2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD BLUES
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
(Blues)
HANSARD BLUES DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2007
Afternoon Sitting
TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2007
The House met at 1:33 p.m. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]Introductions by Members
C. Puchmayr: I have the Seniors Outreach Support program of the Centre of Integration in New Westminster here today, and I will just name them off. They're up in the gallery: Amy Kapinga, Marie Malo, Agnes Biakudia, Hanna Diggs, Anita Saniford, Agnes Ofori, Janis Jones, Ometa Gittens, Charles Gittens, Henry Mwandemere, Kazimir Nzazi, Mrs. Nazazi, Paul Mulangu and Rosalyn Simon. Please make them all extremely welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. O. Ilich: Joining us in the gallery today are several members from the Minoru Seniors Society from my riding of Richmond Centre. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming president Georgina Hamilton along with members of the executive Jacob and Lily Braun, Eleanore Mitchell, Bill and Melvena Sorenson, Joyce Johnston and Iris Reid. Please join me in making them feel welcome today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. Wyse: In Cariboo South, the Ashcroft area is renowned for its performing arts, art and the artists. Today I would ask you to join me in welcoming Pauline Ogilvie, one of the Ashcroft area's renowned local artists. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. T. Christensen: Today marks International Day of Families. It's very fitting that we're joined today by a number of workers from the Ministry of Children and Family Development who are specifically dedicated to two programs that are geared towards reconnecting children, their families and their extended families in their community. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]We have a number of people joining us from A Child's Roots are Forever program, as well as the Family Finders program. I hope the House will join me in welcoming Jennifer Popeil, Frankie Kelly, Carolle Harder, Melanie Laird, Jessica Heath, Lynne Thanos, Darlene Hall and Jennifer Donison. Each of these individuals makes a real difference in the lives of children in connecting them with their family and extended family. Please join me in welcoming them to the precinct today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Chouhan: Today in the gallery we have my dear friend Gian Sihota, his wife Mrs. Kamal Sihota, his uncle Mr. Sucha Singh Sihota from India — a retired major — and their daughter Roma Sihota. Please join me to welcome them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Sultan: In the Legislature today are 30 students from one of the jewels in the crown of the West Vancouver school system, Ridgeview Elementary School. These 30 students are accompanied by several parents and two of their teachers, Ms. Kerry Fairburn and Ms. A. Rice. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I must say that I've had a written correspondence with each of these students, who have grilled me on life at the Legislature. Now they've come to see it in the flesh, so would you please make them welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Horgan: This is an introduction of some great distance. I've just confirmed with my colleague the Minister of Energy that while my son was travelling in Bulgaria, he happened upon his stepdaughter. So the spirit of collegiality that the minister and I have is now being shared by our children on another continent. I didn't want to miss the opportunity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Lee: Joining us in the Legislature today are 30 grade 5 students from Holy Cross Elementary School accompanied by some of their parents and their teachers, Mrs. Sabina McCloskey and Miss Lena Fernandes. They are here to learn about the Legislature and how government works. Will the House please extend a very warm welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Yap: Further to the introduction by the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services, I'd like to welcome a few more of the wonderful seniors from Richmond and the Minoru Seniors Society, who are here for a field trip in Victoria to witness democracy in action here in the House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have in the public gallery the following folks: Jean Fey, Beverly Phillips, Barry and Kay Ogilvie and from my riding of Richmond-Steveston, Daryl Whiting and Wayne Colling. Would the House please make them welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I. Black: I have two introductions to make today. I would first like to welcome members from the BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation, Allan Lamb and David Dunne, as well as representatives of the RCMP locally and Dr. Jocelyn Pedder of RONA Kinetics, who are into the interesting area of biomechanics. They are all here today with respect to an announcement on booster seats on the front steps. Would the House please make them feel welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Secondly, we all have our role models in this world. Two of mine are here today. My mom and dad are here. Would the House please make them feel welcome as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Hayer: I'm pleased to introduce two sets of guests who are here in the House today. Some of the very special guests include Jane Adams, who is the new president and CEO of Surrey Memorial Hospital Foundation, and my wife Isabelle Martinez, who is one of my volunteers and who is also a volunteer director of the Surrey Memorial Hospital Foundation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This foundation has raised over $45 million for equipment in the past 15 years for Surrey Memorial Hospital. Now they have a new fundraising campaign underway to raise $15 million for the new Surrey Memorial Hospital's emergency centre, which will be state of the art and will triple the size. At the same time our government has invested more than $220 million to improve the health care infrastructure in Surrey. Would the House please make them very welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]H. Bloy: I rise in the House today for a very special occasion on behalf of myself, my brother Randy, my sister Debby and our extended family. Today is the special birthday of my dad. My dad Robert Bloy turns 93 years young today. [Applause.]
Thank you for acknowledging that. I know he watches every day. It's great that we have family that watch us here in the House every day. I want to wish my dad a happy birthday and all my love. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. L. Reid: Further to the booster seat announcement today, I'd like to welcome to the precincts the two booster children who were so very kind to assist us today, Annie and Jack Blundell. One is six, and one is eight. They're exactly the audience we are hoping to reach with our booster seat announcements today. I would ask the House to please make them welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Hayer: I also have another special guest. That's my son. Anthony Singh Martinez is here. He was 12 years old when I was first elected in 2001. He was constantly one of the key volunteers on our team in Surrey-Tynehead and is one of the hardest-working members in Surrey. Would the House please make him very welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Statements
(Standing Order 25B)DRY GRAD
H. Bloy: The month of May marks the beginning of an exciting time in many students' lives across the province — high school graduation. I'm sure some of the members in the House can remember. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Today I want to talk about dry grad. Dry grad can help develop an attitude among students in the community that a good time can be had without alcohol or drugs, increasing awareness of the dangers of combining drinking and driving. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is with great pride that I announce two high schools in Burnaby, Burnaby Mountain Secondary and Burnaby North Secondary, that are both strong supporters of dry grad. Many dry grad ceremonies encompass a theme such as the one hosted by Burnaby Mountain Secondary, a Night in Neverland. The night will include dancing, playing casino games, food and over $2,000 worth of prizes to be won. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Recently B.C. liquor stores encouraged customers across the province to donate $1 for each purchase to support dry grad celebrations in their communities. Burnaby schools received $15,000, and Coquitlam schools received over $25,000 towards dry grad celebrations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Many other companies such as Lougheed Town Centre participated in fundraising and awareness events as well. Fraser Health has donated over $400 to each high school throughout the Fraser region, and they have produced a video But I AM in Control. I can tell you it is worthwhile for everyone to see, and it will be shown to all high school students. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With further support and increased awareness about dry grad celebrations, we can continue to provide our students and communities with a safe graduation season. Congratulations to all graduating students. You are our future. Have a safe, happy and dry grad. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]MAY DAY HYACK FESTIVAL
C. Puchmayr: This Saturday is the first day of the May Day Hyack Festival in New Westminster. It includes sporting tournaments, multicultural festivals, art exhibits, heritage displays, fireworks and more. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On Victoria Day at noon in Queen's Park stadium, the honourable Hyack anvil battery does a 21-anvil salute to the Queen. It's very interesting. They have two very heavy anvils. They put a shot glass of gunpowder in between them, and they light them with a long red-hot poker. It's quite loud and makes a lot of noise. It's quite a spectacle. It sets off a lot of dog alarms as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Wednesday May 23 is the 137th May Day. The member from Port Coquitlam spoke about their May Day. Ours goes back to 1870, and I'm sure some of the members on the other side recall that first May Day in New Westminster. They might have read about it because they're such great historians. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is an incredible event. There are over 70 events, and most of them are free of charge. They include a dog agility show that is absolutely spectacular and bands playing in the park on Monday. There's a carnival. There are fireworks down at Westminster Quay. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]It's an incredible festival. There's more information available on the Internet. If you go to hyack.bc.ca, log on and get more information. We hope to see you next Saturday, not this Saturday coming up, for the great Hyack Parade with over 140 participants from Canada and the United States, including the Seattle Seafair Pirates. It's an incredible display with marching bands and motorcycle drill teams. I'm sure that most of my colleagues on both sides of the House will be there with me enjoying this great festival. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HEALTHY CHOICES IN
SCHOOL VENDING MACHINESK. Whittred: Childhood obesity is a serious problem with serious long-term consequences. The scope of this issue is discussed in detail in the report of the all-party legislative Health Committee. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Some of us in this House can remember schools actually without vending machines. Everyone in this House can picture vending machines stocked with pop, chips, Cheezies, chocolate bars, gummy bears and suckers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm proud to say that vending machines stocked full of junk food are a thing of the past at North Vancouver's Carson Graham School. Located in my riding, it is the first school in British Columbia to give students the only option of a healthy snack. Filled with apples, vegetable dips and even some healthy chips, the vending machines are said to be a hit. From all reports, the healthy snacks are so popular that they can barely keep the machines stocked to meet the demand. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The goal of the Ministry of Education is to have all school vending machines dispense only healthy snacks by 2009. Congratulations to the North Vancouver school district and Carson Graham School for taking this important step to ban junk food. Let them be an example of the difference a healthy choice can make in a student's life and be a model for all schools in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]CHILD CARE PROVIDER
APPRECIATION DAYC. Trevena: I rise to speak about Child Care Provider Appreciation Day. It's great that there is such a day. Today is the day. It's a day where we can acknowledge and celebrate child care providers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In most households these days, both parents work because they cannot afford not to, so they need child care. Single parents also need child care because they too have to go to work, and they need support for their children. Some parents who are not at work also choose to opt for child care. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
All these people appreciate their providers. Parents talk in glowing terms about those who look after their children — that is, if they can find child care. If you talk to a parent about child care, the story soon turns to the desperate hunt for it — the phone calls, the visits, the wait-lists, the trips from one centre to another to find space and the trek across the city because the only available space is 40 minutes from home or work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are the rural communities where there may be only about seven spaces to start with for the whole community. The demand is there, but no one can actually afford to open up a new centre. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Parents are forced into difficult choices. Do they quit work? That's if they have the luxury to be able to afford to quit. Do they leave their child with a neighbour or a friend or a relative? There's the 72-year-old grandmother who's looking after her two-year-old autistic grandson, or the young woman who wants to get off welfare and go back to school but can't find child care or the nurse who hasn't gone back to work because she can't find child care. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Child care providers nurture our children. They provide early education, socialization, learning through experience and learning through play. They deserve to be appreciated. Parents know this. They want this choice, and they want the best possibilities for their kids. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If we truly wanted to appreciate child care providers, we'd invest in their hard work. We'd ensure that providers could pay staff a living wage and create more spaces. Without those commitments, Child Care Provider Appreciation Day is little more than a rhetorical flourish. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]TURN IT OFF DAY
I. Black: "There's got to be 50 lights on in this house." It was a line that I recall hearing often as a child. I think my grandfather and then my parents took ownership of it, and it was up there with: "Are you trying to heat the whole neighbourhood?" or "Were you born in a barn?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The first of these heartfelt expressions of parental affection has a theme consistent with the day of significance in our energy plan's objective to be energy self-sufficient by 2016. Tomorrow, Wednesday, May 16, is Turn It Off Day in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B.C. Hydro, in partnership with the non-profit group 30 Days of Sustainability, is asking British Columbians to turn off all unnecessary lights and appliances in order to reduce their electricity use. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]We've been a net importer of electricity for each of the last five years, and with our economy growing by leaps and bounds, the gap between supply and demand could grow even worse. The first and best way of reducing this gap is to conserve more. Turn off your computer, your printer and your photocopier when it's not in use. Add to that your DVD players, VCRs and the stereo systems in your homes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If all families in B.C. that usually leave their computers and monitors running 24 hours a day turned them off when they're not in use, the province would save 330 gigawatt hours per year in electricity. That's almost 2½ days of our province's annual power consumption. Replace your incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lights whenever possible. Unplug your cell phone, camera and other battery chargers once the charging is complete. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We all have an individual role to play, and more than 120 businesses have pledged their support for the day through B.C. Hydro. In fact, the government of British Columbia is the largest employer participating in tomorrow's event. So we ask for your leadership by encouraging your family and friends to participate. For goodness' sake, turn off those lights when you leave the room. Grandpa would be proud. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF
MINING IN B.C.J. Horgan: Mining Week is an opportunity for those of us representing urban areas to reflect on the importance of mining to our economy. Mining, by the numbers, is a compelling story. The average compensation in the sector is $94,000 a year. Direct employment is nearly 10,000, with another 28,000 in indirect jobs. It's not just the jobs and economic spinoffs in rural British Columbia but jobs and economic activity that the industry generates in our cities, large and small. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In addition to the economic benefits, there are the more tangible, less talked about attributes of mining in B.C. Michael McPhie of the Mining Association reminds us today in the press that the footprint from mining on the natural environment, in terms of the land base, is less than 28,000 hectares, or 0.05 percent of the province. For that modest impact on the land base, we extract the minerals to manufacture a wide range of consumer goods that most of us would be lost without. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Our coking coal from the Elk Valley is an indispensable component of the steel that shapes our rapid transit systems and forms the strength of the Vancouver skyline. But the industry is not without its challenges. On the environment front, the industry is working hard to limit impacts on water and the land, which have been the source of first nations life for generations. Progress has been made, but much work remains to be done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Of all our resource industries, mining is the most affected by fluctuating commodity prices. As we celebrate Mining Week this year, the prices have never been better. Slumping international markets in the '90s meant that development was deferred. Since 1995 world gold prices have increased by 78 percent, lead by 221 percent, zinc by 209 percent and copper by over 330 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Good times for mining are good times for all British Columbians, provided the industry continues to respect first nations and the environment. As we acknowledge the industry and all that it means to B.C., let us also remind the mining community to keep sustainability at the forefront of all that they do in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Oral Questions
ROLE OF LIBERAL OFFICIALS
IN RCMP INVESTIGATION OF
GOVERNMENT STAFFC. James: Today in court we learned that following a meeting with the Premier, B.C. Liberal Party executive director Kelly Reichert met with the police on June 24, 2005, and told them that laying charges against Mr. Basi for dirty political tricks would embarrass the Liberal Party. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question is to the Attorney General. Will he inform this House: what specific instructions did the Premier give Mr. Reichert in advance of Mr. Reichert's meeting with the RCMP? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: The Leader of the Opposition well knows that we're not going to comment on evidence that's before the courts. That's obvious. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: The public expects answers from this government when it comes to very serious allegations involving a court case, involving political dirty tricks alleged in the Premier's office. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]In an RCMP document marked "Kelly Reichert. Not for disclosure," we learned that Mr. Reichert told the Premier that the charges would be recommended for dirty tricks. According to the documents read in court, the RCMP asked Mr. Reichert if the potential for harm to the B.C. Liberal Party should take precedence over good prosecution. Mr. Reichert said it would. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, to the Attorney General: does he believe that protecting the B.C. Liberal Party from political embarrassment is more important than protecting the public from political corruption? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: I believe in a fair trial for the men who are now charged in the Supreme Court. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I think perhaps we should remind the members on the other side that they in fact did not take a vow of silence. They took an oath of office when they came into this position. In 2003 the Premier said: "The important thing is that an investigation is carried out thoroughly and diligently by the RCMP." Two years later his party is refusing to answer and trying to cover up allegations into political corruption. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, my question to the Attorney General: when the Premier met with Mr. Reichert before the meeting with the police, did the Premier tell Mr. Reichert to fully cooperate instead of trying to cover up? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: We believe in the independence of the courts. We believe that the court…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: We believe the court will come to a just and fair decision, and it will do us no good to comment on allegations that are before the court. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: The first obligation of the Premier is to uphold the law and maintain the highest ethical standards in the province. The Attorney General speaks often of the sub judice rule, but in certain cases there are exceptions. Where this kind of allegation is made, the public has a right to know what went on in that conversation between Kelly Reichert and the Premier. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question to the Attorney General is: will he inform the House who ordered Kelly Reichert, the executive director of the B.C. Liberal Party, to attempt to sidetrack the RCMP investigation into the B.C. Liberal Party dirty political tricks? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: I want to quote a statement here attributed to the member for Nanaimo. "It is essential to the rule of law…
Interjections. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: …that the integrity of the judicial process not be interfered with. High-profile prosecutions have failed in the past because politicians felt compelled to make comments in public that were later deemed prejudicial." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: I would suggest to the Attorney General that the sub judice rule has exceptions. This is one case where there ought to be an exception, where it's a matter of the highest and paramount public interest to know what went on in the Premier's office. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm asking the Attorney General to provide that reassurance…
Interjections. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: …of the highest ethical standards and the upholding of the law here in this House today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: If the rule has exceptions, the hon. member for Nanaimo didn't think so. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]J. Kwan: "One of the things we've done in B.C. relatively well is that we have set up a process where these sorts of investigations can take place and where there is no political interference." From the Premier in 2003. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
According to documents read in court today, the RCMP asked Mr. Reichert if the potential for harm to the B.C. Liberal Party outweighs the public good in prosecution. Mr. Reichert replied: "Yes." Is this what the Attorney General would call no political interference? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: "According to documents filed" — that doesn't prove anything. The documents may have been filed; the documents may not be accurate. Any allegations or any evidence that is let in a courtroom may be factual. It may not be factual. That's why it's dangerous to jump to conclusions and come to premature judgments. It's wrong to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Kwan: Will the Attorney General then commit today in this House that he will ask the Premier if he directed Kelly Reichert to advance the arguments that protecting the B.C. Liberal Party from political embarrassment is more important than protecting the public from learning about political corruption? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: I'll commit to letting the trial process take its place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: We've heard the Attorney General talk about integrity in this House. The reality is that the integrity and the ethics of this government and the public interest are what is at hand, and they are not being served by this Attorney General and this government on this issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The revelations in court today suggested there were dirty tricks that occurred by political operatives of the government from this building — that Mr. Reichert was aware of that. He spoke to the Premier. Sometime shortly after speaking to the Premier, he then interfered in matters. That's the allegation made in court today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The question I have is…. As was noted, the Premier's job is to uphold the law. The Premier's job was to tell Mr. Reichert not to proceed in that way. Clearly, he either didn't tell him, or Mr. Reichert didn't listen to the Premier's advice. We don't know what that is. Will the Attorney General get those answers and get them into this House for us tomorrow? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: Regrettably, we don't know the answers. That's why we're having a trial. That's why we have a trial. That's why we have a judge. That's why we have witnesses who testify under oath, where wild allegations are not made. In an objective environment of the courtroom, the facts will come out. We'll wait for the facts to come out. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: If we want the facts, presumably they're easy to get. The Attorney General could ask the Premier what happened in that discussion. That's what we could do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Premier has continually talked about being open and transparent and wanting this trial to proceed that way. Let's have a little openness. Let's have a little transparency. Demand of the Premier that he tell the people of British Columbia the makings of that discussion with Mr. Reichert. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: Let me see if I've got this right. There's a trial going on in Vancouver alleging serious criminal allegations. So right in the middle of the trial we should call the Premier and put him under oath. To do what? You know, this is how…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Interjections. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: You know, it's amazing to me how little they understand of the judicial process, how little they understand the…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just take your seat, Attorney. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Continue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: There are very serious allegations that are being made in a courtroom. You know, there's another side to it. We call that fairness. If there are allegations being made by Crown witnesses, they may be refuted by defence witnesses. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
At the end of the day, the judge and/or jury will make up their minds. That's how the system works. It doesn't help the system to make wild allegations, make findings of fact without hearing any of the cross-examination or any of that. To do that in this House — it serves no useful purpose. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: You know, this government is content, apparently, to keep the public in the dark for something that happened in 2003, and there are disturbing allegations coming out about political interference. Again, to the Attorney General: does he not feel…? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: Does the Attorney General not feel that he needs to revisit his colleague's hollow assertions about political interference in light of discussions revealed by Mr. Reichert? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Will he ask the Premier if he acted inappropriately toward the investigation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: I have the same answer. It's not appropriate to comment on allegations, anything that goes on in a courtroom. I'm not going to do it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: The president of the B.C. Liberal Party asked the RCMP, on tape and off tape, if the B.C. Liberal Party's involvement in organized, dirty political tricks…. If they could be spared that embarrassment by steering the investigation away from charges that might bring that into evidence…. That is an outstanding finding. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Attorney General — to him again. Conversations are alleged to have happened between the party…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just take your seat, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Continue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Fleming: Mr. Reichert informed the Premier about the investigation. Does the Attorney General not feel it is appropriate to ask the Premier about what his involvement in this investigation has been? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: You know, when the House adjourns today, I'll be quite prepared to tell the member outside the difference between a finding and an allegation. There's a special prosecutor that's appointed. The reason a special prosecutor is appointed is in order to avoid any suggestion of any political interference or any political influence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Robertson: This is about the public, the people of B.C., confidence in the integrity of the Premier and the Attorney General. Will the Attorney General commit in this House to asking the Premier to fully disclose his role in this political interference to the people of B.C.? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: No, this is about preserving the integrity of an independent system. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]G. Robertson: The Premier's first duty, again, is to uphold the laws of B.C. Hon. Speaker, the Attorney General's job is to make sure that happens. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Will the Attorney General condemn the actions of this Premier and his party for the cover-up of their dirty tricks campaign? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: I'm quite content to have Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett make the decision as opposed to some ill-informed MLA. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Chudnovsky: The Attorney General has the opportunity in this House today, in this House of the people today, to clarify for the people whether he can assure the people of British Columbia that this government has not been involved in dirty tricks. He can do that. He can assure the people of the province today that the Liberal Party has not been involved in dirty tricks. He can assure the people of the province today that the Liberal Party and this government have not been involved in cover-up. He can choose to do that today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Will he choose to reassure the people of the province today? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: No, my job is to protect the integrity of the system. That's what my job is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Chudnovsky: I would suggest to the hon. Attorney General that it's the job of the Premier to protect the integrity of the province. So I ask the Attorney General: will he request of the Premier today that the Premier reassure the people of the province that the government wasn't involved in dirty tricks, that the Liberal Party wasn't involved in dirty tricks, and that the Liberal Party and the government were not involved in a cover-up? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's the Premier's job to protect the integrity of the province. The Attorney General can choose today to suggest to and ask the Premier that he do that. Will the Attorney General make such a request? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: One of the cherished principles in our democracy that operates under the rule of law is the independence of the courts. The courts operate independently of the Legislature, and it's a good thing they do, because this is a perfect example of why we ought to retain independence of the courts — listening to some of the irresponsible comments that have been made in this chamber here today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Simpson: The Attorney General has just indicated that his job is to protect the integrity of the system. The Attorney General's job is an interesting and unique job because on the one hand, the Attorney General has a political role to play in cabinet, and he has a role to play as the top law enforcement officer in the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So far the Attorney General has chosen to act as a political operative and to protect the Liberal Party in this case and to protect the Office of the Premier. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Simpson: My question is to the Attorney General. Will he take a step back and act as the top law enforcement officer of this province, maintain the integrity of the system and answer this question: what is it that the Attorney General is going to do, based on the allegations of interference from the Premier's office? What will he do as the top law enforcement officer to examine those allegations? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Interjections. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: This Attorney General is a learned member of the bar. This Attorney General was a member of the bench for years and years and earned the respect of British Columbians. He does not need…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: This Attorney General does not need to be lectured to by an individual member who so clearly doesn't understand the role of the Attorney General and so clearly doesn't understand the importance of an independent judiciary in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat, Member. We're not continuing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Continue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Simpson: It's nice that the minister of defence rose again in the House today. I recall yesterday…
Interjections. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Simpson: …that the minister of defence rose in this House to impugn the reputation of a member on this side with all of the self-righteousness that he's showing today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question is very clear, and the role of the Attorney General is also very clear. The Attorney General has a political function in cabinet and a function as the chief enforcement officer. We're asking him to act as the chief law enforcement officer and act on the allegations that the Premier's office is involved in this case. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Will he step back from his political role and act as the law enforcement officer that he is supposed to be and investigate the Premier's office and the allegations that have been made today? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I shudder to think what would be the result if, God forbid, there were a day when a member with the attitude, approach and disregard for an independent judiciary, which this member clearly has, were ever in a position to be sitting on this side of the House. I shudder to think what would become of one of the most sacred principles that guides our democracy, and that is an independent judiciary. This Attorney General understands that principle…
Interjections. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: …and the members on the opposite side of the House clearly don't. Thank God we have an Attorney General who does understand the principle. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Horgan: It's good to see the House Leader on his feet giving aid and comfort to the Attorney General. Maybe I'll pose my question to the House Leader, because he was here in 2003 when the police came into this building and took out documents that led to the events that we're seeing before the courts today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But the Attorney General wasn't here for Steve Vander Wal. He wasn't here for Prem Vinning. Dirty tricks — known, committed, done, happening again. We have evidence before court today. We have public comment today about the integrity of the government of British Columbia and the Premier's office. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm asking the House Leader: will he stand in this place and put the public interest ahead of the interests of the Liberal Party? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Hon. W. Oppal: That's the difference, you see. The member apparently didn't understand what I said earlier. Evidence doesn't become factual unless a judge says it's factual, so you don't rely on evidence. You don't rely on evidence; you rely on the facts that come from that evidence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sorry to lecture. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Horgan: Well, certainly the Attorney General can separate himself from this place if he chooses. But the Premier, the head of the executive council for the province of British Columbia, has an obligation to speak for the public interest — not for his partisan interests, not for the B.C. Liberal Party, but for the public interest. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Will the House Leader today commit to get a response from the Premier to these allegations of dirty tricks and corruption inside the Premier's office? Will he commit to that today? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: This Premier, this Attorney General and each member of this government, I'm happy to say, understand the fundamental importance of protecting the independence of judiciary. We will do that duty…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat for a second. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If I see people making signs again in this House, they will be thrown out. Understood? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Continue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: We will do that duty, Mr. Speaker, because we understand it. Sadly, members opposite apparently do not. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: Well, the whole problem is not tainting the evidence in this case. The problem is the fact that there is no prosecution right now in the dirty tricks being played within this government. There is no prosecution looking into why the Liberal Party interfered with the process to determine whether prosecution should proceed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Madam Justice Bennett cannot make any decisions based on that, and frankly, the Attorney General can't have it both ways. He cannot invoke sub judice on the one hand and then move to cover up political tricks and dirty games at the same time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: He cannot have it both ways. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: So today, again, we will ask in this House…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member, the comment that you just made was unparliamentary. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: I withdraw that remark. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Okay, continue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: The Attorney General has an obligation to the public of British Columbia and to this House to deliver to us in this House a report on why the Premier interfered and to tell us in this House…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Continue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: The Attorney General has an obligation to the public of British Columbia to come clean and explain why this government is not rushing in to assure the public that these dirty tricks are not part of this government's agenda. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: I think I've already answered the question several times. You know, this is why we have a trial. The trial will…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: We have a trial. The trial will conclude. It will come to a decision, one way or the other. Why don't we wait? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[End of question period.]Orders of the Day
Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber committee stage debate of Bill 21, Teaching Profession (Teacher Registration) Amendment Act, 2007, to be followed in due course by Bill 22, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007; and in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Economic Development. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Committee of the Whole House
TEACHING PROFESSION (TEACHER
REGISTRATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2007
(continued)The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 21; H. Bloy in the chair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee met at 2:29 p.m. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 3 (continued). [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Macdonald: I'll finish off with one last comment. The minister asked rhetorically, I think, at the end, what people who had asked for legislation similar to this would say about what is being put forward here. I think the clear answer to that is: the expectation is that when we put something forward, we have it thoroughly thought through. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I've had the opportunity — and I'm going to allow this to move on now — to say very clearly that I think this part, removing the opportunity for grievance, weakens this bill substantially and means that the proper process which should be in place has been removed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]I think I've been clear on that, and certainly the minister has been clear that she has an opposing view. With that, I'll allow this to continue unless my colleague has a question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 3 approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 4. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: This being the last section of the bill proper before we go into related amendments, I want to raise a matter which speaks to the issue of developing the on-line registry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In particular, this bill will create two on-line registries — one of those, and by far the larger one, for certificate teachers who are members of the college. The other registry is much smaller but nonetheless of the same design, based on what we understand from the bill, for a smaller group of teachers who teach under permission established by the inspector of independent schools. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There will of course be costs associated with the creation of registries. In the one case, presumably because the inspector reports to the minister, the costs belong to the minister. In the other case, the registry is being mandated for the college. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The bill appears to be silent on the issue of costs for the creation of the registry. I want to ask the minister if that's by intent or oversight and what proposal there is, if any, around the financing of both the registries. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: We expect the College of Teachers to manage the cost. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: So we're doing this differently between the independent school sector for non-certificate teachers and for certificate teachers reporting to the college. Maybe the minister could give me the rationale for that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: We expect the College of Teachers to manage this within the resources that they have. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: I'll ask the question again, because that didn't respond directly to the question I asked. The question I asked was…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have two categories of personnel who are captured by this registry. One portion of them in both public and private is certificate teachers reporting to the college. Another portion of them is permitted to teach under permissions provided by the inspector of independent schools. Registries are being mandated for both of them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of those is going to be provided for by the minister presumably — and the minister can comment on that — and funded for the inspector of independent schools. The other is going to be required to be paid for by the employees themselves through the College of Teachers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let's leave it there. I would like a rationale for why they're being treated differently. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: The College of Teachers is a self-regulating body, and we believe they have resources available to manage the costs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: Again, there was a rationale about the College of Teachers, but not one around the inspector of independent schools and the on-line registry there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let me try it another way and see if we can get a little closer to it. If the college is expected to pay for it through an assessment of its members, are those who teach under letters of permission in independent schools expected to pay to the inspector of independent schools an assessment to cover the costs of the on-line registry? And if not, why not? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite would know that the College of Teachers is a self-regulating body. We believe that there is capacity to manage these resources. While independent teachers do pay fees for certification, they are not a self-regulating body. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: I'm not sure what the connection is between student safety and being or not being a self-regulating body. This is a matter of providing resources that create a public registry for discipline. In the case of one set of teachers who have the privilege of teaching in schools that are endorsed and approved by the Minister of Education — from what I understand of the minister — they will not be required to pay fees that will cover off the costs of creating this registry. That is something that the minister appears to be prepared to do for them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On the other hand, in the case of teachers teaching in the public schools, the minister feels that that's something that they can quite comfortably afford to do for themselves. I would just like to understand the difference in the standard being applied. As to the fact that the teachers are in a college and that the others are not in a college and report to an inspector, I'm not sure what that has to do with paying for an on-line registry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: We believe that the College of Teachers has the capacity to manage the cost, and that's what the expectation will be. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: To follow that, you believe that teachers teaching in separate schools and independent schools don't have the resources to pay the costs. Is that it? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: The independent school teachers are not a self-regulating body. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: I'm not sure what that had to do with my question. They may not be a self-regulating body, but the obligation is being placed in the same way for the appearance of discipline pertaining to the same behaviour. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Both levels of schooling are endorsed by the same minister and fall ultimately under her regulation. I'm simply trying to probe as to why the minister is willing to pay the costs for one registry and mandating that the costs be paid for by others in the case of another. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: Hon. Chair, this question has been asked and answered. We believe that the College of Teachers has the capacity to manage these costs, and that will be the expectation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: I will move on, after concluding that that question was asked, but not answered in the spirit in which it was asked — and it was asked three times. I will take from that that the minister intends not to answer that question, and move on to the next one. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Regarding the registry that will be created, given that this is something that is going to have to report the same classes of discipline and infraction between teachers teaching under a letter of permission and teachers who are certificate teachers and that it will involve the creation of the same kinds of software and hardware to make this available to the public, has the minister considered mandating the sharing of the template so that there is a consistent standard between the two registries? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Because she is committed to investing in the registry required by the inspector of independent schools, would she consider sharing the template with the college so that we don't have redundant investments in costs? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: We would certainly consider all of those kinds of discussions. We did not want to pre-empt that with not having the legislation passed. We're in the very early stages, and as we formulate a plan, we would be happy to have those kinds of discussions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: I appreciate that amount of openness. I think I'm going to attempt to move an amendment that would mandate that the minister reimburse the college and the inspector of independent schools for costs reasonably incurred. I'll pass it to my learned colleague, who can tell me whether it's in order or not, with a copy to the minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]The Chair: The motion is not in order. The amendment is not in order. It involves the expenditure of public funds. Please continue, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: A bit of a catch-22 there, Mr. Chair, I'm sure you'll agree. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think I've made my comments. I would ask that when it does come to implementation, olive branches be extended in this regard and that it not be a continuation of the relationship that prior government has had with the College of Teachers — and an opportunity, therefore, to build bridges rather than to bomb them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 4 approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 5. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: This takes us into the longest section of the bill by far, which has to do with amendments to the Independent School Act that are more far-reaching in some respects, although they accomplish the same ends. It appears to be replacing a very small amount of regulation with a much larger amount in the case of independent schools. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm interested in the minister's characterization of the status quo prior to this coming into force with regard to independent schools. I would understand that the provisions in place would apply to certificate teachers. They would be similar between independent schools and public schools. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For that group of teachers who are teaching under letters of permission or some other method — they're authorized teachers, I believe, in the act — is information kept on those teachers currently by the inspector of independent schools? For example, is the discipline information about them kept currently in the way that it's kept by the College of Teachers for certificate teachers? What's the status of oversight and regulation of them at this moment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: If you are a certified teacher teaching in the independent school system, your information is with the College of Teachers because that's who certifies you. The point in this additional section is to bring the independent school process into alignment with the expectations of the public school system. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: That was my surmise, and the minister will forgive me if I wasn't entirely clear about that. I'm not talking about the certificate teachers in particular. I'm talking about the group of teachers within independent schools who are authorized teachers, who are reporting to the inspector of independent schools and not to the college. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question is: what are the policies and procedures in place to date? Does the inspector of independent schools maintain a discipline registry of some kind? Does the inspector of independent schools notify, in some public way, independent schools around disciplines that are filed currently? What is the practice currently? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: No. I tried to make that clear in my answer, and I obviously didn't. That provision is not in place currently. The whole point of these provisions is actually to bring that into place, and these changes will now mirror the public school circumstance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: That was the reason for the question, really — to get at the fact that there is a group within independent schools who are not under any kind of regulation at the present time that would parallel the regulation that's applied currently to certificate teachers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]I think it's important, because when we talk about schools and teachers, people think most readily of the public school system. Really, all the talk in this chamber has been about the public school system. Here we have a very substantial change to an unregulated sector within independent schools that is very important and hasn't been canvassed at all. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have a couple of questions. One is: what percentage of the teaching cadre in independent schools is authorized teachers — just in percentage terms, rough terms? What percentage of people teaching in independent schools would this capture? And is there history that we are aware of, with disciplines within this group of teachers who are directly under the purview of the inspector, that has not come to light publicly — where there have been problems? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: We don't have the statistical breakdown of that particular group of individuals, but we'll work to get that information to the member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: So part of the answer there is that we don't actually know what's going on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: I did ask, as well, whether there was any history within a group that's unregulated currently — about the kinds of practices occurring where people are hired on or retained in employment who have committed significant offences and where those offences are not being transmitted in some fashion to other employers or to the inspector of independent schools because there isn't a system of regulation in place at the present time. I'm asking whether that has occurred. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have a tremendous concern for kids' safety here. I'm looking at an unregulated sector, currently, which is directly under an officer of the ministry. It's very important that we have some sense of what's going on in that sector. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: The answer that I gave in terms of not having the data was that we don't have the data in front of us, but there is a process for teachers who are teaching with a teacher's certificate. And there is an independent teacher's certification process, so a teacher can be decertified. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The answer I provided was simply that I don't have the data in terms of the numerical breakdown of how many teachers are certified through the College of Teachers or through the teacher's certificate program. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: Perhaps we can, as we roll along through this, get an estimate of the number of people who teach in independent schools and then the percentages, certificate and non-certificate. I heard a number from somebody — that it's between a third and 40 percent who may be authorized teachers at independent schools. I don't know how large the teaching body is in total for independent schools, so I don't know how many individuals that may cover. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's interesting, actually, just to reflect on the fact that in all of the talking that has been done about the need to improve visibility around discipline and give the public a better sense of what's happening in these schools, there hasn't really been any explicit mention of the fact that this sector is currently not under the same kind of regulation that certificate teachers are and that there may not be a formalization of the kinds of practices of making public discipline that the college has in place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If that is true, then we certainly have to welcome regulation of the sector, because there certainly is the possibility for kids' safety to be badly compromised in circumstances where there is less transparency and accountability than there is in the public school sector, or for certificate teachers teaching in the independent school sector as well. That's to be welcomed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This being a very long section, I want to raise some other questions about this, but I think I can probably do it in the "Online registry" section. Unless there are others who wish to ask questions, we can roll through some text. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 5 and 6 approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]D. Cubberley: Are we anywhere near 7.5? Could we come back to it, please? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: On section 5, section 7.5 is what you wanted. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 5. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: I just wanted to continue along the line of questioning. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In this section we break out the record of disciplinary action, which I believe is what will appear in the on-line registry. The three significant areas of abuse, which are featured in the on-line registry for certificate teachers reporting to the college, are broken out here. But the subclause which governs all other infringements of code of conduct doesn't appear in this section. I'd just like a comment on that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I believe I understand why that is, but I want to raise another question about it. The Roman numeral clause that requires the reporting that, after being explicit about three areas that must be reported, says all areas must be reported…. That's not present in this section. Could the minister comment on it? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the expectations are similar. But as the member opposite knows after our discussion this morning, that is a reference directly to the College of Teachers. You can't transfer one body's set of expectations directly to the other group, but in fact, the expectations are similar. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: I think this is an important point, because in the case of the college, which is a self-regulating body and has a well-developed code of conduct for teachers, there's a supervening requirement that all disciplines deemed to be an infringement of that code of conduct be reported on an on-line registry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the case of this registry, which is applying to people who are not a self-regulating professional body but are entirely under an authorization flowing from the inspector of independent schools, there is no requirement for disciplines outside of these three areas to appear in the on-line registry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are a couple of questions here. One of the questions here is the absence of a code of conduct for people who are operating in schools approved by the Minister of Education under the administration of her officer and who have exactly the same exposure to children as people who are certificate teachers but who have a lesser obligation, if you like, to come to a uniform code of conduct placed on them by the design of this thing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think one of the responses I might hear is that there is no code of conduct for these people. But that creates in my mind a problem, and it's a question that I would like to explore a little bit because the public interest enters into this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is somewhat correct in the fact that there are two separate groups of individuals being involved. But the expectations are the same. The management tool is different. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There is the College of Teachers, which works with teachers who are certified through the college. For authorized teachers, there is another factor at play. That's the inspector of independent schools, who works with the independent teachers certification process to actually look at the criteria. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There is not a comparable mechanism in terms of reference to that issue, but the expectations are the same. For the first time in the province this will align the two systems. It currently does not exist for the teachers that the member opposite has brought to the floor today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: I'm fully supportive of making that happen, and I believe it's very important because there is the same exposure to children and there will be the same problems over time — perhaps to a lesser degree because it's a smaller group of people. But these are people, and this is a classroom, so the same dynamics are at play. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The challenge that I have here in taking the minister's response at face value is that I should have faith in the inspector of independent schools to apply a similar standard. But there isn't really anywhere in the act where we have left that discretion to the college, for example, to determine whether it is or isn't in the public interest. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Here the bill is simply silent. It's not placing an obligation on the inspector of independent schools to operate in a particular manner, to disclose discipline of a particular order outside these three categories. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think that is a bit of a flaw, if you will, in the way the bill is crafted. I have no doubt that the inspector has the best intentions in the world, but there isn't really any guidance given here other than what the minister has said, which is that we would have the same expectations. But the bill doesn't say that we have the same expectations, so I think that is a bit of a challenge. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There probably should be something created for those who are given an authorization to teach by the inspector, something analogous to the code of conduct that is placed on a certificate teacher. It's for the very simple reason of creating a level playing field and making it not arbitrary on the part of an individual occupying the job of inspector to determine what should and shouldn't show up in an on-line discipline registry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would urge that government consider that, because this is a sector that's off a little bit in the shadows, if you will, that we see as not as regulated. We're bringing it into regulation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it's very important for the public comfort that it be dealt with in the same way. But it's also very important from a practical standpoint that if we believe that every form of discipline that breaches the teachers' code of conduct for certificate teachers must show up on an on-line registry…. There's an element of fairness. If we truly believe that all of those things need to be there for certificate teachers, then they need to be there for non-certificate teachers as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Title approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee rose at 3 p.m. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Report and
Third Reading of BillsTEACHING PROFESSION (TEACHER
REGISTRATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2007Bill 21, Teaching Profession (Teacher Registration) Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. C. Richmond: I call committee on Bill 22, the Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Committee of the Whole House
EDUCATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2007The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 22; H. Bloy in the chair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee met at 3:04 p.m. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 1. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: This is a bill with a lot of things in it, so there are a number of different levels of discussion that we'd like to get into. The initial change proposed in here under section 2 — "the British Columbia certificate or diploma" change — essentially, as we read it, takes the power to issue diplomas back into the minister's fold. I'm interested just in hearing the minister's rationale for repatriating fully the power to issue diplomas. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: This is housekeeping. This is the practice. It has always been the case. This is just to make that perfectly clear. It is practice, and it has been the case. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]D. Cubberley: I have to acknowledge some ignorance in this area, just because you can't know everything about everything. I had the impression there were some arrangements and some circumstances currently where others were enabled to issue a Dogwood. There may even be connections through corporations operating offshore where Dogwoods are part of the business that they transact. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So I'm interested in knowing a little more about that. Are there circumstances currently where others have the right to issue a Dogwood? What experience has led to this change, if that is in any way connected to it? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: There certainly is a section of the bill that deals with business corporations, but only the minister can issue the graduation certificate. That has always been the case, and this is simply to clarify what current practice is. It is a housekeeping amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: Well, I just have to go a little further than that. I appreciate what the minister has said, that it's a housekeeping amendment, but it's interesting that we're clarifying the practice. I'm curious to know what led to any doubt about it. Was it simply an assumption within the existing legislation that only the minister had the right to issue a diploma? Or does this clarification offset something that is ambiguous in existing legislation? Why is there a need this late in the game to construct an exclusive right in legislation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: This is a housekeeping amendment. This is practice. Part of what we do when we review legislation and, also, practice is simply to clarify, once and finally, that the only person that can issue a graduation certificate is the minister — whoever it is in this office. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So in fact, there's no new practice here, and it wasn't a major issue. It is a housekeeping amendment made to clarify current practice in legislation, and that's done all the time on numerous issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: The minister must forgive me, but it's my naturally suspicious mind. When you read stories about corporations operating offshore who have some ability to ultimately lead someone to a graduation certificate from a B.C. public school, one wants to have the sense of how that gets done. Like how the minister accomplishes what is being constructed as an exclusive right to issue here…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Where there are entities operating in another country that are enabled to provide lessons and courses that ultimately lead to graduation in circumstances that may be remote from the public school system in British Columbia or even from British Columbia itself — operating in another country — how is the right, which this is simply clarifying, currently given effect? How does the minister approve those diplomas currently? How is that done, and how is that regulated? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: Only the minister can issue graduation certificates, and it must be based on the requirements that are laid out in legislation to meet those. This simply clarifies that information, and this is a housekeeping amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: At the risk of taxing patience…
Interjection. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: Taxing patients. Sorry, I've drifted into health care. I didn't mean to. That would be double-billing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Chairman, if the minister would be patient with me and just elaborate a little bit for me how, in the case of a school operating remote from British Columbia, for example…. My assumption would be that the minister does not approve, in the literal sense, all diplomas in the province because she would be terribly busy if she were doing that. There would be a spike in activity that would be especially incomprehensible as to how one person could ever do it. So there must be some operation through agents. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]I'm interested to know, in a remote sense, if there is a corporation that is a school operating offshore, how does the minister issue the certificate and how is the quality guaranteed? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: There are clear criteria outlined as to how a person meets a graduation requirement. That particular body provides information to the ministry. The ministry and the minister then move forward with a graduation certificate. Only the minister can actually issue a graduation certificate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 1 approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 2. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: I want to talk a little bit about the reimbursement of expenses for designated educational activities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would like the minister to explain in her view what this section is actually about. When one reads it, it appears to potentially enable an extremely broad range of activities. When members on this side of the House look at legislation, we always try to imagine what it could be used for and what could be constructed using the power that's being conferred on government. So I would like to hear from the minister and go from there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: This is the extension of something that already exists in public education, and that's the ability to receive credit for a course that's outside of the public education system. A really good example of this is a child's opportunity to learn Punjabi, and that's only one of a myriad of examples. There may be no opportunity in some particular school settings for a child to take Punjabi at the level they would like to in order to get a language credit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Currently in public education that's permissible, and they receive credit. What this allows is the opportunity for those courses that are accredited and approved…. So in terms of the scope that the member refers to, in fact, there will be very clear criteria about when and how this reimbursement might take place. But this is to ensure that our students have the opportunities they want and in some cases they are unable to get within public education. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: Well, I'd be very interested in hearing what those criteria would be. I have to say that because of the potential potency of this — without any brackets being placed around it, without any fence being placed around it — I am very interested to know what the criteria would be and how hard and fast they would be. And if they're hard and fast, why are they not actually in the bill? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: What this is about is looking at choice for students and how we make sure they get the kinds of choice they want. What's created here is the opportunity for there to be some modest degree of reimbursement for parents who find that the options their child needs are not necessarily available within the system. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Again, I use language because as I have travelled across now almost 50 school districts, one of the largest concerns that has been expressed is an ability for students to receive language training in courses that don't exist within their schools, and there are reasons for that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think the key message here is that this is not about replacing; this is about enhancing. All of the details in terms of how the process is set up will be determined in regulation, and that will be done after consultation with our partner groups. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But let's be clear. There are already courses that are accredited and accepted in terms of credit granted to students when they go and take those courses. This extends the possibility of some modest reimbursement for those types of courses. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: I appreciate the minister's comments. Her imagery around what might qualify is certainly innocent enough, but one has to look at the sweep of the language and what it might enable. The fact is that without actually seeing a set of regulations…. Of course, the regulations could be changed very easily at any point in time even if they placed a tight fence, but without a tight fence, this is potentially a very broad-ranging change. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't think it would be too far-fetched to suggest that if someone wanted to, they could construct a voucher system out of this language. This could carry us into the realm of school vouchers. I happen to be of the opinion — and I think many British Columbians would be as well — that if we were going to go down the path of opening up a change that broad, we would want to have some discussion of that publicly before doing it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's very concerning to think that something that is as controversial as vouchers — that can have the kinds of impacts on public school systems that vouchers have had where they have been introduced — would be introduced with a sense of: "Trust me, because the regulations will tighten it up." I don't really think that's where we want to be at this point in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If we were going to have the discussion in advance of legislation coming in, which is what we should do — the idea should be put out that it's being considered, and there should be opportunity for people to say yea or nay and look at the implications of it in advance — that would be one thing. But for it to come in, in an omnibus bill of this kind, innocently enough in the way that it was prefaced by the minister but, I would suggest, anything but innocent in the scope of what would be permitted potentially under this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This could have a major impact if interpreted in one way or another by a minister, and for that reason we have serious reservations about going down this path. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: As I have travelled across this province and met with students and parents…. We can talk about consultation, but parents and students have said clearly that there is room for more choice and options. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is not about a voucher system. This is about allowing students to have choice, like language opportunities that currently they can't access. Already these courses are granted credit when a child takes them. They come back to school, and they get credit. We're simply saying that this allows the opportunity for us to consider how there may be some reimbursement. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the member opposite continues through section 2 and if we look at the guidelines that will be used, there will be ministerial orders that clearly outline types of educational activities or categories and the maximum amount that might be paid — establishing a limit so that a child simply can't do their entire graduation portfolio in that way. There are very clear expectations here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is about enhancing a student's opportunity. Credit already exists. We're simply saying that this allows us to assist parents in providing more options and choice for their students, and I've certainly heard that message loudly and clearly across the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. Trevena: It's an issue of the argument about choice. It comes down to taking choice out of the public schools and putting it into more of a private sector. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have a couple of questions for the minister on this section. She talks about this enabling parents to have that choice so their children can do certain courses that are not available in the public school system. This is obviously going to cost the school boards to provide the fees in the private sector. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]I would like to ask the minister why that money, instead of going to the parents, isn't going to the schools themselves so that they can provide the courses and the parents then have the choice of keeping their children in the school to do the course. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, as a member representing what is a very challenging area of the province to provide choice and opportunity within public education, one would hope that as we look at choice…. This isn't about private versus public. This is about what students in the province actually need in order to be successful. There are schools which are too small, with the number of students they have in them, to offer a variety of programs. In fact, this process exists today. Students can actually go, get credit, come back and have that credit as part of their graduation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is simply saying that we want to validate that parent's and family's right to find a way to provide some of those enhanced opportunities. This isn't about taking away from what's available in public education. It's about supporting parents in providing additional choice for their students. We have hopes of increasing all kinds of choice within public education. I've seen fabulous examples of it. This isn't about public or private. This is about how we make sure that our students get every opportunity possible. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. Trevena: I think the minister and I are agreed that we want to make sure that our students do get every possibility that there is and that they have the best education possible. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to ask the minister how this system would benefit a student at, let's say, Zeballos high school that has a limited choice. They're at the end of a logging road. How would they benefit from a system that would provide payment for them to go to another class for one certain course? Can the minister explain how this is going to help them — rather than money going into the school board to provide this for all the children? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: There are places not only in rural but in urban British Columbia where the demand simply does not allow for courses to be offered. I met with a large group of Indo-Canadian families, for example, who cannot get Punjabi in the secondary school where their children attend. It's not because it's a money issue; it's because there aren't enough children to offer that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I've been given a great example by a member. A particular math course was not available in the school where his daughter needed it to graduate. That allowed her to go to a college, take the course that was required, come back and receive credit for that. It isn't about why we aren't putting more money into the system. We're doing that as well. This is about that not being available to the student. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The parents had the choice of actually taking her to the college, filling in that gap which was not available, and then receiving credit for that. This simply says that we should, in a modest way, consider supporting parents who are put in the position of doing that for their children to take those courses. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. Trevena: The minister in her answer from the preceding question had referred to the constituency I represented as being "challenging." She's quite right. It's a large, rural constituency with isolated schools and students who are trying to get equality of education and teachers who are trying to provide that. The minister at that stage said that this would help those students. Then in a second, subsequent answer she talked about an urban environment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would like the minister to explain how this non-voucher system that is being set up will help those students who are in small, struggling rural schools to get the equality of education that isn't at the moment available, no matter how hard the school trustees and the teachers work to provide it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: First of all, there are great things happening in every part of the province. Teachers and boards are working extraordinarily hard, but there are also challenges, whether you're rural or urban. I happen to live in a rural-urban area of the province with a combination of schools. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're trying to find as many ways as possible to actually expand choice and opportunity for students. The fact simply is that in some circumstances it is impossible for students, as in the case of the young student that I mentioned before, to get a course that they need or they want for graduation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]We're simply validating a process that exists today. Students today can go, wherever they live in the province, and take a course, whether it's a language course, a music class or a math class, in this student's case. They can come back to school and be granted credit for it. It already happens. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
All we're saying is that we should provide an opportunity for parents to receive some modest reimbursement for those choices because the system, despite the best circumstances we could hope for — we are facing declining enrolment — can't offer a particular course. To me, that's not only practical, but it makes really good sense for students who need those choices in the system. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. Trevena: I'd like a bit of an explanation. Let's again use the Zeballos example because it's isolated, or Tahsis, where we've got a class from Captain Meares graduating on May 26. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Assuming there was a student at one of these two schools who wanted to take a specialty math class that isn't available because they are in an isolated community. How would this system, which will benefit a student possibly in Campbell River, where they could go to North Island College or Nanaimo, where they could go to Malaspina or any other urban environment…? How will this system of paying parents to take the children out of the public system help those children in rural communities compared to those in urban communities? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: I'll try one more time. This is not about taking children out of public education. This is about children who cannot receive a particular program within public education. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let me give the member opposite another example. We are aware of a student, for example, who lives in 100 Mile House, for whom music is not an option at this point in time in terms of the type of music program he or she wants. In fact, we know that parent and family have made a choice to take Royal Conservatory piano lessons in order to get a music credit. They don't get that in 100 Mile either. They drive to Kamloops to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to be perfectly clear about this. This isn't about taking students out of public education. This process exists today. Students today can go, take a course and get credit. We're simply saying that if that is a choice the parents have made to have children actually finish those opportunities, there should be a built-in provision for some modest reimbursement. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. Trevena: To go back to the urban example, the minister mentioned that there are a number of parents who wanted their children to move on with Punjabi. I wondered why the minister or her staff would not be working with the school board to make sure this was being provided within the schools. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: Maybe the member opposite should spend some time in some of those districts. The challenge would be that sometimes there are three or five students in a school. Together in a community there might be a hundred, but they don't all go to the same school. There are physical limitations of how many classes one can offer in a school, and school boards make tough choices about how they allocate their dollars. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In fact, in the case of Punjabi, many of those children can receive Punjabi in their elementary school programming. A program does not exist for them in secondary school. We're saying they should have the opportunity to study, for example, Punjabi or another language of their choice and receive some way of supporting that decision. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. Trevena: I do understand what she's saying. It's clearly a system that is running, and she wants to give parents, as she says, choice. I would like to know from the minister how much is actually budgeted for this. Is this being divided on a per-school-district basis, or is this coming from the ministry directly to the parents? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: Legislation is about bringing forward the ideas of change. We have consultation to do. We have to create minister's orders in terms of how this rolls out. We don't have a budget line set aside for this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're going to look at the consultation and discussion. We think this is a great opportunity for parents and families in British Columbia, and we will work through the regulatory process to sort out exactly how this rolls out. I'll be very interested to see how supported it is by families. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]C. Trevena: My colleague from Saanich South mentioned earlier on that there was still some concern that despite the minister saying that it's all set out, that it is quite prescribed where it will be used, the ideas and the details are still very much there in the ether, and they haven't been drawn up on how this is actually going to work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: If the member opposite follows through section 2, there's actually a complete list of what needs to be considered. So we're not presenting a done deal here; we're presenting a legislative framework that allows us to build on what is an exciting concept for families in this province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The practice of external accreditation exists today, so that's not new, and I'm a bit surprised by the reaction to this piece. This already exists, in fact, and we're simply saying that because it does, we believe that we should consider supporting parents who put their children into those opportunities which already receive credit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: The minister made a comment about Punjabi a couple of times, so I would like to clarify with a few questions. The government of British Columbia made a commitment to provide Punjabi classes through the school system. Those classes are at this point in time available to students, but there are, of course, certain conditions and requirements which apply to those classes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question to the minister is: how is this new process going to impact the commitment of the government to provide Punjabi language classes through the school system? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: We continue to have an aggressive strategy for adding languages in the province. In fact, we are contemplating and will be adding Korean. We are seeing increased attendance in Mandarin language courses, in grade 10 in particular. We're going to continue to add courses wherever it's feasibly possible within the public education system. That's our commitment, and we're really excited about adding those courses as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is for those very difficult circumstances where there is simply not the number of children necessary for a school district to make that choice. So we're looking at adding courses within public education. We're looking at on-line language opportunities. I've been really impressed with some work that can be done in terms of distributed learning in language areas. This provides a third option for families. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: I would like to kind of emphasize the question I asked the minister, and I would like to ask the minister to provide a direct response to that. My question is: will this new system impact in any way, or a negative way, the commitment of the government to provide Punjabi classes through the school system — yes or no? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: The answer was clear. We are going to continue with that commitment. We're not only going to add Punjabi, but we're adding Korean, and we're looking at additional Mandarin and Japanese languages as well. The answer is: we will continue to add classes as they fit within school districts, and school boards make those choices as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is an additional opportunity, and I would think that the member opposite would embrace additional opportunities for language learning when it is impossible for some school districts to offer those courses. This isn't about taking away from opportunity; it's about adding to it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: If there's no impact, the answer is pretty simple for the minister to say that there will be no impact on the existing Punjabi classes. I didn't hear that answer, though. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let me ask the question this way. If, in an area where we have Punjabi classes going on, there are ten students in a class and three of the parents decide to go and get these classes through this system, the new system, through a private provider…. The requirement of that school is that there have to be ten students in a class, but three students have been taken under this new system, and therefore, there may not be any class in the system. How is the minister going to respond to that kind of situation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Hon. S. Bond: The question has been asked and answered, and I simply highlight the point by saying that this process already exists in public education. Students can already do this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: Again, I didn't get a clear answer from the minister that if in a school where we have a class going on of ten students and three of the students chose to go this route through the private provider, whether that class will still exist or not. I didn't hear the commitment from the minister that that class would still exist. In my opinion, as for the requirement and the rules of the school, that class will not exist because the number of students will go down as per the minimum number required for that class. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister mentioned that she had consultation with the Indo-Canadian community. I would like to ask: where was that, and when did that take place? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: I don't have the exact details or dates of that. It was an informal conversation with people who had requested to meet with me about Punjabi language. We'd be happy, I'm sure, to share that information. I don't have that with me at this point in time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: When we make substantive changes to the existing system, we certainly consult with the community and with the right type of people. There are a number of people who in my opinion should be consulted, particularly when making this kind of change. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As the minister mentioned, the minister has met with a number of Indo-Canadian families or individuals. I would appreciate — if the minister is really serious to consult the community — to consult the right kind of people…. The right people must be part of the consultation process to make it more inclusive. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I will leave with that comment, and my colleague will continue the questions on this particular section of the act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Macdonald: Just questions, then. The minister had said that much of this is going to come with regulation, but I'm sure the minister has thought through the issue of how this is going to be paid for. If the minister could just run through how the courses are going to be paid for. Are they going to come through the district, or are they going to be grants that go directly from the province? Are they going to be grants that come through the province and then are deducted in some way from the district's grant? Could you explain the thinking that has gone into this around budgeting? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: This is the legislative framework, and if the member opposite would look at subsection 3, there's much work to be done. We have made no decisions about how it's going to be paid in terms of the process. We're simply putting in place a legislative framework to allow us to continue the consultation and the implementation of a program that would respect a parent's right to make those choices for their children. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Macdonald: There are implications as to whether this is a supportable section or not. There are implications upon how it's going to be set up. It depends very much on how it's going to be set up. One of the complications around this voucher system is that there are implications for the school district and for other participants in the system. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think that the scenario that my colleague from Surrey–Panorama Ridge laid out is one that will possibly exist around the size of classes. If you then remove certain people by giving them different opportunities, you create complications. You also create complications around the funding that is available for schools and for a board if you have a system in place that would remove part of that funding. There are complications around planning. There are complications around the type of courses that you can offer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The question is: before putting this forward, why would that not have been thought through by the minister? Why would you not consider how you're going to fund it and how you're going to have school boards plan for this? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: We're putting in place the legislative framework to allow us to have this discussion. This has not been finalized in terms of how to work it through. We want to talk to the B.C. School Trustees Association, for example. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Let's be clear. Parents across this province are already making this choice. They have to in some circumstances. This is not about a voucher system. Children today, and the member opposite would know this, go and take courses elsewhere because they require them, and they receive credit for those courses. That exists today. This simply puts a legislative framework in place that allows us to have discussion with our partners about how we might implement this. Those decisions have not been made. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Simons: Did the minister refer earlier to the Royal Conservatory of Music as an example to illustrate this particular section? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: Yes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Simons: If I understand correctly, it's possible that the ministry might be in a position where they'll be reimbursing for courses, including those under the Royal Conservatory of Music? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: I'm concerned that I mentioned the Royal Conservatory of Music. The fact of the matter is that the principle of this bill is that students do that already today. They go and take lessons because they can't get the programs that they need, and they receive credit for it. This simply verifies that principle. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Simons: So this has nothing to do with the cost associated with that — in the minister's example regarding the Royal Conservatory of Music? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: No. In fact, what this says is that this builds a framework that allows us to provide, potentially, some form of modest reimbursement for those courses that students receive credit for that are accredited and actually approved by the ministry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Simons: I'm well aware of the credit one can get for studying music in the high school system, and I think that's good. I do happen to know that it's a very costly endeavour to attain any degree from the Royal Conservatory of Music. It involves, probably, a lot of personal instruction from music teachers on a one-to-one basis. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm just wondering if that was the right example to use when discussing the merits of this particular section and whether or not it will in fact allow parents to be reimbursed for private music lessons. I'm just wondering how that all fits in. I'm not sure. Maybe the example was inappropriate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: The scope and the categories and all of the definitions around what would be supported are yet to be determined. They would obviously be accredited. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the member opposite looks at the subsections listed, very clearly it says that there would be a maximum amount that would be paid. This is not about funding a child's entire Royal Conservatory program. I had a daughter that actually danced ballet, and I can imagine what those costs might be. It's not at all about funding an opportunity like that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Also, in subsection (3)(d) it talks about setting different amounts and different limits for different educational activities. So in fact, it's not about funding a child's musical career. It's about: is there a credit course that the student needs to complete their graduation requirements? If that's the case, this builds a framework that allows us to consider that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: I just have to say, in summarizing on this section, that the minister has attempted to give us comfort that this will be about a very limited range of activities with very modest costs and the like, but I'm afraid that the language as written is absolutely wide open. Anything could be driven through here the way that this is constructed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[S. Hawkins in the chair.]
The message I'm getting from the government is: "You should trust us on this kind of thing." I'm afraid the track record doesn't lend itself to trust in this case. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If this was going to be done, it should be framed around a public discussion first. Then the parameters, the fences, that would contain this so that it might be acceptable and we would have a clear idea of what it would be and the comfort which needs to be embedded in it that this isn't some kind of new monster that would allow the minister to designate activities that school districts would then be required to pay for out of existing budgets…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think that all of that is rather too much trust, and I'm afraid we think that this should not be in the bill in this way at this time. We don't want to see a voucher system introduced by the back door or by sleight of hand into British Columbia. We think that if that is what's contemplated, it should be discussed openly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Hon. J. Les: There's a bogeyman. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: The member suggests that it's a bogeyman, but the bogeyman lives very close to us here, and we know how persuaded you are by the bogeyman. So there may be a degree of paranoia, but it's based on reality — doesn't mean it won't happen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For those reasons, we are going to have to differ with the government on this item in this bill, and it may actually not be the last one. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Section 2 approved on the following division:
YEAS — 43
Falcon
Reid
Coell
Ilich
Chong
Christensen
Les
Richmond
Bell
Krueger
van Dongen
Roddick
Hayer
Lee
Jarvis
Nuraney
Whittred
Horning
Cantelon
Thorpe
Hagen
Oppal
de Jong
Campbell
Taylor
Bond
Hansen
Abbott
Neufeld
Coleman
Hogg
Sultan
Bennett
Lekstrom
Mayencourt
Polak
Hawes
Yap
Bloy
MacKay
Black
McIntyre
Rustad
NAYS — 31
Brar
S. Simpson
Fleming
Farnworth
James
Kwan
B. Simpson
Cubberley
Hammell
Coons
Thorne
Simons
Puchmayr
Gentner
Routley
Fraser
Horgan
Lali
Dix
Trevena
Bains
Robertson
Karagianis
Evans
Austin
Chudnovsky
Chouhan
Wyse
Sather
Macdonald
Conroy
The Chair: I'll give the members a few minutes to clear the chamber. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 3. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: My question is section 3(c), third down: "'first nation' means a 'band', as defined under the Indian Act (Canada), located in British Columbia." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What's the justification for that being included in section 3, please? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Hon. S. Bond: I'll just answer it this way, and if the member opposite isn't satisfied, we'll try it again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is a relatively standard definition that's been added. It's been added so that if a first nation requests the use of personal education numbers, we can actually assign them. But it's only at the request of the first nation. This is here so that it gives us the ability to respond to the first nation's request, and as I've been advised, that is a common definition that's used in other areas. This is so there's an opportunity that if asked by a first nation, we can assign a PEN number to their children. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. For clarification, the amendment…. What brought that on? Was there a request? Were there requests from first nations, from aboriginal peoples in B.C.? Why the change now? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: We are putting this in place so that it would allow first nations, at their request, to actually track the achievement of their children. That's how you do that. It's with a PEN number. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We currently have no ability to do that. So we've had discussions with the First Nations Education Steering Committee and others, who've suggested that there may be particular bands who want to have a PEN number for their children, as their children move through the system or through band schools into public schools. We use PEN numbers with children in public education. This simply allows that same opportunity for first nations children. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 3 approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 4. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: This is an important section of the bill, much larger than the small amount of text that's provided for here. There's been a very long history of lobbying to try to get government to pay attention to the fact that existing voluntary regulations within schools have created a very uneven landscape across B.C.; that there are significant instances of bullying, which take very specific forms, and affect various subpopulations within the school and across B.C.; and that there is a need for much more uniform application of codes of conduct. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's been a lot of discussion — much of which preceded my time in this chamber, but which I was aware of — around specific forms of conduct that require some regulation. One of those, one of the most obvious ones, is around bullying on the grounds of homophobia, which is a very common thing that is encountered in schools across B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The question that I want to lead off in asking is that once again, in bringing this in, it enables a code of conduct for students, but it doesn't provide an outline of mandatory content of that code. I'm interested for the minister to tell the House why it reads that way, rather than being more specific — why that choice was made — especially given the very lively and concerned discussion about this that led up to the introduction of the bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: It's a simple answer. We want to have a discussion with our partners, and certainly the members opposite are always encouraging us to consult. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We expect, first of all, to take this to the Education Advisory Council, which meets and provides advice to the minister. So in fact, there will be the creation of provincial standards. We did not do that in advance of the consultation. We expect to talk to our partners about how this should be defined. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: Interestingly on this, there were some processes of consultation that preceded the legislation. In fact, there were some initiatives originating on the government side which proposed a very specific set of contents for a code of conduct. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]There has been much engagement of partners, and there have been many reform efforts in individual school districts across British Columbia to try to both raise the profile of specific forms of bullying and to put in place programs that would counter them effectively. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
While I am the first among a group of people who are given to recommend consultation and would always be in favour of it, there had been considerable consultation. I doubt very much that there will be anything new by way of identifying the specific forms of activity for which the code of conduct should be responsible and should bear specifically on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, there was a long history to this. I'm just interested to know why the process appears to be at square one when in fact the process is relatively well advanced, I think. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: I would hardly think that making school codes of conduct mandatory is at square one. That's a huge step, and it recognizes the work that's been done. In fact, the work that has been done will be reflected in this discussion. We simply will be meeting to work through what the provincial standards will look like, but certainly the previous consultation will inform that discussion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is a huge step forward. It will recognize the extraordinary work that was done in particular by a government member on this side of the House. We're very pleased about moving this forward. This is about how we implement. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Simons: If I may, just for the record, state the correction was from a private member. I believe that the private member had put forth a private member's bill which would have identified and specifically recognized the need to protect sexual-minority youth and children. This is a blatant oversight from this government. This is what has happened. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is unfortunate in the extreme. It might be a big step in the minister's shoes, but unfortunately, for the gay and lesbian community of this province it's a sad day. It's a sad day that the most bullied, the most victimized group and the most obviously bullied and victimized group in our school system has been left out. It was in, and it has been removed. A reference to gay and lesbian and sexual-minority youth — queer youth — has been eliminated, and they are in need of protection. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They are in need of this protection, this overt and specific protection. I will say why. It is because without that explicit mention, the codes of conduct can continue to be applied in an uneven fashion. They can be applied by people who do not agree with the particular lifestyle, as it's referred to by many, and who may not have the same interest in enforcing these regulations or enforcing a code of conduct that includes the protection of gay and lesbian children and youth. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think the government needs to answer that specific question. Why was that eliminated from the private member's bill when it was put into this act? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: The bill on the floor of the Legislature today respects the value of honesty and integrity and protecting all children in public education. It is a significant step forward to recognize that there was inconsistency in codes of conduct across school districts. This bill makes certain that there will be codes of conduct in place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As I pointed out earlier to the members opposite, there will be discussion about how the provincial standards are created and how they're implemented. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Simons: Let me quote from the McCreary Centre study. "All young people regardless of sexual orientation deserve the opportunity to grow and thrive in their communities and their families, reaching the promise of a healthy and productive adult life. Understanding risks and protective factors in their lives can help guide strategies for creating those opportunities." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would submit that a protective factor includes the specific reference to them. They will feel included, they will know that they are protected, and they'll know they'll have rights. The answer that they need to go through court in order to have their rights protected is a failure — a legislative and regulatory failure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is doing nothing for the little queer youth of B.C. This is doing nothing to protect them from the perceived discrimination, from perceived harassment and from actual harassment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Victimization in school. Sexual-minority teens were generally more likely to report having experiences, and 50 percent in this very large longitudinal study in British Columbia felt they had been harassed, excluded or even assaulted in school. Madam Chair, I think when you look at statistics like that, it's almost like what isn't being said is so loud, and it is so clearly missing from this legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you ask any queer adult in British Columbia, they will understand. They will understand the need to protect young people before they have self-identified. I think that one protective factor would be the actual stated position of government that they are interested in at least protecting these young people. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I give full credit to the private member representing Vancouver-Burrard for knowing that this was an important inclusion in an act. Its omission is very, very obvious. It's an omission that is unfortunate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The suicide rate…. Madam Chair, you look at all of the health indicators for queer youth in our schools, and they're higher in terms of negative outcomes than for any other group. How could they be so systematically ignored in an act that purports to protect children and youth in our school system? How could the biggest group of the most victimized population be specifically ignored? I find that troubling; I find that problematic. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't think that the minister's explanation is satisfactory. Whether you're a young child in Vancouver-Burrard or a young child in a rural part of Peace River or anywhere else, you should feel, you should know that there is a standard in this province to which we must all strive, not one to pick and choose if the principal, the PAC, or the group of teachers or parents who happen to get together on that particular subject understand the need to protect children who are in those vulnerable categories. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think this is an omission that needs to be corrected — don't you think? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: Madam Chair, I don't know if there are other members in the House who wish to speak to this or not, but if there are no other members who want to speak at this time…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Simons: I'll speak some more. That was a question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: I wish to give you an opportunity to, Member. I would like to move an amendment to this section, so I will submit that to the Clerk and see if that's in order. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY][to amend Section 4 by adding the following section:
4 (c) a board's codes of conduct must explicitly protect students from homophobic bullying.]The Chair: Continue while we look at it, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: Madam Chair, this is an amendment that would specifically identify that a board's code of conduct must explicitly protect students from homophobic bullying. The intent of this would be to…. This is not exhaustive, but it is illustrative, and I think my colleague has indicated why. This is the most prevalent form of bullying, with often…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: The amendment is in order, so continue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On the amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: It's the most prevalent form of bullying, with typically the absolutely most devastating of consequences in people's lives. It's very important that this issue be addressed in an even-handed manner across schools in British Columbia. If we are attempting to create a tolerant and pluralistic society, which I believe our education act gives us a visionary commitment to, then it is essential this form of behaviour be addressed. This was very much a part of the discussion which preceded this bill coming into the House, which was a broader public discussion than the one we're having in this chamber today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But as my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast indicated, this is something which has disappeared from view. It is a disappearance that we think should not have occurred. Therefore, we're moving an amendment that we hope the House will support. We are certain that the broader public supports this, and we feel very strongly that it should have been part of this bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]N. Simons: Yes, I think that it's important to identify not only the safety factors associated with queer youth…. I use the word "queer" because it's the common parlance now, and it encompasses a variety of sexual minorities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I believe that more important perhaps to the minister is the attachment to school and the success in school. I would submit that any child who feels safe in their school system and who feels wanted and respected and actually feels acknowledged on the basic level of acknowledgment…. If a child or youth feels acknowledged in their school, their chances of feeling successful or being successful in that school system are much greater. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The McCreary study indicates that queer youth are less likely to find school enjoyable. It probably will have an impact on their outcomes, and I understand that to be of primary concern right now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
School operates as a protective factor. In my growing up and that of the colleagues surrounding me, we had parents, we had teachers, we had community, and we had religion. We had various forms of protective services. We cannot count on every child having those same supportive structures around them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just as much for the young child in the lower mainland or in the interior or wherever they happen to be, they need to know that it's explicitly stated that they will be recognized, acknowledged and protected. That's why I believe, in part — for many reasons, in fact — that we need to specifically mention…. I believe it's the specific mention that is necessary to make this have the breadth of fairness we would like it to have. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With that, Madam Chair, I believe there are other members who'd like to speak to this amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. Wyse: I, too, rise to speak in favour of the amendment. I wish to share with the House my experience of being in the classroom for a very long period of time. Assuredly, one of the items that is brought to challenge in a school situation is sexual identity. One of the biggest putdowns is sexual orientation. Assuredly, removing any doubt about a school being a safe place for all students requires this particular item to be itemized here in this legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This aspect of challenging a student and challenging their security rests around this particular area. This aspect can't be left to what happens around the province with the various groups. This is a responsibility that assuredly rests here in this legislation — to send out the message loudly and clearly throughout all of British Columbia that the school will be a safe environment for all students, regardless of their sexual orientation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I encourage the House to vote in favour of this particular amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
L. Mayencourt: This is an issue that has been the focus of a lot of my work over the last several years, and it's something that I feel quite passionate about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As most people know, I'm a gay man. I grew up in Surrey; I went to school there. I was subjected to bullying. I witnessed people being bullied. I at times tried to avoid being in contact with people that were being bullied, because I didn't want to give them the support. If I gave them the support, that would mean I was one of them, and I would become the target. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As a young person I grew up with a fair bit of fear in my school life. The effect of that was that I chose not to become fully engaged in a lot of activities. I decided that I would protect my sexual orientation, my identity, from my classmates. It took me several years after graduating from high school before I was able to recognize and talk to my friends and my family about the fact that I was gay. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]A young man by the name of Hamed Nastoh grew up in Surrey. He was 14 years old, and he was taunted regularly for being gay. According to Hamed, he was not, and I accept that. According to his mother, he was not. I accept that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Nonetheless, he was targeted, and people made fun of him. One night he sat down and wrote a note to his mother and said to her what had happened. Then he walked over to the Pattullo Bridge and jumped into the Fraser River. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I cannot express the sadness that I feel or the connection that I feel with Hamed — partly because we grew up in the same neighbourhood, partly because we were both struggling with people that might want to make us a target of bullying. So I have always…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can remember the morning that Hamed died. I was with Christy Clark. We were in opposition at that point, and I said to her: "You know, there is something wrong with our school system that it doesn't protect kids from that kind of harassment." We made a pact on that day that given the opportunity in government, we would do our very best to address that issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I remember a young lady by the name of Dawn-Marie Wesley, who was taunted by a bunch of girls because they just didn't think she was cool and hip. They told her that they were going to kill her. She went home one night and wrote a letter to her mom, told her what happened, and then she went downstairs and took a dog leash, wrapped it around a pipe and hung herself. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I cannot stand what happened to her. I cannot express my sorrow adequately as to what occurred to her and her life and what her mother lives with every day. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I had the pleasure of meeting a young man by the name of Azmi Jubran. I think Azmi is about 20 now. He went to school in North Vancouver, and for four years in the hallways of his school he was taunted for being gay. He wasn't gay, but he was taunted for it. They beat him up. They set fire to his shirt. They threw him into lockers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I met a young man in Prince George who was taunted for being gay. He was gay. He was fairly comfortable with it, so he was pretty open about it in school. One day in the midst of being taunted, someone threw an open bottle of urine on him. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]I met a young girl, Emily-Anne Galbraith, who was in grade 3 and being taunted because she had a hyphenated name: Emily-Anne. She was too sick to go to school because of it, and it was a terrible experience for her. One day when she was wearing white pants to school, someone put a chocolate doughnut on her seat. She sat down on it, and you can imagine what it looked like. Her teacher would not allow her to go home and change out of her white pants with the brown stain. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I met a young girl, who would not want me to tell her name, who was in a school in Whistler. She was accused by another girl of trying to come on to the other girl's boyfriend. She was beaten quite severely by six or seven girls. It's my recollection that is incomplete there — but by a number of young ladies from that school. They tormented her. They threatened to kill her. They went through an extraordinary period of time where the family tried to keep this young lady in the school. Eventually they moved her to Squamish, and she never wanted to see Whistler ever again. She has made out all right. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have met many thousands of students in British Columbia over the course of the last six years. I have been to assemblies where there are hundreds of kids. I have been to small groups where it's just a group of little kids that are talking about effective behaviour support or some program that they've developed. I've got to tell you that I'm deeply touched and moved by the kinds of efforts they make. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know the efforts that they make, make a difference, but I am always struck by the fact that when I ask people to stand up if they've ever been bullied, if they've ever seen anybody bullied or if they've ever bullied someone themselves, almost without exception 90 percent of the students stand up. All of the students are joined by almost all of the teachers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have spent a long time trying to look at this, and one of the flaws in our system has always been that the province has never required that school districts put in a code of conduct. That's the key. That's the key, because the flaw in the legislation is that a school district may develop a school code of conduct. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I've spent a lot of time, and I've produced a couple of bills that I've put forward in this House. I have made it very clear in the Safe Schools Task Force report and in the legislation that I've put forward that I think it's important — as important as the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast said it was — to specifically name homophobia or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have always believed it should include those who are considered to have a gender identity in question. I also believe that we have in the Human Rights Code a document that is extremely important, which talks about the ways in which adults can be discriminated against in our society. All British Columbians have embraced our Human Rights Code, which says it's wrong. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I've always wanted to be able to say that the Safe Schools Act or this piece of legislation would say that the Human Rights Code needs to be observed in the school codes of conduct in British Columbia. I've always believed that. The amendment that's moved is a really…. I know it's heartfelt. I would like very much to see it pass, along with 16 or 17 other items that are listed in the B.C. Human Rights Code. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]I have fought this battle for six years. I've given everything I possibly could to make this thing pass. I've given everything. I've talked to everyone. I've talked to the Minister of Education about it and the Premier and others in my caucus. They know where I stand, and they know what I believe, and they support me. I know they do, or I wouldn't sit on this side of the House. I wouldn't sit in the House here. I know that they are trying the very best that they can. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This one little move, changing it from "may" to "should" is huge. It's huge. There is no way around it. It's huge. It is important to me to see that it gets passed, because I see it as the first step of many that we will have to take. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister has taken a lot of heat for putting one word in there, and I know how much heat that is, because I've experienced it, too, as I've travelled around the province — from school districts that say, "We don't have a problem," to parents that say, "It's not a good idea to do it," and all that sort of stuff. I've seen that around this province, so I know how huge that is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The amendment talks to homophobia. It's not enough. It isn't just homophobia. There is racism; there is sexism; there are religionisms; and there is ageism. Every kind of "ism" you can think of under the sun is there. So I can't support that particular amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I can do is offer up everything that I know about this to members here in the House, to the Minister of Education and to the people of British Columbia that happen to be listening today. That is that this is a fine first step. We need to get to a point where school districts are obliged, legally, to have a code of conduct. That code of conduct has to be based on provincial standards that can be set by the Minister of Education. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We will have a chance in a few minutes, when this amendment is voted on and we find out whether it passes or not…. We will go back to section 4. We will vote on that, and we will talk about that. I will bring up the questions that you've brought up and that members opposite have brought up. I will ask the minister about her views on the specific naming of homophobia and gender identity and sex and age and all of that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't know what her answers are going to be. I think I know the woman very well, and I think that she will confirm her commitment to making sure that all kids are protected from all of those "isms," including homophobia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I will do is continue the fight. This has been six years to change one word. It is important that we do it, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak to the bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: Just in closing, I want to thank the member and all members for their comments on it. That was heartfelt and very difficult at points to listen to, simply because of the human tragedy that was revealed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have put the amendment up in part because while we're very, very supportive of the direction, we're very concerned that there are no specifics in it and that this could become an exercise in a kind of vague prescription around codes of conduct rather than something that is targeted to the profound change that's needed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's for those reasons that we want to put, and persist in putting, a specific content up, because this is the kind of content — the first among equals, if you will — that needs to be mandated in a code of conduct and that we need to hear, from government, a commitment to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Hon. S. Bond: I think all of us have been moved and appreciate the passion and the views that have been shared on both sides of the House. But I don't think I could say it any better or any more accurately than my colleague and friend who has said clearly that while this would be something that one might want to support instantly, from our perspective, bullying is about children who may be overweight, maybe about children who are…. There are issues with race. There are considerable other lists of definitions and descriptors that we could add. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So while we appreciate — and this is a very difficult discussion to have heard or participated in…. We will not be supporting the amendment that's been tabled. We have committed to working through a process that would see the provincial standards for codes of conduct set. I can only once again reiterate how important the work is that our colleague has done in bringing this issue to the floor of the House, to a place where there will be consistency across British Columbia, and school boards will be required to have codes of conduct in place. But we will not be supporting the amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Macdonald: Just to speak in favour of the motion. Certainly I appreciated the passion that members have brought to this. I understand that for the minister as well, there is a commitment to deal with this issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The reason I think it's important to go ahead is because my experience in high school is that of course bullying does take place, and of course the attempt is to limit it. In putting together a code of conduct, the most difficult part will be including the protections that we've talked about today. That is going to be the most politically contentious. It is going to be the most difficult for boards. I think that we're agreed here that it's a step that needs to be taken. It's sensible to me that it's a decision that we can make and insist that boards, as they put together their codes of conduct, specifically deal with this one issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There was a report that I think my colleague here mentioned was just completed today or in the past week. None of the information that they give would surprise us, but I think the figure that's here, in terms of discrimination and in terms of people that have experienced abuse…. This report done on youth in B.C. says that for sexual orientation, people — bisexual teens and so on — are 20 times more likely to face incidents of bullying. You have gay and lesbian teens indicating they're 50 times more likely than heterosexual teens to be victims of abuse. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To me, it makes complete sense to proceed with this amendment, especially given the speeches we've heard today. If this place works the way I think many of the public would expect it to work, we should be moved by the debate that takes place here. Too often it seems that that does not happen. Certainly, in listening to the debate, I think anyone who has listened, the members from both sides, would be moved to see the importance of supporting this motion. I certainly intend to support it, and I hope others will as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Amendment negatived on the following division:
YEAS — 31
Brar
S. Simpson
Fleming
Farnworth
James
Kwan
B. Simpson
Cubberley
Hammell
Coons
Thorne
Simons
Puchmayr
Gentner
Routley
Fraser
Horgan
Lali
Dix
Trevena
Bains
Robertson
Karagianis
Evans
Austin
Chudnovsky
Chouhan
Wyse
Sather
Macdonald
Conroy
NAYS — 43
Falcon
Reid
Coell
Ilich
Chong
Christensen
Les
Richmond
Bell
Krueger
van Dongen
Roddick
Hayer
Lee
Jarvis
Nuraney
Whittred
Horning
Cantelon
Thorpe
Hagen
Oppal
de Jong
Campbell
Taylor
Bond
Hansen
Abbott
Neufeld
Coleman
Hogg
Sultan
Hawkins
Bennett
Lekstrom
Mayencourt
Polak
Hawes
Yap
MacKay
Black
McIntyre
Rustad
The Chair: The amendment is defeated. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Shall sections…? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: I have a question as to whether an amendment can be moved verbally. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: The Clerks have to receive a written notice. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: I would like to propose an amendment to the bill that would make the mandatory code of conduct for students consistent with the principles of the B.C. Human Rights Code. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY][to amend Section 4 by adding the following section:
4 (c) a board's codes of conduct must be consistent with the principles of the BC Human Rights Code.]On the amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: I would just like to speak in favour of this amendment. I don't want to speak long. I think that from the tenor of debate in here, we've heard considerable support for that on both sides of the House, and we should put it to the test. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So I would like to have division called on this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Is there any debate? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: You know, we've been clear throughout the course of this discussion that first of all, this is a major step for school districts across the province. We have said that we will now insist that codes of conduct be put in place in every school district across the province. We have spent considerable time drafting a bill that is now on the floor of the House. We've said to the critic and members opposite that the next step for us is to bring together a group of people to discuss how best to implement this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Obviously, one of the considerations that would take place at that time would be the scope and nature of the codes of conduct. We've already made it clear that we would more than welcome the representatives that have spoken today to come and be a part of that process. But in fact, we are clear. We want codes of conduct in place. We're going to have a discussion about how this moves forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, that discussion will include a discussion about the Human Rights Code and how that applies to school districts and how it may or may not be incorporated. But we are not going to support the motion that's made on the floor of the House today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Simons: First of all, I think it's probably contrary to what the minister said — that they spent a lot of time. This is a section that I think is one section, and it has to do with changing one word. Despite evidence to the contrary, the minister seems to think this is a big step. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, this is a very small step. It's a one-word change, and what the opposition is proposing — and rightfully so, I might add — is to recognize the Human Rights Code of British Columbia and make it part of that act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Unless the minister has some specific problem with the Human Rights Code, there should be no reason not to include it as a reference in this particular act, so at least we know that the codes of conduct that are established, willy-nilly, across the province have at its basis at least, the fundamental principles that we ascribe to here in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Amendment negatived on the following division:
YEAS — 32
Mayencourt
Brar
S. Simpson
Fleming
Farnworth
James
Kwan
B. Simpson
Cubberley
Hammell
Coons
Thorne
Simons
Puchmayr
Gentner
Routley
Fraser
Horgan
Lali
Dix
Trevena
Bains
Robertson
Karagianis
Evans
Austin
Chudnovsky
Chouhan
Wyse
Sather
Macdonald
Conroy
NAYS — 40
Falcon
Reid
Coell
Ilich
Christensen
Les
Richmond
Bell
Krueger
van Dongen
Roddick
Hayer
Lee
Jarvis
Nuraney
Whittred
Horning
Cantelon
Thorpe
Hagen
Oppal
de Jong
Campbell
Taylor
Bond
Hansen
Abbott
Neufeld
Coleman
Hogg
Sultan
Hawkins
Bennett
Lekstrom
Polak
Hawes
Yap
MacKay
McIntyre
Rustad
On section 4. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Mayencourt: A question to the minister. I'd like to explore some of the possibilities that exist for us down the road. There are a number of individuals that I've worked with through the Safe Schools Task Force, through the Safe Schools Act. These include individuals with the Human Rights Tribunal. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Perhaps I should wait until your staff have arrived. Is it okay? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Mayencourt: Okay. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I've had the opportunity to work with the Human Rights Tribunal and the Community Legal Assistance Society. Also, as was mentioned by the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, the McCreary Centre has done a lot of work on this as well. There is also the Gay and Lesbian Educators of British Columbia and, of course, some of the work you are doing around the social justice piece in grade 12. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[S. Hawkins in the chair.]
When we do that consultation with the school districts, can we include those individuals? And have you got in mind either individuals or organizations to include in that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we certainly do intend to speak to partner groups. We would be happy to work with the member to work through how we can have the discussion be informed about those matters that have been discussed here today. To the member: we certainly intend to include those participants in the discussion and would welcome the member being involved in that discussion as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Mayencourt: As the minister knows, I will always be ready to do that, and I'm sure that those other partners will be as well. Perhaps the amendment which was just defeated was a little bit…. It was drawn up hastily, and it might have had implications that could not have been acceptable or possible for government. I appreciate that fact or that potential. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would just ask if the minister would support in general the direction that would make all of the various items under the Human Rights Code part of the provincial standard. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: I certainly appreciate the challenge that the member faced in terms of an amendment on the floor. There are a number of things that are important to consider. There are always or may always be unintended consequences. So let's be perfectly clear. While it's easy to draft amendments on the floor of the House, we also need to be thoughtful about legislation in terms of what the consequences might be. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We need to be careful about the fact of law of general application when we talk about the Human Rights Code, because though it might not expressly be referenced, obviously, it is contemplated. As I said to the member previously, one of the discussions we will have as we explore the codes of conduct is on the application of the Human Rights Code — how that impacts this, what the consequence might be. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]While it's easy to draft on the floor of the House, we want to make sure that codes of conduct are drafted and put in place correctly. We will certainly have a conversation that includes a discussion about the Human Rights Code. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
N. Simons: Well, I'm sorry. That seems to me like a bit of a copout. If you think about unintended consequences, Madam Chair, you should think about the young children in this province who do not have specifically stated in their codes of conduct in their schools, as required by law, protection from bullying and harassment, and that's on the record. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's what's been voted on today, and it's unfortunate that the vote has turned this way. I think the government has a long way to go to protect the vulnerable children in our school system. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 4 to 24 inclusive approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 25. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to section 25 of Bill 22, the Education Statutes Amendment Act, standing in my name in the order papers, please. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY][SECTION 25, by adding the following section:
Removal or destruction of individual identifiers
170.5 Any person using personal information for the purposes referred to in the following provisions must remove or destroy individual identifiers from that information at the earliest reasonable time:
(a) section 170.1 (3) (d) and (k);
(b) section 170.4 (4) (b) and (c).]On the amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: Madam Chair, just because I'm preoccupied with things, can you clarify: did the minister introduce an amendment to the statute? And this is about the removal or destruction of individual identifiers? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: It's on the order paper, and the minister has moved it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: May I speak to it? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Yes. Continue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: I appreciate the minister taking the initiative to bring the amendment in. We had actually drafted an amendment, not quite the same as this but to deal with making anonymization part of the bill. We think it's very good practice to do that, and we also noted that the Information and Privacy Commissioner had recommended it, so we're pleased to see the government side do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is part of grooming a bill. I naively, as a first-term legislator, like to think that it's something we can do in the chamber, to actually improve legislation, and I appreciate the government taking this step in that direction. We will support the amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Amendment approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 25 as amended approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 26 to 32 inclusive approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 33. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Cubberley: I just want to weigh in briefly on this one. This is an item which I think is — we'll see if the minister will live to regret this — although perhaps well intentioned, the kind of thing which will not be appreciated by the membership that the mailing system is intended to allow her to communicate with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it's not a particularly noble use of the college to try to take a self-regulating profession and require that profession to deliver messages from the minister to it. It is not a good idea; it's a bad idea. The minister has very many tools that she can use to communicate directly and indirectly with teachers and all people working within the education system. To take the step of taking a self-regulating profession and requiring that it distribute information supplied by the minister, we think, is not an appropriate step. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you put yourself in the position of a teacher, this will be a conduit for essentially what are like mass-distribution flyers coming from the centre. It's not really a good idea. It's not a good idea for the college to be put in this position, and we are therefore opposed to this section of the bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Section 33 approved on division. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 34 to 54 inclusive approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Title approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved on division. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee rose at 5 p.m. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Reporting of Bills
EDUCATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2007Bill 22, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete with amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be reported as read? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Leave granted. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Third Reading of Bills
EDUCATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2007Bill 22, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, read a third time on the following division and passed:
YEAS — 42
Falcon
Reid
Coell
Ilich
Chong
Christensen
Les
Richmond
Bell
Krueger
van Dongen
Roddick
Hayer
Lee
Jarvis
Nuraney
Whittred
Horning
Cantelon
Thorpe
Hagen
Oppal
de Jong
Campbell
Taylor
Bond
Hansen
Abbott
Neufeld
Hogg
Sultan
Hawkins
Bennett
Lekstrom
Mayencourt
Polak
Hawes
Yap
Bloy
MacKay
McIntyre
Rustad
NAYS — 30
Brar
S. Simpson
Fleming
Farnworth
Kwan
B. Simpson
Cubberley
Hammell
Coons
Thorne
Simons
Puchmayr
Gentner
Routley
Fraser
Horgan
Lali
Dix
Trevena
Bains
Robertson
Karagianis
Evans
Austin
Chudnovsky
Chouhan
Wyse
Sather
Macdonald
Conroy
Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate of Bill 32, the Assessment Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Committee of the Whole House
ASSESSMENT STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2007The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 32; S. Hawkins in the chair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee met at 5:10 p.m. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 1 approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 2. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Robertson: In section 2, will the minister clarify the implications of this amended definition of "farm" for the small holdings in B.C. in farmland? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: Thank you for the question. There is no change here other than to provide better customer service, for example. This will give us the flexibility on late filings. In the past when people missed the deadlines, we were bound by the legislation. This will create flexibility and will actually assist those in rural areas and farms throughout British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Robertson: In assisting those farms by providing that additional leeway on deadlines, what are the implications for the provincial treasury? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: We estimate none at this point in time. We don't think there will be any at all. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Robertson: Does the minister have an accurate sense of how many parties are affected by this and how many farms this will benefit? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: Under 20 a year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Robertson: Are there any implications other than the leeway on the deadline, extending the deadline, for farmers or farmland in B.C.? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: No. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 2 to 11 inclusive approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 12. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Robertson: In section 12 the new definition of "strata accommodation property" is added here. There are a great many details, some of which were discussed in second reading, related to this change and the ensuing taxation related to occupancy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the minister identify what implications this will have in terms of net impact on revenues for municipalities and regional districts? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, it is very difficult to estimate a number. What we're actually doing is reflecting the realities of a marketplace based on taking into account a substantial court case. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We estimate at this point in time, on a provincial average, a number in the range of $3 million to $4 million per year when you look at all the communities that we believe are impacted. At the same time, my belief is that we also have to take into account…. For instance, the new construction for 2006 is a substantial number and ranges in total, I think, about $21 million, $22 million or $24 million. It's very hard to just take one number and say that this is the impact of that. You've got to look at a variety of things. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In some communities where they are now going to have the ability for the additional hotel tax, an amount of 2 percent — for argument's sake, Whistler, which now has that ability — it's about $7 million additional revenue they're going to get from that. That was retroactive to July 2006, I believe. Over a five-year period, on that part they're going to get $35 million. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's very hard. I don't think it's quite fair…. I'm not suggesting that the member was suggesting this, but when you just look at one part, obviously you're going to get a certain picture. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I'm saying is for the municipalities and regional districts, etc., when we take into account the court case, we know we're doing the right thing here. There have been a number of things that are actually going to assist municipalities, regional districts and the province as we move forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Robertson: It sounds like if you look at the big picture, as the minister describes it, it may all work itself out in the wash. What we need to ascertain here in this debate on Bill 32 is specifically what costs will be borne by the communities. The minister mentioned Whistler in particular, and he mentioned a $3 million to $4 million a year average provincially. Does the minister have detail on exactly which communities are affected adversely by this change? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: We have estimates of key communities — for instance, Victoria, approximately $600,000; Whistler, about $1.2 million; Parksville, $59,000; Tofino, $2,500; Kamloops rural area, about $275,000; Penticton, $2,000; Vancouver, $1.4 million. The rest of the province makes up the difference, and that's why I say the range is about $3 million to $4 million. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Robertson: Can the minister clarify what consultation is taking place with all of the communities that are affected? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: My deputy advises me that senior staff talked to all of the major communities. My deputy did that, and other staff talked to the other communities. Also, there were discussions with UBCM. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I apologize to my staff for not introducing them when I first spoke today. I'd like to acknowledge to the House that my deputy minister, Robin Ciceri, is here; Rob Fraser, who has been working diligently on quarterbacking this through; and Karen Dunham. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]G. Robertson: The result of the consultation of the ministry staff…. I'm curious if there were any tangible results — if any changes were effected when this legislation was drafted — in how municipalities would be affected by the legislation, based on those consultations. Or was it purely for information purposes? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: We had extensive consultations and discussions with Whistler and also with the hotel and resort industry, the tourism industry of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is an issue that has been outstanding in British Columbia for 15 years. We talked, taking into account the court case that said we should be moving to actual use. Quite frankly, to my recollection there was never any voice of objection to moving to actual use. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
People understand that; they accept that. I remember the tourism association in one community in particular saying to us that we should try to resolve this because it was becoming so difficult for owners in that particular community. The community was Whistler. There was some concern that they may move the units out of the rental pool, which everyone in Whistler knows would not have been a helpful thing. So that's the answer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Robertson: Is there any revenue change for the province resulting from this legislation and this section? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: No. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Robertson: So all of the net differences in terms of taxation, based on usage at this point, are borne by the municipal level. Is that right? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: There is no direct adverse effect on the province. I think it's important to realize that when we went through this, we actually approached it from a principles basis. Let me just go through the principles, if I could. I've always found it difficult that when you focus only on dollars and cents, you do not make some of these things stand the test of fairness. So we developed a number of principles. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The first was to support the resort development strategy in all regions of the province of British Columbia. Second, to support the tourism strategy in doubling tourism industry revenues by 2015. Third, to improve customer service. Fourth, to promote fairness and equity. Fifth, to improve consistency in assessing conventional and strata hotels, minimizing the financial impacts, being administratively feasible for B.C. Assessment, being consistent with the British Columbia Supreme Court ruling and having no impact on existing class-1 owners. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 12 to 16 inclusive approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 17. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Robertson: On section 17, the designation for ski hill properties. Within section 17, what are the eligibility requirements as anticipated by this legislation for the designation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Hon. R. Thorpe: Moving forward on the ski hill issue — and I do appreciate the member asking this question, hon. Chair — it was done working in partnership with the industry. The ski hills that are impacted are Whistler Blackcomb, Big White, Silver Star, Fernie, Sun Peaks, Mount Washington, Cypress Mountain, Panorama, Seymour Mountain, Apex Alpine, Kimberley Alpine, Red Mountain, Whitewater, Kicking Horse, Hemlock Valley and Mount Baldy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On the review, the ministry worked closely with the Canada West Ski Association and with B.C. Assessment. B.C. Assessment focused on what were deemed to be the province's major hills, and for these purposes narrowed that on those hills that consistently had 50,000 or more ski visits per year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Robertson: Were there ski hills that were maybe around 50,000 or just below that threshold, which were left out of this designation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: Grouse Mountain chose not to be part of the process. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Robertson: Does the minister have any sense of why Grouse Mountain did not want to participate in the process? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: No, I do not. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Robertson: Were there any other ski hills, ski areas, that were not included in this designation that are around the 50,000-skier mark? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: Not to my knowledge. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Robertson: In terms of the change here by which ski hills pay tax according to the number of people skiing there, what is the anticipated change to revenues flowing to the province created by this measure? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: The industry worked very, very closely and had been working on this for a couple of years. A year ago we were hopeful that we could bring some change. Unfortunately, as the industry wrote me and apologized, they could not find consensus. They did find consensus, and that's why we were able to move forward with B.C. Assessment. I must say the staff at B.C. Assessment did a great job. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interestingly enough, in reaching this new methodology, which I guess creates certainty and consistency for the hills…. Looking at the methodology that they all accepted, the estimated tax will move from about $2.9 million to $3.1 million. Of course, that will go to the communities and regions in which these ski hills are located. I must say that this is the result of the industry bringing forward its approach and working with B.C. Assessment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Robertson: Were there any voices in the industry, ski hills or communities that expressed concerns regarding these changes? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: Not to my knowledge. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 17 approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 18. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: I'm very concerned with the authority that cabinet may have in designating port competitiveness. We've seen a competitiveness review many years ago, and municipalities have been on the hook ever since. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Just briefly to some of the quick designations on eligible port land. Unfortunately, I wasn't there for the briefing. Nevertheless, just for the record, can the minister explain to us what is defined as a navigable waterway? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: It's my understanding that that term is the waters that are navigable as defined by the Coast Guard. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: Hon. Chair, I couldn't hear the answer from the minister. Could he maybe turn up the volume somehow? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm not used to being quiet before. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's my understanding, and I've been advised by staff, that navigable waters are those waters as defined by the Coast Guard. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: I would assume, therefore, that it would include such things as rowboats and almost anything. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: I have no knowledge of that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: I look forward to the day that I'm on the front bench, so I can listen to the minister. For some reason, the audio isn't coming to me. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: Apparently, the member did not hear. To his question about whether rowboats qualify or not, I have no knowledge whether rowboats qualify. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: It's important. I don't want to be facetious here, but there are a number of harbours throughout British Columbia that may be eligible port land. I know that in my community Ladner Slough is intertidal. Without proper dredging, we're seeing it being filled up. Nevertheless, there are fishing boats using it, etc., so there's some discrepancy or misunderstanding, maybe on my part, about what is known as eligible port land. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To the minister, does the meaning of eligible port land or what could be an eligible port land have to be consulted with FREMP, the Fraser River Estuary Management Project? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Member, could you repeat your question, please. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: For the designation of eligible port land, what is the relationship or consultation with the Fraser River Estuary Management Project? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: We are not setting the definition here. The definition of an eligible port is consistent with other legislation in British Columbia today. This is not a new definition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: Well, relative to the amendment act itself, did the ministry consult at all with the Fraser River Estuary Management Project? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: I do not believe that the Fraser is impacted by this legislation. In fact, the areas that are impacted by this are North Vancouver, the district of North Vancouver, Vancouver, Delta, Port Moody, Surrey, Squamish and Prince Rupert. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: So the Fraser River Port Authority and lands thereof are not impacted by this? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: We do not have the answer to that question with us. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]G. Gentner: That's a huge swath of land, the lower mainland. It consists of two major port waterways. One is Burrard Inlet and those that are under the authority of the Vancouver Port Authority and, of course, the Fraser River Port Authority, which follows its way all the way up to Mission. I would have to assume that there is a legitimate port under statute by the government of Canada called the Fraser River Port Authority. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again I'll ask the question. Is this legislation, including the eligible port land, applicable to all port authorities on the Fraser River? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: Let me once again say that the areas covered by this fall under the jurisdiction of the municipalities of the city of North Vancouver, the district of North Vancouver, Vancouver, Delta, Port Moody, Surrey, Squamish and Prince Rupert. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: Therefore I take it as yes, because the only port facility in Surrey is along the Fraser. I have to ask the question: why isn't New Westminster part of this statute? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: Just to assist and perhaps provide some clarification, the designated port properties that this bill covers are the city of Vancouver, Centerm Terminal; city of Vancouver, Agricore United; city of Vancouver, Vanterm; city of Vancouver, Pacific Elevators; city of Vancouver, Cascadia; city of North Vancouver, James Richardson International; city of North Vancouver, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool; city of North Vancouver, Lynnterm West Gate; city of North Vancouver, Neptune; city of North Vancouver, Lynnterm East Gate; city of North Vancouver, Lynnterm East Gate berth. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
City of Port Moody, Pacific Coast Terminals; city of Prince Rupert, Prince Rupert Grain; city of Prince Rupert, Ridley; corporation of Delta, Westshore; corporation of Delta, Deltaport; corporation of Delta, Fraser Surrey Docks; district of North Vancouver, Fibreco; district of North Vancouver, Lynnterm East Gate; district North Vancouver, Lynnterm East Gate berth; district of North Vancouver, Dow Chemical; city of Surrey, Fraser Surrey Docks; district of Squamish, Squamish Terminal. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Those are the folios, the designated port properties that are impacted by this — none others to my knowledge. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: Has the ministry consulted with all municipalities that are involved with this or are going to be impacted? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, thanks for the question. I must say that these changes are the direct result of a Supreme Court of British Columbia ruling. The formula for determining the new land process ports was developed in consultation and endorsed by the Wharf Operators Association, which represents the major port operators in British Columbia. The amendments have been reviewed with UBCM and affected local governments. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: I know there's a regular process. Excuse me, it's been a while since I've been involved in that process, the assessment board, the quarter revision, etc. What is the appeal process for a municipality relative to disputing what cabinet may designate as an eligible port land? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Hon. R. Thorpe: They go to the review panel, and from there, they go to the appeal board. From there, should they wish to, they go to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: I had to clarify that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In subsection (7): "In making regulations under that subsection, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may provide for the use of a consumer price index published…." If cabinet decides not to use the consumer price index, what other framework do you foresee cabinet using? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: It is our intention at this time to use the consumer price index. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: The bill says "may," so I'm assuming that's quite an open-ended ability by cabinet. Is that not correct? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: The intention that we have worked under has always been — and it has been my intention and the intention of my staff, the wharf operators and the folks at B.C. Assessment — that we would be going forward on the consumer price index methodology. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: All the municipalities in question here are going to be affected by this. Can the minister explain to the House right now what the total tax revenue is for all the municipalities with the current tax scheme that's been in place for 2006? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: We do not have that detailed information here with us with respect to those individual properties that I talked to you about — what their tax bill was for 2006. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: The assessment authority does go through reviews. Can the minister therefore give us an idea what the foreseen or the projected increase of taxes is on those same lands by 2010? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: We actually do not know what the tax bill is going to be in 2010 because we do not know what the assessed values are going to be. We're in 2007. We have no idea what the CPI is going to be, which we have every intention of applying, so it would only be by speculating that we would have any idea what the tax bill would be in the year 2010. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: That's the point, isn't it? Cabinet has arbitrary authority now to make a decision, with or without the consumer price index, on what the land is going to be appraised or assessed at, which will have a direct impact on municipalities that are trying to deal with operation budgets, capital budgets, etc. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess another question I have here is: will berthing corridors in the ports remain tax-exempt? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Member, could you please repeat the question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: Some time ago the current provincial government — back, I think, in 2003-04 — through a tax relief initiative for lower mainland ports, decided to roll back certain rates for the ports. Of course, one of the benefits to the ports — not to the municipalities, I might add — was that berthing corridors were tax-exempt. Will this remain under this act? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Gentner: The initiative was to finish within five years, by 2008. So I'm taking it, therefore, that's what this whole purpose is — to continue with what the province had done or to give a break to the ports and arbitrarily decide the value of the zoned industrial shipping lanes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the minister tell us what…? I have to ask the question because a lot of municipalities are wondering whether or not there will be any compensation for municipalities if the province decides to assess the value of these properties lower. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: I think that in fairness to the member, the member is confusing two separate issues. First of all, the member should clearly understand that this amendment is a direct result of a Supreme Court of British Columbia ruling in a particular case. I might also add that a number of municipalities were a part of that court case as interveners, etc. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With respect to the properties that I mentioned, the overall assessment of those properties is not going down. That's the one thing. The other issue that the member seems to be interjecting into this was something that our government did which the former government had talked about but, unfortunately, never got around to doing. It was the port competitiveness, which was a direct result of my colleague the Minister of Finance's responsibility. In my understanding that expires, as the member said, in 2008. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Minister of Finance, as a commitment to the municipalities that are affected, has already begun a consultation process with those to look at the situation to see how they move forward, hopefully with the intent of reaching an understanding that is acceptable to all parties as we move forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 18 to 32 inclusive approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 33. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: I see that this part of the act here is about to make some significant amendments to the structure of the assessment authority by removing the assessment commissioner and moving to a board of directors and CEO. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Could the minister please explain why this particular system is being followed? What is the rationale for the change from the current system, and what is the significance of this change? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: These amendments will ground B.C. Assessment in modern governance practice and provide for greater public accountability by a Crown corporation. The amendments clarify roles and responsibilities of select key decision-makers like the chief executive officer, like board composition, lines of accountability, communications, reporting requirements, and responsibilities for implementing government's priorities and public policy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: Thank you very much. What significant changes will this make then from the current commissioner-based to the board-of-directors-based running of this assessment authority? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, historically the positions of the assessment commissioner and the chief executive officer have been filled by the same person. This dual role has resulted in confusion from time to time in roles, responsibilities and lines of accountability. Currently, as I said, one individual acts as both the assessment commissioner and the chief executive officer. The assessment commissioner is responsible for administering the property assessment system, while the chief executive officer is responsible for the overall management of B.C. Assessment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Neither of these roles involves a requirement to consult with the board of directors of B.C. Assessment. This has created unclear lines of accountability in terms of respective roles of the assessment commissioner, the chief executive officer and the board of directors. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Our government developed a Crown agency accountability system in 2005 to define roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of those persons involved in Crown agency governance. A central principle of this system is that a board of directors must play a central part in governing the organization. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The amendments to this act, including the legislating of the chief executive officer's responsibilities and reassigning the assessment commissioner's duties, will clarify lines of accountability and make the governance of B.C. Assessment consistent with the Crown agency accountabilities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: That makes perfect sense when the minister explains it that way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Up to this point the CEO/commissioner has not reported to the board. What authority has the CEO and commissioner actually reported to? Who up to this point has had the governance and oversight of that position? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
Hon. R. Thorpe: The commissioner has had his own statutory authority. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: This, then, is in fact a very significant change. Now there's the expectation in the act that the CEO is one singular position. There's no duality of positions. Secondly, he or she is under the direct authority of the board. In fact, that board has all and complete authority over that, and the autonomy has been removed completely from that CEO's position. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, the member is correct. The chief executive officer is now accountable to the board of directors of B.C. Assessment, should this legislation pass. We believe that is going to provide good accountability. We believe that is going to be good for the organization. We believe that it gives a very strong role to B.C. Assessment's board of directors. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have a great chair in Lillian White. We have members of the board of directors from each region of the province, so we have total representation from all parts of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We believe that this move to the Crown agency accountability system has been long overdue, and we're pleased to have this clarification, this opportunity to bring forward this modern model for the operation of B.C. Assessment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: I will probably ask some questions later on, on the composition of the board. Do you anticipate that the board will change as a result of this legislative change? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: No. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 33 approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 34. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: I see that this is a change around how conflict between this act and any other act has been handled in the past and how it would be handled now. Can the minister explain why the shift, what in fact the implications are for this and why this is being done? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: It's my understanding that the act was introduced in the early '70s, and we're modernizing the act through these amendments, through these changes, to ensure that we have a modern Crown agency model. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: Is the minister saying that there is actually no significant difference now in how conflicts between this act and other language in other acts, then, as we know? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister and the government have been quite busy in the last couple of years looking at deregulation. It would seem to me that we would be looking for ways to ensure that under the move to deregulation, issues around how various acts conflict with each other would want to be minimized. Does this do that? Or in fact, does this change significantly how conflict has been dealt with before? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Hon. R. Thorpe: We believe this bill brings forward a streamlined, simplified approach for B.C. Assessment. We also have been working very closely with the board, and the board through to the chief executive officer, to strive to have an approach of continuous improvement in customer service. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B.C. Assessment introduced a number of changes this year in how they deal with taxpayers in a proactive approach, and they are committed to striving for a continuous improvement in customer service — in other words, a much more proactive approach as opposed to a reactive approach. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: I guess my question would be, then: can this act be overpowered by some other act of government? Can it be sort of overauthorized? Can some other act take precedence over this? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: The answer to that is no. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 34 approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 35. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: I see in this section that this is beginning to define the shift, I guess, from membership. Members now become directors. It also prescribes an allowance set out by the minister for these positions. Is this new in any way? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: No. It's consistent with Treasury Board approvals. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: So these positions have always been remunerated and have always had travel and incidental costs to them, have they? Has there been any significant change in that whatsoever? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: No. They have been consistent. Before we formed government, members of the board were receiving remuneration, and they do now. That is all consistent with policies and practices put in and approved by Treasury Board. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: Perhaps, then, the minister can explain why it needs to actually be written in detail into the act. Why would it not just stand under the existing terms of reference of the board? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: The language that was in the bill before was out-of-date language. The language and terminology put into the bill as proposed here is consistent with the modern language used and consistent with the language used in other legislation where directors and the authority to pay directors is part of that legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: Are these — the remuneration and travel expenses and stuff — all laid out in the public accounts? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: They are consistent with Treasury Board directives with respect to remuneration guidelines for appointees to administrative panels. This directive is issued pursuant to sections 4 and 27 of the Financial Administration Act and other applicable enactments. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 35 and 36 approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 37. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: Under "Powers and duties of the board of directors," there is certainly some very strong language now around what the board is expected to do. They must manage the affairs of the authority or supervise the management of these affairs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]The authority that's given here is a significant change, as we discussed earlier, from the old structure, and the board may do a number of things here. In effect, they become the de facto managers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What is the role, then, of the CEO, given the authority that the board of directors has over all of the day-to-day management? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: The board of directors will set overall direction of the organization. The chief executive officer will execute that direction on a day-to-day basis and manage the operations of B.C. Assessment in a very effective and efficient way, as per the direction that that individual receives from time to time from the board of directors. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: Certainly, the language around "must manage the affairs" is a significant shift from the kinds of boards of directors that often do broad policy work. There are various kinds of board structures here around how they interact with the management of the organization. This is really much more hands-on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would ask the minister again, then…. Really, the CEO is relegated to a management role, much like any other staff within the assessment system. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: No, I think the chief executive officer plays a very key and important role in B.C. Assessment, as a chief executive officer does in any Crown corporation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In 1997 the Auditor General examined governance relationships and practices throughout the province and identified opportunities to improve Crown corporation governance. In 2005 we established broad provincial standards for board governance practices, setting out a model of principles of good governance. The characteristics of good governance include transparency, participation, responsiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, accountability and strategic vision. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The board of directors is accountable for the mandate of B.C. Assessment. The board has the ability to delegate its powers and duties. The role of the chief executive officer is legislated. The chief executive officer is appointed and accountable to the board of directors. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: I do see that under section (2)(a), it does say that by resolution or bylaw the board of directors could "exercise the powers and perform the duties of the authority under this Act." So this really does give them a much more direct, hands-on role. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Does the board of directors…? Are they in the active duty of performing their oversight every single day within the assessment authority? Is this a five-day-a-week, seven-hour-a-day job for all of these board members? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: No, it is not. These are not hands-on, day-to-day members of the inner workings of B.C. Assessment. They are there to have oversight, to ensure that the goals that have been established and are established by B.C. Assessment are carried out in a timely way and an efficient manner by the chief executive officer and the very capable senior management and field team that we have at B.C. Assessment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
No, there is no intention here to have the directors of B.C. Assessment involved in the day-to-day measurement and involvement of the organization. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: In part (3) of that section it says: "The board of directors must submit to the minister reports in the form, with the information and at the time required by the minister." Are these actually public reports that are made, or are they strictly private? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Hon. R. Thorpe: No, every year a detailed annual report is tabled in this House on behalf of B.C. Assessment. I think, quite frankly, we're getting close to the time, coming up in the very, very near future, that again we will be tabling an annual report — a detailed annual report, I might say — that the board and the chief executive officer and the chief executive officer's team are working on and putting together. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 37 to 40 inclusive approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 41. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: Under section 41, it does say that the board is being charged "to develop and administer a complete system of property assessment" and "to give directions respecting the preparation and completion of assessment rolls." Is the board actually coming up with something new? Is there a cost here, or is this simply, again, language that's been adjusted because of the shift away from a commissioner to a board of directors as the management authority? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: That's a very good question. This is language that was in the bill before, under the tax commissioner, and has now been assigned to the responsibilities of the board because the tax commissioner no longer exists. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: There are no new costs being incurred here? This is not building a new system or retrofitting a system or developing anything new here that's a cost? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: No. That is correct. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 41 approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 42. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: This is a section that lays out the appointment of directors and the chair of the board and all of the kind of processes that would occur there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
How are these appointments done? How are the actual appointments selected? What skills are required? What is the application process for members who would like to sit on this board? How are they chosen? I know the minister alluded to regional representation, but what are the other skill sets and what are the criteria for applying for a position on the board? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: Board members are put through our board resourcing process. We do look and make every effort to ensure that we have regional representation from all parts of the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We also look at ensuring that we have a set of skills that individual directors bring forward, whether it be legal, financial, marketing, some assessment or real estate. We are looking for a skill set combination that comes to the board and that complements the other skills of other members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I am very, very pleased, as I've mentioned earlier…. Our board chair, Lillian White, is an exceptional chair and does a great job on behalf of all British Columbians. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: Would the minister anticipate, given the shift now to slightly new authority of the board and new responsibilities of the board members, that there would be other skill sets that you may be looking for that are not currently available on your board? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: That is a possibility, but I would in those instances take advice. I do meet with the chair. I try to meet with the chair on at least a quarterly basis, just to see how things are going. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The chair does an annual review on individual directors. We are continually discussing the skill sets needed and if we have the right skill sets, but I would be looking for input from the board chair on the skill sets that she believes are needed should any changes be required. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 42 and 43 approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 44. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]M. Karagianis: As with the previous question I asked, what process is followed here in appointing new employees of the authority? What kind of credentials would be sought? Seeing as the board is now in a position of taking on some of the responsibilities of doing this, is there some new process that's expected to take place here? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: No. Overall, there's no significant change. This just formalizes it in the legislation. The human resource function at B.C. Assessment is a very professional organization. Obviously, they will be led on a day-to-day basis by the chief executive officer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The chief executive officer, no doubt, from time to time will have consultations with the board chair and the board to talk about such issues as how we're going to ensure that they have the adequate staff, any new techniques required and any changes that need to take place with respect to duties as the world we live in continues to change. But overall, there will be no change. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The day-to-day management will be the chief executive officer, and the board will set the necessary authorities in place with the chief executive officer to ensure that modern governance is in place at B.C. Assessment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 44 approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 45. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: Again, the board and the authority "must establish and maintain an accounting system…." Is this new? Is this the existing accounting system? Is there a cost to this? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: It is not a new concept. It is modern language that fits in with the overall Crown governance procedures of our government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: Just to clarify, so this is simply the existing accounting system, and this is really just the language saying they must maintain that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, there's no new accounting system envisaged at B.C. Assessment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 45 to 47 inclusive approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 48. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: In this section it does say: "Despite section 20.3 (5) of the Assessment Act, if made before January 1, 2008, regulations under section 20.3 of that Act may be made retroactive to the extent necessary…for the purposes of the 2007 taxation year…." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I spoke yesterday during the budget response to the fact that I'm very conscious about municipalities being able to plan and have certainty around what their tax roll will look like. I'm sure the minister would understand that communities cannot have any surprises as they move through their taxation process. What are the implications on municipalities of this retroactivity? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: We announced in January of this year with respect to the port lands that it was our intention to move forward. This amendment here puts that into effect, and that is completely consistent with the British Columbia Supreme Court ruling with respect to the port lands. That's why this is here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The member asks a very, very good question with respect to how we work with municipalities and how we inform them, etc., because what B.C. Assessment does is the basis of the municipal taxation system as they go forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We do finalize the assessment rolls in the new year before the assessments go out, but we do provide, for planning purposes, estimates in October of each year, which then allow the municipalities to work through and build their planning models so that they can have some sense of what the assessment base is going to be and what they may or may not have to do with increasing or decreasing their various class tax rates. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]M. Karagianis: The minister alluded earlier to much of this being predicated because of port designations. Is the minister saying that it's unlikely that there are any severe changes from the expectation of a municipality to the actual assessment roll? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Certainly, in the case of ports I would think that…. I believe that earlier there were some questions asked about expectations on the value of port lands. It would be very difficult to try and judge in October what lands might be worth a year later. We've seen that the real estate market and the cost and price and value of land are very unpredictable and often have escalated at a much more dramatic rate than even municipalities could anticipate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If in fact the minister is saying that retroactively the value of port lands or other significant real estate holdings could change dramatically, how would municipalities have an assurance of that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: No. If I wasn't clear on that, let me just clarify that. With respect to the port lands, I think the benefit that has come out of the negotiations that have taken place as a result of the B.C. Supreme Court ruling is the fact that now municipalities are going to have certainty because there is a formula. There is a formula, and there is a baseline, and there will be an indexing based, as I said, on the CPI. So that certainty will be there on a going-forward basis for those port lands that were affected by the B.C. Supreme Court ruling. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 48 to 58 inclusive approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On section 59. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: Subsection (1.1) under here caught my attention because it says: "Subject to the requirements of subsections (2) to (4.2), an owner may, with leave of the board, appeal to the board if the owner failed to file a notice of complaint in respect of the owner's property within the time required…." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to know: why is this being included? What is the significance of it? And is this a new approach to appeals? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: The member asks another excellent question. This is a provision so that if an individual finds himself, for example, of ill health and unable to meet the filing deadlines, they would have an avenue of appeal through to the board. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: Does this in any way trigger taxation penalties, the waiving of taxation penalties? Is that the purpose of this? Because I know that often people who have not appealed their assessment then end up with taxation that may be beyond their abilities to pay and could certainly trigger a whole series of actions that could end up with default in taxes. Often this does happen as some seniors become frail of health or perhaps unable to deal with the pressures around assessment and taxation in a given year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Is this an allowance there for that appeal even after the taxation period — to appeal those as well? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: Again, I think, an excellent question. We have to remember that we're dealing here with the Assessment Act. We're not dealing with the taxation of municipalities and regional districts. They have to deal with that themselves. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This does give individuals that find themselves, through no fault of their own, in exceptional situations — for example, ill health — the right to appeal. This does not preconclude or define what the benefits of that appeal may be. It just gives them the right to appeal. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]M. Karagianis: Is there a time frame within which that appeal could be done? I would expect that it can't be endless. Obviously, the minister fairly says that the government can't be responsible for the actions that municipalities take. So what is the time frame in which this can occur? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: April 30. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 59 to 69 inclusive approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Title approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee rose at 6:21 p.m. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Report and
Third Reading of BillsASSESSMENT STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2007Bill 32, Assessment Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Neufeld: I call second reading of Bill 30, Innovative Clean Energy Fund Amendment Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]Second Reading of Bills
FINANCE STATUTES (INNOVATIVE CLEAN
ENERGY FUND) AMENDMENT ACT, 2007Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that Bill 30, entitled Finance Statutes (Innovative Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act, 2007, be introduced and read a second time now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I am pleased to present Bill 30. British Columbia's new energy plan puts our province at the forefront of environmental and economic leadership. It ensures public ownership and stewardship of our energy resources and maintains B.C.'s low-cost advantage. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We are backing up our aggressive greenhouse gas targets with a $25 million innovative clean energy fund to develop clean and alternative energy sources, not just in electricity but in transportation and the oil and gas sectors. The clean energy fund underlines our commitment to environmental protection, economic diversification and innovation in clean, renewable energy. This fund will support future innovations in energy technology and help bridge the gap experienced in bringing innovation through the precommercial stage to market. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The fund will support the development or adoption of precommercial clean energy technologies or clean energy technologies not currently used in B.C.; reduce the environmental impact of the use, production, generation, storage, transmission, delivery, provision or conversion of energy; demonstrate or promote B.C. clean energy technologies that have good potential for market demand in other jurisdictions; reduce the cost or improve the reliability of clean energy sources or associated technology; and support energy efficiency and conservation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To provide moneys for this fund, we move to amend the Social Service Tax Act to implement a proposed levy of 0.4 percent on all final sales of electricity, natural gas, grid propane and fuel oil that is not transportation-related. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]What does this mean for the average person in British Columbia? The average cost for a residential electricity consumer would be approximately $3 a year. A residential natural gas customer will pay about $5 in one year. Customers using both would pay about $8 a year. Home-heating-oil customers will pay approximately $8 a year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
British Columbians are concerned about climate change and sustainable environmental management. We're also proud that we are leading the way in setting aggressive greenhouse gas emission and clean energy targets. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In order to meet our future energy requirements and our continued high standard of environmental protection, we need greater investment and innovation in the area of alternative energy by the both the public and private sector. The fund will provide an incentive for new investment in energy technology, create local economic development benefits across the province and benefit our environment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. Speaker, I am pleased now to move second reading. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to get up and participate with my colleague the Minister of Energy in the discussion and debate around the Finance Statutes (Innovative Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act. This was, members will recall, a component of the throne speech in February. There was much discussion and concern at that time of what the level of the taxation would be, what the impact on hydro rates would be and what the impact on natural gas rates would be. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm pleased that in the minister's opening remarks he quantified that to the best of his ability, and I know that the staff back at the ministry would have crunched these numbers. It looks like about $11 for people living in my constituency who heat with heating fuel and who have hydro for their electricity needs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I wanted to spend some time on the notion of how this was presented back in February. You'll recall, hon. Speaker, that there was much ado in the throne speech about the transition needed in the energy sector in particular but also in a whole host of areas, certainly transportation. Everyone will agree that we have challenges there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hydroelectricity is the backbone of the system here in British Columbia. It's clean; it's green — always has been and always will be. So the notion that the energy sector is an area where we can make strides toward the government's goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 is a bit misleading. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister and I canvassed these issues in estimates. I'm sure that when we get to committee stage on this bill, we'll get a better opportunity to do that. But we have green energy in British Columbia. It is the pride of many of us. Certainly, those in the Peace country, where the minister is from, and in the Kootenays along the Columbia Basin have made significant sacrifices to provide this green energy for the rest of us in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Noting the time, I'll adjourn the debate and reserve my right to pick it up again at the next opportunity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Horgan moved adjournment of debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Neufeld moved adjournment of the House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The House adjourned at 6:29 p.m. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on
the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the
Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.
TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule
Copyright (c) 2007: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada