for students. It will give boards the flexibility they need to maximize their recruitment, and it will give districts the flexibility to spend revenue where it will benefit students most: in the classroom. These changes are necessary in order for us to follow through on our commitments that we made in our New Era document and in the ministry service plan that we set out last year.

6960 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 I move that the bill now be read a second time. J. Kwan: I rise today to express my dismay at the incompetence, quite frankly, of the Liberal govern- ment. Due to their rescheduling of the House — and really, it is scheduling inefficiencies that the govern- ment has put in place — the opposition has a mere two hours to give second reading to both Bills 50 and 51. Time allotted for committee stage is only one hour. Bill 50, School Amendment Act, 2003, contains many issues that would best be explored at committee stage.

However, one hour is simply not enough for the opposi- tion to fully critique two very important pieces of legisla- tion. It's not enough time for the public to come to un- derstand what these issues and their ramifications are and to have their questions answered through the oppo- sition by the minister in this House. One hour to try and figure out the changes being made to the College of Teachers. One hour to explore enrolment priorities. One hour to critique the government's new position on teachers' seniority. Now, when I say one hour, this is one hour collectively on the bill's entirety.

There are some aspects of this legislation that may be quite beneficial to British Columbians — for example, allowing students to have representation on school plan- ning councils. But to canvass even a good idea in this short amount of time, this limited amount of time, I would argue, does not do justice to the importance of the issue. Other aspects of this legislation are more troubling. The word "teacher," for example, is substituted by the word "person" in a clause dealing with seniority. Many people are concerned that this change will allow adminis- trative officers to accumulate teacher seniority. This is a

section that would best be examined at committee stage. However, due to the massive changes being made to the College of Teachers, the opposition is forced to decide how best to allocate precious resources between Bills 50 and 51. There simply has not been enough time assigned to properly examine both bills at committee stage. Bill 50 also gives school boards the option to estab- lish new rules and guidelines regarding enrolment preference and priority. Again, this could be beneficial to students and their families, but the language is so confusing that it is hard to tell.

Currently, there are four levels of priority for enrolment, and Bill 50 pro- poses to add an additional four levels. But instead of clearly outlining which students would be eligible, Bill 50 contains incredibly confusing language. [1015] Let me just give you an exam ple. Let me just read this amendment to

section 74.1 of the School Act, of which there is subsection (6.1). It reads: "Despite subsection (6), a board may, subject to subsection (6.2), give priority to (

a) a catchment area child as if that child were a child described in subsection (6) (

a) if, in the previous school year, the child attended a school from which the board reassigns students progressing through their educational program to the school at which the educational program is made available…." Bafflegab. Most people wouldn't understand what that means, and we would have to go through a bill that's filled with such language to canvass in order to get clarity on its meaning so that people will under- stand how they are to operate. What does this

section even mean? Perhaps if the opposition had been allotted more time at committee stage, we might have an opportunity to ask the minis- ter to elaborate on the consequences of these changes. But with only one hour, we'd not be able to fully can- vass all the required issues. There are further concerns that

section 4 of Bill 50 will bend the rules and allow school boards to close their school, lease it to a private party for five years and apply the proceeds to its operating budget. Again, it's another area that deserves time in this House for the opposition to question the minister at committee stage on the consequences and ramifications of such author- ity given to the school board and, more importantly, the ramifications of such changes in the community and what it means for the students and their parents and for access to education, irrespective of the income — what it means, in other words, for children in terms of their educational opportunities. Then there's

section 6, which has many people con- cerned about the ability of the administrative officers to acquire teacher seniority retroactively. Perhaps there's a good reason for this. Perhaps there's no need to w o r r y . B u t i t w o u l d b e n i c e t o h a v e m o r e t h a n o n e hour to find out why these changes are being made — why allow retroactivity on something like this. The opposition did not unanimously agree to the

schedule that was moved by the House Leader, voted for by every single member of the government side, with my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings and my- self opposing it yesterday. The government has an un- precedented majority in this chamber — some 75 cau- cus members to a mere two members of the opposition. They've had since February to work out their legisla- tive calendar, and yet here we are in May, after 43 sit- ting days, and the government is ramming through legislation on time allocation.

Now, I know that the House Leader blamed me for holding the government up — that somehow my preg- nancy and having a child derailed the government's agenda; that they could not introduce legislation until the last two weeks, the second-to-last week of the House sitting. Ten pieces of legislation in one day — 16 over two days. Upon my return, somehow I'd held the government up. [1020] Isn't it ironic? If we reduce the caucus numbers, the government's business can't get done. Maybe the effec- tive strategy for the opposition would be for my col- league and I just not to be in this chamber for any de- bate.

Then perhaps the government would never get anything done. Is that the logic here? It appears to be so for the Government House Leader. Or is the real issue this? This is what I suspect: the real problem that the Government House Leader is faced with is that his own caucus members are having difficulty with the pieces of legislation that are being tabled in this Legislature. Perhaps they're fighting

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6961 amongst themselves with disagreements. Maybe some of them are struggling to represent their constituents. I hope that they are. It's like the Coquihalla issue, the Coquihalla tolls. You'd think that some of the MLAs will step forward and say: "Hold up, government colleagues. This is not a good idea. It's not good for my community. We don't want generations and generations of the future genera- tion to have to pay tolls. It's not a smart move for my community.

It's not a smart move for B.C.'s economy." It's not a smart move for the heartlands community that this government likes to tout, saying that they have a heartlands strategy and that they are going to put heartlands tests on the table to make sure govern- ment decisions will meet that test. In reality, with the Coquihalla tolls it does not meet that test. It is up to the Minister of Transportation and the Premier to listen to the public and to listen to the MLAs. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. member, the Chair allows quite a bit of latitude at sec- ond reading, but could we please return to the princi- ple of Bill 50. J. Kwan: Yes, of course. I'm outlining just as an illustration of the problems here that we're faced with, with Bill 50 and the amount of time — the lack of time — which we have to debate these issues. The govern- ment saw fit to bring in time allocation — one hour of committee debate for a substantive piece of legislation that has huge ramifications for our education system and for our children.

The comparison to the Coquihalla tolls is in the huge ramifications for the economy in the heartlands community. The comparison here is that it is up to this minister and this government to listen to their MLAs. It's up to this minister and this government to allow for real time in this House for debate. That is not happen- ing. That is the issue here. That's the connectedness by way of drawing comparisons in other areas of govern- ment where they are simply closing and shutting down their eyes and ears to the public and even to their own MLAs on these issues.

The opposition will try to address as many con- cerns as possible during the 60 minutes available to us in committee stage. We'll continue to try and hold this government accountable for their actions, even though it is their habit — and particularly it is the habit of this Minister of Education — t o s a y : " D o n ' t b l a m e m e . I t ' s everybody else's fault, but not mine. Everything that I'm doing is just great." It is her approach to the chal- lenges and problems that this government, her gov- ernment, has created in the area of education.

The opposition will continue to work hard to repre- sent the British Columbians whose voices are not re- presented in this chamber, of whom there are many. It remains to be seen whether or not the government will listen to anybody. So far, the people that they would listen to have been the small minority of people in Brit- ish Columbia who are basically lobbyists of govern- ment, people who fund their election campaign. That seems to be the approach.

Anybody else who has legitimate concerns that they brought before this government, this government has set them aside and said they were somehow special interest groups and that somehow their concerns are not worth consideration. Somehow their concerns are not legitimate. Somehow when people don't agree with cuts to the education system, they are deemed to be special interest groups, and they're cast aside — that they have no voice, and they ought to have no voice, hon. Speaker. [1025] The bill. As I mentioned, there are some troubling components within it.

There are some pieces that may well be good, but it requires time for the opposition to canvass. With only one hour, there is a huge limitation on what the opposition can do and the answers that the opposition needs to seek from the minister for clarity on the School Amendment Act, 2003. But as I said, we'll do the best we can given that this is a government who's really not interested in debate, who really is just interested in shutting down debate and not allowing for clear, concise debate in this House. It's a shame that the time allotted for second read- ing for both Bills 50 and 51 is only a mere two hours.

Bill 51 is another big bill that deserves a lot of discus- sion, so I'm going to save that time — the scarce amount of time that's made available to us — so we can engage in second reading debate for Bill 51 as well. Mr. Speaker: We are at second reading stage of Bill 50. The Minister of Education closes debate. Hon. C. Clark: I move that Bill 50, School Amend- ment Act, 2003, be referred to a Committee of the Whole House…. My apologies. Mr. Speaker: W e m u s t m o v e s e c o n d r e a d i n g . T h e question now is second reading of Bill 50. Motion approved. Hon. C.

Clark: I move that Bill 50 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 50, School Amendment Act, 2003, 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. C. Clark: I call second reading on Bill 51. TEACHING PROFESSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. C. Clark: I move that Bill 51 be read for a sec- ond time. This act introduces changes to the Teaching Profes- sion Act that will increase public accountability, clarify

6962 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 the role of the College of Teachers and enhance effi- ciency. Amending the Teaching Profession Act is part of our strategy to increase accountability at every level of our public education system. These changes will help increase public confidence in our system and sup- port our government's commitment to ensuring a qual- ity education for every British Columbia student. The College of Teachers is an independent, self- regulating body that is responsible for establishing standards for education, certification, conduct and competence of teachers.

Currently, the college is gov- erned by a 20-member council; 15 of whom are elected and five of whom are appointed by the provincial gov- ernment. Right now, while all members of the college are eligible to be elected, it is a limited form of democ- racy in practice, because only teachers nominated and endorsed by the B.C. Teachers Federation get elected or acclaimed to the board.

Changes to the Teaching Profession Act will in- crease public accountability by changing representa- tion on the College of Teachers council to ensure broader representation of the public, and as a result, it will improve public confidence in the teaching profes- sion. These changes will also ensure that the public has a right to make a written complaint about a teacher's conduct. Until now in British Columbia, parents have not been able to pursue their concerns in this manner. These amendments will increase accountability and provide the public with an avenue to question the con- duct of a college member.

The College of Teachers will now be required to submit an annual report to the Min- ister of Education. This will include details of the fi- nancial affairs and administration of the college, in- cluding a report on the performance and competence of the teaching profession. College members will now be required to report professional misconduct of an- other member, and this, I believe, will also promote professionalism within the teaching profession. [1030] In the past there has been confusion over the role of the college and the role of post-secondary institutions in approving teacher education programs.

Changes to the Teaching Profession Act will clarify the role of the college by giving the college the authority to set stan- dards for teacher certification, but not to approve how teacher education programs are administered or taught. The college will now be able to delegate the power of decision-making to a discipline committee to ensure procedural fairness for all parties, and amendments to the Teaching Profession Act will provide broader rep- resentation on the council of the College of Teachers. They will allow the public to make written complaints when they are concerned about a member's conduct.

They will require members of the college to report pro- fessional misconduct of another member. It will require the College of Teachers to prepare an annual report. It will clarify the role of the College of Teachers, and it will enhance the administrative efficiency of the col- lege. I move that the bill now be read a second time. J. Kwan: Bill 51, Teaching Profession Amendment Act, in the minister's view, is an attempt to reduce po- litical influence with the College of Teachers. Instead of electing teachers, this minister will appoint people of her choosing. Wow. So much for getting rid of political influence.

Let's just take a look at this fundamental change and some of its ramifications. Bill 51 will change so that teaching will no longer be a self-regulating profession. Why is that? Bill 51 changes the composition of the board members to eight elected members, 11 cabinet appointments on the minister's recommendations and one person to be nominated by the deans. Under the present legislation the council consists of 15 elected members from 15 zones, two cabinet ap- pointments, two ministerial appointments and one person nominated by the deans of faculties of educa- tion.

In fact, an election is currently underway in the even-numbered zones of the college. The issue around the change in these appointments is fundamental. In all self-regulating professions the majority of the council is to be appointed by the profes- sion, through their own peers. That's what peer regula- tion is about. That's how you do it in the professional world — but no, not when it comes to education and the teaching profession.

This Minister of Education, this Liberal govern- ment, has decided to inject politics into the process by eliminating the opportunity for the profession to gov- ern and monitor itself, for the profession to be self- regulating. Instead, the government has chosen to poli- ticize it by making the majority of the council — in fact, all but one — to be appointments by government and by this partisan Minister of Education — not looking at what is in the best interests of education but rather looking at what is in her best political interests and the political interests of this government.

You would think that the Minister of Education, who likes to claim that she cares about education, would actually do the best thing for B.C.'s teaching profession — that is, truly putting forward a self- regulating council. Let the peers of that profession evaluate their own conduct accordingly, just like the doctors' community — like the College of Physicians, where the majority of the physicians are appointed by their own peers to regulate themselves around mis- conduct, investigations into allegations, decisions re- sulting from them and disciplinary actions if required.

Let them do the work as they would as a peer- regulating body. [1035] That's what we have with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, but that's not what we have in the teach- ing profession. That's not what the government is bringing forward. Instead the government is going to appoint all except one member of this council, so there's no self-regulation whatsoever. It is clear. It's transparent from this point of view that it is a partisan council. Now, this government went on and on about how appointments need to be non-partisan when they were

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6963 in opposition. They said it would be merit based. They said that they were going to take politics out of this process — and what do they do? They do exactly the opposite. In fact, they go even further than that by making it purely partisan, purely political. So much for the notion of doing what is best for our children and our education system, because politics comes first for this Minister of Education and for this Liberal govern- ment. For that, shame on them. Shame on them for politicizing the teaching profession in that way. The impact of the legislation.

There are a number of questions that the opposition will only have one hour to ask during committee stage for a substantial piece of legislation with Bills 51 and 50 — questions that need answers. The minister, rather than the profession, will effectively assume control of the college. The college will no longer be democratic and, as I mentioned, self- regulating. Formerly, the majority of the people on the council were elected by their own peers. Democracy is out the door with Bill 51, because there are no elections to take place.

They're all appointments to be made by this Minister of Education, this partisan Minister of Education, who puts politics before education. The majority of the councillors on the college coun- cil, as I mentioned, will be appointed. All other self- regulating bodies in B.C. have councils or boards with the majority being elected by members. The question is: what makes the teaching profession different from every other professional body that exists in British Co- lumbia? I used the example of the College of Physi- cians.

Maybe the next thing that this Liberal govern- ment will decide is that the College of Physicians and Surgeons will no longer have the ability or the author- ity to be self-regulating, and maybe the majority of the c o l l e g e w i l l b e m a d e u p o f a p p o i n t m e n t s b y t h e g o v - ernment. Are we going to see those kinds of changes? How can the minister and this government rise in this House and claim that somehow they're creating a self- regulating body that is democratic in its nature when, in fact, it's anything but democratic, and it certainly is not self-regulating.

The teachers will continue to pay for the operation of the college, but they will have no say in its operations. Again, the College of Physicians and Surgeons…. They pay for its operation, but they decide how business should be dealt with. The majority of the people are elected by their own peers who will make that decision. [1040] The new bill will wipe out the current council. In the interim, do you know what's going to happen? The minister has the authority to appoint 20 persons to the council. Its entirety in the interim would be political appointments. That's what's going to happen.

The legislation negates the democratic election process that's taking place right now in the even- numbered zones of the college. And when I say "zones," it's the school district zones. Five candidates have already been acclaimed. Elections for the remain- ing two zones are to be concluded by May 30, 2003. But when this legislation passes, all of that will be null and void, and all those individuals who have been democ- ratically elected by their own peers will be replaced by partisan political appointments by this partisan politi- cal Minister of Education, who places politics before education.

The minister has made it quite clear that she sees the B.C. Teachers Federation as a special interest group. For some reason, this government has decided that special interest groups are an annoyance hindering progress in British Columbia. I should actually pause here and clarify my re- m a r k s . I w o u l d n ' t w a n t t o g e n e r a l i z e . T o t h i s g o v e r n - ment, special interest groups are only those that dis- agree with them. This government consistently shuts down community advocates all over British Columbia.

Their views are treated with hostility, their efforts dis- counted and their concerns brushed aside. It is a trend that is both unfortunate and worrisome. Opposition voices are essential to the democratic process. They are our sources of knowledge, debate, development and progress. And with only two mem- bers in opposition, the role of the community's voices is even more important. But what does this government do? It ignores those voices and brushes them off as special interest groups. Instead of consultation, coop- eration and commitment to process, this minister chooses conflict and confrontation.

Mount your horses. Draw your swords. The battle lines are set. This is the methodology the Minister of Education h a s c h o s e n t o d e a l w i t h e d u c a t i o n i n B . C . — conflict, confrontation, and cuts that hurt children and their families and, therefore, our community. How about that? Some example for our children. Parents are concerned about school closures. School trustees are slammed with cost pressures and under- funding. Teachers are being bashed around with legis- lation. Children are losing valuable services.

The Minister of Education thinks she can get away with it, because she can count 75 sheep in this House — 75 government MLAs who'll sit back and just let it happen; 75 MLAs who at the end of the day say to themselves: "Gee, that wasn't so hard. We picked a fight with the teachers. The battle's done, and we kind of, well, won. So who cares? Now we can do whatever we want. We can interfere as we choose. We can stick it to the teachers — a n d , i n f a c t , w e j u s t d i d .

" T h e y p a t themselves on the back, and they're very proud of their actions. [1045] Well, who are these people that the Liberals are bashing around with the heavy hand of legislation, such as Bill 51? It's a simple answer. They're the teach- ers, the guardians of education. They are the people we entrust our children with every day, the people who helped every single person in this chamber get to where we are today.

The people who guide our kids through math problems, teach our children the history of this country, coach their soccer teams, sponsor their clubs, console them after they've been bullied and pro- vide them with a caring ear. They're the hard-working, undervalued but pivotal ― pivotal ― members of the youth of this province.

6964 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 What does this L iberal government do? It wages a battle against these people and their democratically elected organizations. This minister labels them a spe- cial interest group, and refuses to work with them in a constructive and collaborative manner. Just what lesson is the Minister of Education trying to teach our kids with her approach? Where would she be without the wonderful teachers of this province? Why wouldn't the minister consult with them? The teachers have many questions and concerns. They feel they have not been adequately consulted.

They have requested a meeting with the minister, but that has yet to happen with this bill. Why would that be? Why would that be when the Minister of Education claims that she's consultative? Yet on the bill that fun- damentally impacts the people whom we entrust our children with, she would not meet with them, and she has yet to do so. Instead, the teachers had to meet with staff. They were delegated to somebody else, where their questions were not answered. It makes no sense. Hon. Speaker, I think a member wants to make an introduction, so I'm going to yield the floor to her. S.

Orr: I'd like to seek leave to make an introduc- tion. Leave granted. Introductions by Members S. Orr: Thank you for allowing me to do that. Today I have great pleasure in introducing 27 grade 5 students here from Doncaster Elementary School. They have done the tour of the building, and they're just the most enthusiastic bunch I've ever come across. They're wonderful. With them is their extremely well respected teacher, Ms. Boyce. I would really, really appreciate this House making this bunch of great stu- dents welcome. Debate Continued R. Masi: It's my pleasure today to say a few words about Bill 51. Mr.

Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. Excuse me. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant just yielded the floor for an introduction. R. Masi: I'm sorry. My apologies. [J. Weisbeck in the chair.] J. Kwan: Bill 51 follows in the footsteps of many changes brought in by this government designed to reduce the ability of teachers to represent themselves and work with government to improve education in B.C. It has been two years since the last election — two years since this government began its battle against organized workers and their families in British Colum- bia. It is not just teachers.

Nurses, doctors, government employees, forestry workers, teaching assistants — the list goes on and on and on. Working people of this province are just special interest groups. It is a shame. With all this talk of the heartlands and revitalization, the minister and her government somehow forgot that people are the heart of our communities, that schools and the hard-working educators keep those communi- ties ticking. This minister's complete disregard for those people as a special interest group is shameful.

Maybe the min- ister will stand up and disagree with the points that I raised, but her actions, even the simple ones, speak volumes. During estimates debate in March, the Leader of the Opposition brought to the minister's attention an odd omission from the service plan. On page 5 of the cur- rent service plan is the ministry's overview. It states: "The ministry is committed to local autonomy for school boards, strong accountability measures and a broader range of choice for students and parents." Last year the same statement read: "…range of choices for parents, students and staff." [1050] It is an odd omission.

Why would the minister leave out "staff" in their overview? Why would she eliminate the reference to teachers? The Leader of the Opposition gave the minister the opportunity to ex- plain herself. The minister said it was a simple issue of rewriting. The omission was not an intentional slight, she said. The Leader of the Opposition gave the minis- ter another chance. Why not rewrite it and update the website to recognize that staff and teachers play an important role? Why not make the gesture to recognize that fact? The minister said the document was final and that it could not be changed.

Well, we know that is not the case, since the Minister of Health Services tabled a completely rewritten service plan only three weeks ago. The only reason the minister could possibly have is that she does not want to include staff and teachers. Her ideological bent and dislike for a caring, hard- working and crucial segment of our population is shameful. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Let's look at the last two years. Since June 2001 rising fixed expenses, growing cost pressures, government-imposed settle- ments and persistent underfunding have plagued the education system in B.C.

Districts all over British Co- lumbia have been forced in an unprecedented manner to make major cuts to programs, classrooms and schools over the last two years, all at the hands of this Minister of Education. Last year British Columbians saw 44 schools closed in communities. This year that number is likely to be over 50 — nearly 100 schools closed in two years. Recent reports suggest that special education and English-as-a-second-language programs are suffering. Many schools in the lower mainland and Victoria des- perately need seismic upgrades to ensure the safety of our students.

Rural areas are being hit especially hard, and it is not just the education system. Schools have

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6965 closed. Courthouses have shut down, and now we're facing the closure of mills all over the province. How are we supposed to support our provincial economy when the government is refusing to support our communities? Instead, they're selling off core as- sets, downloading costs to communities and abandon- ing the social network. At the heart of these communi- ties are their schools — schools like Radium Elemen- tary, Chimney Creek Elementary, Honeymoon Bay Elementary. All closed.

In total, 11 schools in single- s c h o o l c o m m u n i t i e s w e r e c l o s e d l a s t y e a r . H o w d o e s that meet the heartlands test? Without the programs, the space and the educators to give children the skills to develop and eventually enter the workforce, our smaller communities will only see more people pack up and move. Not all of these are new problems. Declining en- rolment and adequate funding for schools have always been a challenge. However, what we're seeing now is unprecedented in British Columbia.

Children have to be bused to Alberta for an education, for the first time in the history of British Columbia. The Liberal government and this Minister of Educa- tion have exacerbated this challenge. Since they came to power, they put a funding freeze on education spending, while they gave their rich friends a massive tax cut. But that's not a special interest group, though, you see. That's a tax cut that the Liberals said would pay for itself. The tax cut plan was a failure, and now we have record deficits. To pay for this failed plan, the government froze education funding.

They claimed that this was a sort of protection. [1055] Instead of protecting the system, the government im- posed a wage settlement on districts and refused to pay for it. The minister refused to pay for rising energy costs that this government is contributing to. They increased gas taxes. They refused to pay for the fuel tax increase and refused to pay for the increased MSP costs. This Minister of Education refused to cover all the costs that her gov- ernment has forced on the education system. So much for protection. If this is how this Minister of Education defines protection, you know what?

British Columbians — I, for one — do not want this kind of protection from this minis- ter. I say: thanks, but no thanks. We know the impacts, though. We have seen them in our communities. I have mentioned them already: programs, services, jobs — all cut. In my years as an advocate and as a politician, I've never seen anything like the boxes of letters, drawings, booklets and art- work that arrived on the doorsteps of the Legislature in February. As I listened to representatives from the Caravan Against the Cuts, I immediately thought that we had to do more.

You know, the minister didn't even have enough caring to demonstrate to the people who had done all this work to show her the impact of what these cuts are throughout our community — to go out and talk to the people and receive the information. That was just too much. Oh, no can do — actually talk to real people who know what the impacts are. The Minister of Education is saying: "No, thanks. I don't want to see it.

I'm going to keep my eyes shut, because that's how I operate." I was thankful for all the people who care so deeply about our education and our children's education: ad- ministrators, parents, trustees and, of course, teachers. Thank goodness we have them. We have those who care about our education in British Columbia. The op- position leader and myself went out there and met with them and took the boxes of information in so that it could be shared, so that I could read that information and understand it. Interjection. J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. The Clerk was just asking if I'm the designated speaker.

Yes, I am the des- ignated speaker, given that the small House is running concurrently and my colleague the opposition leader is in the small House doing estimates debate with the Minister of State for Mental Health and the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. There are only the two opposition members, so we do have to split ourselves up accordingly. Interjection. J. Kwan: It's funny. The Minister of Education goes: "Whose fault is that?" Actually, let me tell you.

Why we're backed into this situation with time limits with this government for Bills 50 and 51, where we only have two hours of debate for second reading for both bills, is the fault of the government. I know this member would like to blame me for having a baby. Deputy Speaker: Member. Member. Let's proceed with second reading. J. Kwan: That's why everything is backed up. But you know what? Deputy Speaker: Member, please take your seat. J. Kwan: That simply is not true. Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat, please. Member, the issue is not debatable.

I would suggest you move on with second reading debate on Bill 51. Interjections. J. Kwan: Actually, ask your House Leader. That's what the House Leader said. Check with the media. It's on record. That's what they're saying. S o w h a t ' s w r o n g w i t h t h i s p i c t u r e ? W h a t ' s w r o n g with this picture is that this Liberal government and this bunch of MLAs are trying to ram legislation through without debate. That's what they're trying to do. There's only three days left, including today, in terms of debate, and the time allocated to Bills 50 and

6966 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 51 is two hours for second reading for both bills that have substantive impacts for our children. The Minister of Education is very proud. She is so proud that there's limitation to debate, because, thank God, there's lim- ited opportunity for accountability. [1100] That's what all these Liberal MLAs want. They do not want to be held accountable; they don't want to answer questions. God forbid anybody should have any gumption to step up to the plate to ask them ques- tions and hold them accountable. For shame.

For shame — this minister and this bunch of Liberal MLAs who are sitting around smirking, thinking that this is funny. In the estimates debate in March, the minister commented that the opposition constantly argued that our education system was in shambles, that we were too negative, that we were somehow naysayers, that we were trying to discredit B.C.'s education system as a political ploy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Education is far too important.

As the lone opposition voices, it is crucial that we ask questions, challenge decisions and enforce accountability on this Minister of Education and this government, even if we are viewed negatively by those in power, even though in this House every single day they rise and mock the work of my colleague and me in trying to hold this government accountable, even if they try to shout us down by heck- ling, the way they did just now. You know what? We will continue to persist. Even if they laugh at our ef- forts, we will continue to persist.

Speaking up in the Legislature is one of the few precious opportunities for other viewpoints to be heard. Therefore, we speak as much as we can. How- ever, that does not mean that we're out to discredit our education system. In fact, B.C. has a top education sys- tem — one to be proud of, one to cherish. That is why we must protect it, truly protect it — not the kind of definition of "protection" that this Minister of Educa- t i o n p u t s f o r w a r d . W e m u s t d o e v e r y t h i n g w e c a n t o ensure that our children get the best opportunities they can. They deserve it.

But, unfortunately, we have a Minister of Education and a government that have chosen to be divisive and arrogant. We have 75 MLAs who have elected to enter into battle against the people who stand as the best chance our kids have to get ahead and thrive. The bat- tle lines are drawn by this Minister of Education and by this Liberal government. They have put children in the middle, placing their education at risk. Of course, they say that was not their intention. However, it is the reality we're faced with today. Their actions have put children, their education and their future at risk.

It is all because of their ideology and a desire to win a public relations fight that should never, ever have existed. [1105] One thing I've learned from listening to teachers, trustees, students and parents is that a strong, honest and open relationship between stakeholders and the provincial government is paramount to ensure our education system continues to improve. It's not just about teachers. Within the last two years there's been a significant amount of strain between the government and the school boards, from non-confidence votes to editorial debates and deep concerns over funding cuts.

I t i s c l e a r t h a t a l o t o f w o r k n e e d s t o b e d o n e t o i m - prove relationships and maximize everyone's undeni- able desire to provide our children with an ever- improving education system. Parents have been calling on government to stop the government closures, to restore programs. Parents are being stretched too far, just like trustees, just like teachers. This bill will do nothing to ease the harmful tension in the system. It will only make it worse. We must act now to end the battle and work together, to collaborate, to listen and to learn.

It is time for government to back off the editorial war and do what is best for students — work with the teachers, not against them. It is time for a new vision of education in British Columbia, one that goes beyond the Minister of Education's rhetoric and removes the children from the front lines and the trenches. One of the most important things a society can do is provide programs and services that support children, from the K-to-12 education system and affordable child care to programs that give parents a chance to earn a living wage and access affordable housing.

The health and welfare of our children are paramount to B.C.'s prosperity. All of our kids in the classrooms, in all their diversity, represent the future of our society. They de- serve every opportunity to reach their potential and become healthy, educated and active citizens. We need to work with all stakeholders to ensure that happens. The value of public education and support for the most vulnerable members of society cannot be reduced to a simple administrative formula. However, that is the system we have.

It is based on a formula that many criticize and acknowledge as being insufficient, in rural and urban areas. I recognize that it is a challenge to somehow put all of the different variables, all of the values and all of the needs into a mathematical equa- tion that meets the needs of the system. It is a challenge for government. It is a challenge for the trustees. And ultimately, it is a challenge for students and communi- ties when the formula is not enough. There are many things we can do. We can listen to the voices in our communities instead of shutting them out.

School boards can continue to speak on behalf of their communities and ensure that the Minister of Edu- cation is listening. Students and parents should be granted the same ability. We must also listen to the teachers, to the professionals that work day in and day out to ensure that our children receive an education. As for myself, I will continue to listen. I will con- tinue to stand in this House to ensure that all of their voices are heard, even as this government brings in closure.

Just as this government uses the heavy hand of legislation to silence advocates, it uses the heavy hand of closure to try and silence the opposition. Unlike this minister and her government, the opposition will con- tinue to listen to all the stakeholders. Furthermore, the opposition will search for solutions and push for alter- natives to the current situation. We must learn from the

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6967 experience of others and work together to fulfil our obligation to our children and our society. One of the lessons we must learn comes from Dr. Rozanski's assessment report of Ontario's education system. On December 10, 2002, Rozanski's education task force released a lengthy report entitled Investing in Public Education: Advancing the Goal of Continuous Im- provement in Student Learning and Achievement .

The re- port is critical for us here in British Columbia, because much of what is happening right now under the Liber- als occurred under Ontario's Conservative Party. Over- all, the report contained 33 recommendations that, in the words of Dr. Rozanski, were "aimed at improving equity, fairness, certainty and stability in the funding of Ontario's students and staff." [1110] At the heart of these recommendations was ade- quate, flexible funding. Dr. Rozanski insisted that funding needs to reflect real, current costs. In Ontario there was a funding freeze set at 1997 levels.

As a re- sult, officials were forced to make significant cuts to the education system. Rozanski then recommended that Ontario spend $1.08 billion just to reverse the damage done by the funding freeze. Rozanski's message is clear: forcing cuts will lead to long-term difficulties and the potential deterioration of the system — something we cannot afford. We need to listen to Rozanski's rec- ommendations here in British Columbia in order to avoid the consequences seen in Ontario. We cannot impose salary increases on school boards without funding them. The cost down the road would be too high.

We cannot download MSP in- creases to school boards without properly funding them, or we'll see impacts in the classroom. We cannot expect school boards to pay for increasing energy costs and gas prices in the face of declining enrolment with- out giving them real tools to ensure fair and equitable access for students. We cannot cut services to class- rooms without putting more strain on the professionals who work in the schools. Teachers need the support of society and govern- ment to maintain the quality of education we cherish so deeply.

We cannot afford this battle that the Liberals, this Minister of Education, have put in place and are determined to fight. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes that Ontario made. Instead, we need to support teachers, educators, parents, school boards and students. Dr. Rozanski argues that we need to create an at- mosphere of reciprocal accountability.

If the govern- ment wants to impose performance standards on schools and teachers, if government wants to hold school boards accountable, government itself must be accountable for providing schools with adequate re- sources to ensure that targets and accountability meas- ures can be met. Government must be accountable to work with all of the people involved and not against them. So far, it's not happening in British Columbia. The opposition, however, will continue its efforts to ensure that the voice of accountability is heard.

We will continue to ensure that the voices of com- munities, parents, workers and children are heard in this Legislature even as the government works to re- strict debate; even as this government puts forward time limits on debate; and even as this government, with less than 21 hours of debate when they first intro- duced some 13 to 16 pieces o f legisl ation — with esti- mates of Health Services, which consumes 40 percent of our budget, and with estimates for the Premier yet to be dealt with — brings forward a litany of legislation.

Then, with their majority, they will ram this legislation through without proper debate in this House. Our schools, our children and our teachers are the foundation of our communities, and we need to support them. We need funding that recognizes the real costs of maintaining and improving education in B.C. We need a government that will end its public relations war and focus on the real issues at heart. We need a government that will be true to the word "protection" in the area of education. We need a government that will be true to the notion of putting education first.

We need a government that will set aside its partisan approaches. We need a government where, when they say they will bring in legislation that would allow for peer as well as democ- ratic self-regulating professions, the legislation would actually reflect those words. We need a government that will ensure that all voices are at the table. [1115] The proposed changes in Bill 51, aside from what I had mentioned before, also change a

section that will no longer allow educators to have a say in approving teacher education programs. Bill 51 gives the college the authority to set the standards for teacher certifica- tion but not to approve how teacher education pro- grams are taught or administered. This means that the college is no longer involved in the approval of teacher education programs. The existing piece of legislation provides for the teachers to approve, for certification purposes, the program of any established faculty of teacher education or school of teacher education.

Why would the government bring in a piece of leg- islation that takes the teachers' involvement away from teacher education programs? Are teachers not the peo- ple whom we entrust with our children to teach in the classrooms? Shouldn't they have a say in teacher edu- cation programs? It makes no sense. It makes no sense whatsoever. We have a group of professionals who I think — I know, actually — entered into this work, who invested their years in university to get their degree to become teachers. Why? Because they care about children. Be- cause they want to share knowledge with students.

Because they want, I suspect — in fact, I know in speaking with them — to see the shine, the sparkle in the eyes of children when they learn something, when they are exposed to something new. They bring the wonderment that lights up their faces when they learn something new — the magic that happens when young people, young children, are excited about what they're learning, curious about what their future is, curious about the unknown. You know who provides for that in the education system? It's the teachers. You would think that the

6968 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 teachers should have some relevance in the teacher education programs. You would think that they would have some relevance. I would have thought so, but not so from this minister. It's twisted logic. It really is. I simply don't understand the logic that this Minister of Education has around that. The legislation brings other questions to the table. In Bill 51, it changes the wording from the "member" to the "council member" in a section.

This, of course, gives the appointees on council — appointees who are not teachers, appointees who are not democratically elected, who are not chosen by their peers but politi- cally appointed by the government — the same powers as council members. Yet council members need not be college members in order to sit on committees. Once again, there is a double standard that is being applied in sections of Bill 51. [1120] You have to ask the question: why is that?

Except to say that what this Minister of Education wants to do is exclude the voices of educators and make it explicit that educators have no role whatsoever. It's almost as though the message one has to read into this is that the Minister of Education and this gov- ernment do not value the people who teach our children. They have so little regard for them that she's taken them out of the equation under Bill 51 — substantively.

The minister is prepared to continue to wage the battle that she has begun against the very people who, in some years — about five years, to be exact — I will be entrusting with the educational development of my daughter. I have every faith that the teachers know what they're doing, that they have the best intentions in their hearts to bring out the curiosity, the wonder- ment and the sparkle that I spoke of earlier and that I want to see in every child's eyes.

What the government must do is give them the tools and the resources to do so, to make sure that the students' potential is maxi- mized and not restricted and limited. Hon. Speaker, I understand a member would like to make an introduction. D. Hayer: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members D. Hayer: It's with great pleasure that I introduce 39 students from grades 10, 11 and 12 visiting from Guild- ford Learning Centre, Cloverdale Learning Centre, New- ton Learning Centre, North Surrey Learning Centre and White Rock Learning Centre.

Joining them are their teachers, Mark Maretic, Julie Chic, Sheila Smith, Gail Mackinnon, Steve Robertson and Tina Thompson. Would the House please make them very welcome. Debate Continued J. Kwan: I will simply wrap up my comments with this, and I can't emphasize enough the importance of this issue — a mere two hours for second reading for both Bills 50 and 51, limitation on committee stage for both bills to be one hour. I've only raised some of the questions that need to be canvassed with the minister on these bills in the short time allocated to us.

I want to be very clear that the opposition will be voting against Bill 51, and the reason for that is…. Well, there are many, but the primary reason is this: this bill does not allow for peer regulation. In fact, it takes away peer regulation. It sets, I think, an unprecedented ap- proach to the regulation of professions. It is my view that professionals should be regulated amongst themselves, that they should have the oppor- tunity to do so, that it should be truly self-regulating, that it should be democratic and that people from their own profession ought to be holding each other ac- countable.

From my own point of view, I know when I'm being critiqued by my own colleagues, it has an- other level of impact on you than critiques coming from other people who are not from your own profes- sion, your own area of work. When I was an advocate working in the community, I know that if my colleagues from the advocacy community came forward and critiqued my work, I wanted more than ever to examine that critique in a constructive way to learn from it. That's the purpose — and then to take it to heart.

The people who know that profession and know it well, who work within it, are the best people to provide that critique, to do that regulation — not unlike any other profession that exists in British Columbia. [1125] In doing this, in changing the way peer regulation is to be administered for the teaching profession, are we now on a slippery slope for every other profession for that change to take place? Are we poised to allow professionalism within their own profession to be in second place behind political motivation? Is that where w e ' r e h e a d i n g ?

I t i s m y v i e w t h a t t h a t i s w h e r e w e ' r e heading for the teaching profession under Bill 51. It is my view that this Minister of Education and this gov- ernment have put partisan politics before education for British Columbia, and that is inappropriate. The second reason why the opposition will be vot- ing against this is that there simply is not enough time for proper debate to take place in this House, for the opposition to hold this government and this Minister of Education accountable, for her to answer the many questions that exist for this legislation.

You cannot pre- tend that there's democracy when the government has disallowed democracy to take place, when they are ramming through legislation, when they are limiting debate for substantive bills that have huge ramifica- tions and consequences without allowing adequate time for those questions to be asked and for answers to be provided in this bill. The opposition will not be supporting Bill 51 for these reasons, and as such, we will be calling division on second reading of Bill 51. R. Masi: I rise in support of the bill. I might point out to begin with that this is not a new issue. The col-

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6969 lege was created in 1987 primarily to separate profes- sional and bargaining issues. Over the years I think we've had a case of undue influence by the B.C. Teach- ers Federation union in direct involvement with the affairs of the college, and unfortunately the separation and the influences of the BCTF really have overcome the original premise for the college. I brought this question forward many times in the past six years, discussing this with various Ministers of Education.

I questioned the various ministers on the construct of the College of Teachers, and of course no changes were made. I think these changes were far overdue, and I'm very happy to see that the present Minister of Education has brought forward substantial changes that make the college much more representa- tive for the teaching profession. [1130] We all understand, of course, that the education of our children and our youth is critical. It's critical to all aspects of provincial development — economic, social and any other areas of development you want to talk about.

But the College of Teachers is a very valuable and critical component of the education system, and it's my feeling that it really should be the foundation of education in British Columbia. I don't believe, because of the strong influence of the BCTF union upon the college and upon the philosophies and the actions of the college in a number of past issues, that this is in fact the case. We can't have a college of teachers that essen- tially is an arm of the BCTF union.

We can't, in fact, have a college of teachers that is limited to one union with de facto control, and this is, in a manner of speak- ing, what we've had since the college was formed. Education is broadly based. It's not like other pro- fessions. It's very broadly based. There are a number of stakeholders in it. You know, we have this attitude in the BCTF today that, in fact, principals, vice-principals, superintendents and parents are not on the same page as the members of the union. Well, that's not a fact; that's not true. Principals and vice-principals are teach- ers. Superintendents are teachers.

People who work in the independent schools in various capacities are teachers. Many university education deans are former teachers who are very much involved in the education of teachers today. Some people would even say that a parent is the single most important teacher in a child's life. So to restrict the College of Teachers to a narrow, union-influenced focus has been a wrong thing, in my opinion, since it was formed. I say strongly that these changes to the organiza- tional structure are long overdue.

The new college will, in fact, present a much more representative body which will speak for the professionalism of teachers. I'm looking forward to the new structure. I think another factor that has come about in order to speed up this legislation has been the move by the BCTF leadership, the union leaders, who led the campaign to join the B.C. Federation of Labour. Once that happened, it really changed the whole educational scene in British Columbia. I think it's really unfortunate that many teachers did not involve themselves in this decision- making process. I understand that it's a democratic process.

Those who wish to vote will vote, and, in fact, the vote was to join the B.C. Federation of Labour. That's a very serious commitment now. Once they've made their choice to do union things and get involved in union activities — which verge at times on political activities — this is above and beyond, I think, what professionalism really is in the field of education. You can't have it both ways. You can't be an advocate for union policy and professionalism. They're two dif- ferent areas. It's my feeling that there's a very strong place for the B.C.

Teachers Federation in British Columbia, and it has had an essential role. Unfortunately, that role has changed as the years have gone by. We look back, and at one time the BCTF reserved itself to discussions on wages and benefits, and it also had a very strong re- source base for teachers that we don't hear much about today. This is not a criticism of the BCTF. I think that my criticism is for the political activism of the BCTF leadership today. It's unfortunate that it's come to this.

But when it does come to this, the government has a role in pro- tecting society as a whole and protecting the chil- dren and the professional teachers of this province. And I think that role now has been undertaken by the minister. [1135] The college, of course, should deal with profes- sional ethics and conduct. This is very important. Over the years there have been numerous cases of misadven- ture there in terms of teacher conduct, and I think the college has dealt with many of them. Many of us probably don't understand or don't realize the number of cases the college has dealt with.

That's good, and I think they're to be commended for those actions. I think the problem, though, is when the political philosophies of the teachers college start to interfere with freedom and the freedom of speech — when teachers, outside of their professional areas, are sub- jected to college discipline. When that happens, that's a very serious thing. We're free citizens in a free country, and we must have that. We must have that right to speak out, apart from the job that we do.

I think this is the interaction of a political philoso- phy stemming from a philosophy of the BCTF and sort of inserted into the college thinking, which is unfortu- nate. It's unfortunate when we get into different phi- losophies, again, when discussing whether a university should have the right to train teachers and to put teachers forward for certification. Because there's a difference in backgrounds and philosophical stances, then we have problems again. I think these are the things over the years…. This is the discussion that goes on throughout the educational world. This is not a new thing.

This has been permeat- ing, going on for years. It was high time for a change. We look at the changes, and as I pointed out, the col- lege should deal with professional ethics and conduct, should deal with the advancement of professional status. That's very important.

6970 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 I was discussing this morning with a dean of edu- cation how teachers should develop. We call it profes- sional development, and professional development is a very important component. It's something that school boards and teachers associations deal with. Everybody has sort of a piece of the pie, but the bottom line is that the teachers college should have the responsibility for professional development.

I know it's not specified in the legislation, but I hope the inference is there — that with the reconstruc- tion of the teachers college and the council, they will look at professional development as a responsibility they will ultimately carry forward. I think that's impor- tant for the good of all. I fully support the clarification of the situation with the universities and the College of Teachers. I've thought a lot about this, in terms of academic freedom for the universities and just how involved the college should be and what the interaction should be there. There have been two judgments.

Two judges have ruled that it's up to the government to clarify this. This step is a step in this bill to clarify the situation we have existing today. [1140] There have been comments made — that the teach- ers college should be establishing the criteria, the guidelines, for the universities and how universities should develop programs. Well, the reality is that when you're a student teacher, you are directly in- volved with teachers, with BCTF members, for six months of the 12-month program. You're directly in- volved. You're practise-teaching with a sponsor teacher.

You have a faculty adviser who is generally a teacher, who has been a teacher, probably working for the university. There is interaction. It's not like there are two separate things going on. The point is that I don't believe the college has a right to decide on class sizes at the university level and how many faculty advisers should be assigned and things like that. I think those are the universities' responsibilities, and they carry them out well. It is the responsibility of the universities to train and evaluate their student teachers, and let's make no mistake about that. That's their respon- sibility.

It's the responsibility of the college to certify those teachers — two different things entirely. I think this thing was bubbling and boiling. I'm not criticizing the original legislation, because it was a first go- round for them, but now that the judge has said, "Clarify it," it is now clarified. I think that with cooperation, now they will work together again for the betterment of all. One of the areas that is very sensitive in this bill is professional misconduct. It is a most serious matter, and there's no question about it.

Reducing the num- ber of complainants in a professional misconduct charge is a serious step. There's no question about it. But I've been involved in a number — not many — of these situations, and you can't always find five peo- ple. I mean, sometimes an individual situation is a one-on-one. I think, though, that there are protections in there, because the safeguards are that a person who knowingly reports false information commits an of- fence, and that's a very serious matter. So I don't think we're going to have a run of false information here.

The other part of this is the safeguard that the com- plaint first goes to the registrar, and that includes par- ents' complaints as well. So we're not going to have a rush of complainants coming in. I think the safeguards are in place. We still have the processes in the school districts. We still have the whole process of principal, superintendent and school board, and many, many situations are settled with that process. I also would like to comment that I think it's a very solid thing that the independent schools are involved in this as well.

I think it's important that the protection of students extends to that area, and I'm sure that the independent school system is fully supportive. In reference to the annual report component of the bill, I'm sure that this will, in fact, drive the college to more open and effective administration. This require- ment is essential. I think it's time that the college was accountable, that what they do is brought forward to the public, and it will reinforce the confidence of the people in the education system today.

I think that, in fact, this bill will grow the professionalism of the staff and bring about a renewed confidence by the public in our education system. Deputy Speaker: Closing second reading debate, the Minister of Education. Hon. C. Clark: We are bringing forward this bill as a government because we recognize that public education is the biggest and most important public enterprise that we can embark on as a society. It is the best investment that any government or any society can make — public education.

In recognizing that public education is a broad public enterprise, we need to ensure that the bodies that govern education are also broadly representative of the public. We need to recognize that everyone in our society cares — many people care passionately — and everyone has an in- terest in our public education system. That is what this bill recognizes. [1145] Our critics, one of whom stood up here today in an effort to defeat the government on all fronts, often stand up and bash the education system day after day after day. They stand up and say how the education system is doing worse all the time.

Well, the fact is that they are wrong. There is more money in our public education sys- tem today than there ever has been. Over the next two years there will be another $100 million going into our public education system. So don't give me this about comparisons to Ontario, which set their education budget at 1997 levels. This government on education has nothing in common with the moves that that gov- ernment made. Our government is investing in public education and recognizing that an investment means more than just talking the talk; it means walking the walk. It means…

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6971 Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order, please. Hon. C. Clark: …putting the money where your mouth is. J. Kwan: Hooray! Deputy Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, let's hear the response. Hon. C. Clark: That's why we are investing more money in our public education system. That's why over the next two years we will have the highest per-pupil funding we've ever had in British Columbia history, and we will have the highest… Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Order, members. Order, please. Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, let's hear the response.

Hon. C. Clark: …education budget that we've ever had in British Columbia history. Those are facts we should be proud of. There is no question about it. Not only is there more money, there is also more parental involvement. That's made a tremendous dif- ference in our system. I know the member of the op- position doesn't get excited about parental involve- ment. I know it's not something that she saw as a pri- ority for ten years in government. I know that the moves they made, in fact, meant that there were fewer parents involved in our public education sys- tem. But it's time to turn that attitude around.

It is time to recognize that parents are the most important teachers any child will ever have and that parents have a bigger impact on children's educational suc- cess than anyone else. Interjections. Hon. C. Clark: If the member of the opposition was unable to make her points adequately in second read- ing in an hour of speaking…. Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Let's hear the speaker. Interjection. Deputy Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, give the courtesy to the minister to give her response. Hon. C. Clark: W e b e l i e v e i n m o r e p a r e n t a l i n - volvement.

That's an important part of our govern- ment's platform. We believe that we should throw open the doors of schools to parents. We believe that parents can make a big difference in how well our pub- lic education system performs. We know, from all of the evidence out there that was ignored for ten years by the previous government, that more parental in- volvement means better marks for kids, that more pa- rental involvement means better teaching practices and that more parental involvement means a better civic society and a higher-functioning democracy.

We know that when parents just ask their kids what they did at school that day, it makes a tremendous difference, and we can't ignore it anymore. I t i s t i m e w e i n v o l v e d p a r e n t s . T h a t ' s w h y , w h e n we change the board of the teachers college, we are going to include a strong parent voice in that, because we recognize, as I said…. Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Let's hear the de- bate. Hon. C. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm de- lighted to engage in this debate with students in the audience observing the important work of this House.

I know they'll all go back to their classrooms and their lives with a sense that the behaviour we model in this House isn't always appropriate behaviour for class- rooms. [1150] Parents are our children's first teachers, and we need to recognize that. Parental involvement makes all of the difference in the world, because schools are, as I said, the biggest public enterprise, the biggest public investment that we'll make.

Not only is there more money and more parental involvement, but we are also seeing — and you will never, never hear this from the critics — better results, despite…. [Ap- plause.] I remember clearly hearing from the members of the opposition and the critics of the government, who are so anxious to advance their own political agenda: "You just wait until the end of the 2003 school year, and things will be so bad you won't believe it." Well, guess what. Our results in our public educa- tion system are improving. Children in our schools are getting better results.

That means that teachers are con- tinuing to deliver the incredible quality work that they've always…. Interjection. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, please come to order. Hon. C. Clark: W e h a v e m o r e g r a d u a t e s i n o u r public education system than we've ever had in his- tory. We've got 77 percent of the kids in our system who now graduate. That is a tremendous, tremendous improvement.

6972 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 The reason it's important is because a Dogwood Certificate makes a huge difference in every child's ability to succeed. If you have a Dogwood Certificate in your hand, you are less likely to end up on social assistance, you are less likely to end up in the correc- tions system, you are more likely to vote, you're more likely to read newspapers, and you're more likely to participate in our civil society. We should be proud of the fact that our education system is continuing to improve and continuing to graduate more students every year. Not only that, though.

The children who are gradu- ating are graduating with better results this year than last and last year than the year before. We have seen a continuing improvement in how well children are do- ing. That is wonderful. It is particularly good for abo- riginal students, who traditionally have had a pretty tough shake in our public education system. Aborigi- nal students are doing better now than they have been since we started tracking those marks. That is wonder- ful.

I know the opposition doesn't want to know this when they are constantly bashing the quality of our public education system, but I'm here today to say our public education system, despite what they will tell you, is continuing to improve. The people who are engaged in our public education system know that. Parents know it, students know it, and teachers know it. They know that despite the self-serving rhetoric of the member opposite, our public education system is continuing to improve. I will close debate by saying this, because this bill is about teaching.

The reason we have done so well in British Columbia in our public education system is because we in British Columbia are blessed with some of the world's most qualified and, without question, most passionate and dedicated teachers you will find anywhere on this globe. Teachers in British Columbia do it because they love kids. They love exciting the imagina- tion of children. They love passing on knowledge and helping guide them to becoming full participants in our society. It's teachers that do that. It's teachers that make the difference.

With this bill and the changes that our govern- ment has made, we are ensuring that our education system is one that meets the needs not just of stu- dents, not just of parents, but also of teachers. With this bill we are recognizing, as I said, that education is our most important public enterprise. In that, we ne e d t o m ak e s u r e t h at t he p u b l i c i s b r o ad l y r e p r e - sented on the board. We need to make sure that there are clear standards for public education. We need to build public confidence in this, the most important profession in British Columbia or any- where in the world.

I move that Bill 51, Teaching Profession Amend- ment Act, 2003, be now read a second time. [1155-1200] Second reading of Bill 51 approved on the follow- ing division: YEAS — 66 Falcon Coell L. Reid Halsey-Brandt Whittred Cheema Hansen J. Reid Bruce Santori van Dongen Barisoff Roddick Wilson Masi Lee Thorpe Hagen Murray Plant Collins Clark Bond Nebbeling Stephens Abbott Neufeld Coleman Chong Penner Jarvis Anderson Orr Harris Nuraney Brenzinger Belsey Mayencourt Trumper Johnston Bennett R. Stewart Hayer Christensen Krueger McMahon Bray Les Locke Nijjar Wong Bloy Suffredine MacKay Cobb K.

Stewart Visser Lekstrom Brice Sultan Hamilton Sahota Hawes Kerr Manhas Hunter NAYS — 2 MacPhail Kwan Hon. C. Clark: I move that we refer the bill to Committee of the Whole for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 51, Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Point of Privilege J.

Kwan: Given that this is my first opportunity, I rise to reserve the right to raise a matter of privilege. Deputy Speaker: So noted. Hon. G. Collins moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. Deputy Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 2 o'clock this afternoon. The House adjourned at 12:03 p.m.

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6973 PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM Committee of Supply The House in Committee of Supply A; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 10:09 a.m. ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH SERVICES (continued) On vote 29: ministry operations, $10,038,097,000 (continued). Hon. G. Cheema: Mr. Chair, I wanted to clarify a statement I made in the House yesterday with regard to the funding for mental health and addictions in this province.

I stated that our government had not reduced any mental health services or programs in this province. [1010] While the sector funding for mental health and ad- dictions is still continuing to rise from $925 million in 2001-02 to $1.005 billion in 2002-03 to a projected $1.06 billion in 2003-04, this does not mean that we are not making changes to the services in this province. We are revitalizing the mental health and addiction service system to improve patient outcomes.

Health authori- ties have been asked to look at their systems to ensure that all programs and services are evidence-based and that they provide services that promote recovery. In the past, many contracts and programs were provided that did not support recovery from mental illness and addictions. We are monitoring spending and contracts far more closely now to ensure that all services provide the most successful outcomes. I would like to give you an example of why some of the programs will not be continued as we move for- ward with mental health and addictions reform.

This example is a vocational rehabilitation contract that had been in place for over four years. The purpose of this contract was to provide employment for mental health consumers in the program. During our health restruc- turing, the health authority had to look carefully at their contract to ensure it was evidence-based and an effective use of funding. In this case, the health author- ity could not provide a single example of a consumer who had actually been able to be employed through this program — not a single example in four years. That was not very good.

The health authority decided to terminate the con- tract and retarget funding to better meet the needs of consumers. In fact, the health authority directed more funding to the area of vocational rehabilitation through other, more reliable channels. I wanted to provide this example because I think it shows that the health authorities are operating under a new structure. The status quo will not reform and revi- talize the mental health and addiction service system in this province. The status quo is not what we expect.

The programs that offer the best programming and the best recovery results will continue to receive funding. Our government will continue to provide the lead- ership and the direction for mental health and addic- tion in this province. Already during these estimates I have provided many examples of all the work we have done to revitalize mental health. This work will con- tinue. As I stated at the beginning of this statement, fund- ing for mental health and addiction will continue to rise. There will be no reduction in funding for mental health and addictions across this province. Mr.

Chair, I hope this will provide the appropriate clarification to my statement yesterday. J. MacPhail: Where was that program, and who was the contractor? Hon. G. Cheema: We can provide further informa- tion on this specific program. I will get the information from the Vancouver coastal health authority and give it to the member as soon as possible. [1015] J. MacPhail: I would have assumed, with the minis- ter making a statement this morning, that he would have known where the program was.

He's quite em- phatic about how awful it was, so I would have as- sumed he would at least know the contractor, the agency, when he derides it and claims it as a failure. Yet the first questions I ask are what is the program and who was the contractor, and he can't answer the question. Has the minister had a chance to track down how the mental health services at the Quesnel hospital, the Baker Memorial Hospital, are being provided? Hon. G. Cheema: The member for Vancouver– Mount Pleasant asked me that question, and I told her that I would provide the information as soon as possible.

Let me just give the status of the Quesnel hospital with respect to mental health services in-patient beds now. The Quesnel hospital has operated a six-bed crisis stabilization unit within the hospital since March of 1997. This unit has been and continues to be fully op- erational. During Christmas last year this unit was closed for two weeks due to a temporary staffing shortage. During this period, in-patient services for Quesnel were provided by Prince George Hospital. Funding for mental health and addiction services in Quesnel during the last two years has remained the same. J.

MacPhail: What was the experience learned from the shutting down of the unit over Christmas? Hon. G. Cheema: I'm not aware of any crisis that happened during that time. If the member has any spe-

6974 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 cific concerns or specific examples, I would like to know that. J. MacPhail: I'm not accusing the minister of any- thing. I'm asking what he learned about that. Is the six-bed crisis stabilization unit fully funded for '03-04? Associated with those crisis stabilization beds was a mental health nursing expert in terms of admission, through emergency. Are those services all remaining in place for this fiscal year? Hon. G.

Cheema: The services in that area will con- tinue to be provided as well as assessed by the health authorities with the help of experts and based on best- evidence practices. Our intention is to continue the best possible care. J. MacPhail: I'd like to move to an item that I brought up with the Minister of Health Services. He referred me to the Minister of State for Mental Health. It's particularly crucial that we have this discussion today. The federal government has introduced legisla- tion to decriminalize marijuana.

When I asked ques- tions several weeks ago about what educational pro- grams are in place about the uses of marijuana, particu- larly targeted toward young people, the Minister of Health Services referred me to the Minister of State for Mental Health. I ask him for that information. [1020] Hon. G. Cheema: My colleague the Minister of Health Services gave the answer, and the Minister of Health Planning said the same thing. The person who will play the lead role for this file is the Solicitor Gen- eral.

My responsibility is to have the education and information campaign to let the public know the harm- ful side effects of marijuana. Yes, this morning the federal government released their policy. We are reviewing that policy, and we will be looking at if there is any funding coming from the federal government. M y r o l e i s t o e n s u r e t h a t w e c o n t i n u e t o f o c u s o n the prevention, treatment and early diagnosis. I think it's very important. As the member has asked many times….

I think she's absolutely right that we need to continue to focus on the early prevention and early identification and treatment. For the first time in this province we have combined addiction and mental health. Our addiction and mental h e a l t h r e f o r m i n B . C . i s f o c u s e d o n e v i d e n c e - b a s e d b e s t practices. This is a recovery-oriented model that includes health promotion, prevention, early identification, treat- ment, rehabilitation, relapse prevention and self- management of illness to provide better health outcomes.

Health authorities are now working toward treat- ment effectiveness, access and equity, and cost- effectiveness. They're focusing on intensive services for clients with complex mental disorders and substance use disorders. They're also ensuring that barriers are removed, eliminating policies that will prevent clients from entering addiction programs and also applying evidence-based and best practices to ensure that re- sources are focused on the treatment that works.

To ensure a standard approach across the province for developing the continuum of addiction services, an addiction framework for B.C. is being developed in partnership with the mental health evaluation and community consultation unit at UBC. The framework will have input from health authorities, experts in the field and community stakeholders. It's targeted for release sometime in the fall of 2003.

The ministry is also working with the Kaiser Foun- dation and the provincial mental health agencies to develop evidence-based information on substance use disorders for individuals, for the families, for profes- sionals and for the sector of the public. As a part of our public information campaign — I will give a copy to the member — we released about two weeks ago what is called a primer. This is a fact sheet on mental health and addiction in this province. This has been done in cooperation with all the major mental health organizations in this province.

I think we'll be spending close to somewhere between $1.2 million and $1.5 million. That will give information on all the issues that are related, including the use of the drugs and other things. I will give her a copy. I think that will be helpful. J. MacPhail: Is that the plan that will encompass the new law about decriminalization of marijuana? Hon. G. Cheema: As I said, that part has to be ad- dressed by the Solicitor General. My responsibility is to develop a plan to ensure that we work on the preven- tion and the treatment part related to drug use and abuse and specifically to marijuana.

We will continue to focus on that. We will let the public know all the side effects. Our campaign will focus especially on the young generation to ensure that they understand the harmful side effects of this drug. J. MacPhail: I'm taking no position on marijuana; I just want to make that clear. I'm a little bit taken aback that the government isn't further along on this matter. I have to be very careful about how I address this issue because I don't want to in any way suggest that I'm speaking from personal experience here.

No, I mean this seriously, because I'm going to talk about children. [1025] Our schools are rife with this drug. We're talking about 11-, 12-, 13-, 14-, 15-, 16- and 17-year-olds. Now the government is decriminalizing this, and the law is going to be passed by the end of this week. I was taken aback this morning to learn — at least, this is how the media reports it — hat there is actually a provision for a youthful infraction. From what I understand, there's no distinction from an age point of view in terms of being caught with marijuana, which I'm quite taken aback by.

There's no other substance misuse that allows for youth- ful misuse other than it being an illegal misuse. What discussions has the minister had with the federal Minister of Health, who was the one that re-

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6975 leased this program? It was not the Minister of Justice. It was not the Solicitor General at the federal level. It was the Minister of Health who released this program. So what discussions has he had to date around either advocating for greater control or understanding what programs will be put in place to not exacerbate misuse, particularly amongst young people? Hon. G. Cheema: Let me try again. The member has put forward a very valid argument, and I think this is so important.

As she has said, the role of the use of drugs in schools and at a very young age is so crucial, and I think we need to be focusing on that. I do agree with that. We have been very proactive on this issue. We have transferred to the health authorities funding for the school-based prevention programs. For the interior health authority we have funded $363,093, for the Fra- ser health authority approximately $695,000, for Van- couver coastal approximately $313,000, for Vancouver Island approximately $322,000 and for the north $230,000.

Our main purpose is to ensure that we continue to focus on the prevention and early treatment part of any drug abuse in this province, especially in the schools. The issue here is that the health impacts are the same whether marijuana is criminalized or not. The lead minister, as far as the federal minister is concerned…. The lead minister from our government is the Solicitor General. Mr Hansen's office has been in touch with the Minister of Health's office, and we got some information this morning. We are reviewing the information. I like what I see in that report.

I'm sure the member has had time to look at their initial press re- lease.

The federal government will be investing ap- proximately $245 million over the next five years for this strategy. [1030] Some of the highlights: they want to have community- based initiatives to address a range of prevention, health promotion, treatment and rehabilitation issues; a public education campaign on substance abuse with a specific focus on youth — I think that's very positive; new funding for research activities on drug trends to enable more informed decision-making; a biannual national conference with all stakeholders to set re- search, promotion and prevention agendas; and, fi- nally, proposed legislation reform regarding mari- juana, new resources to help decrease the supply of illicit drugs.

I think that's what we like, and that's part of my responsibility. Along with Mr. Hansen, we will work with the federal minister to ensure that we have access to all of these programs. J. MacPhail: Will the education programs be in place for the September school startup? Hon. G. Cheema: We are looking towards the new year, and we are working with the Ministry of Educa- tion. As this plan has come forward from the federal government, we will work with the federal minister to ensure that we have acc

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0527am 03
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0527am 03
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	fb44b9785bd32981f5dcb73b5a75d3c77df0376a

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).