Hansard -- Wednesday, May 1, 2002 p.m. -- Vol. 7, No. 1 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		3091

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		3091
	Food Safety Act (Bill 37) Hon. C. Hansen Legal Services Society Act (Bill 45) Hon. G. Plant

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		3092
	Hepatitis Awareness Month S. Brice Bullying B. Locke Asian Heritage Month I. Chong

Oral Questions		3093
	Lobbyists registry J. Kwan Hon. G. Plant Lobbying by Liberal MLA J. Kwan Hon. J. Murray J. MacPhail Hon. G. Campbell Opposition leader's letter to seniors K. Krueger Hon. C. Hansen BCGEU actions and reputation of civil service R. Stewart Hon. S. Santori J. MacPhail Kimberley Hospital J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen

Tabling Documents		3096
	J. MacPhail

Petitions		3096
	Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt B. Suffredine H. Bloy

Second Reading of Bills		3096
	Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (Bill 23) Hon. G. Plant McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 10) Hon. G. Plant Trustee Investment Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 30) Hon. G. Plant

Committee of the Whole House		3099
	School Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 34) (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. C. Clark J. Kwan

Second Reading of Bills		3122
	Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 35) Hon. K. Falcon B. Locke Waste Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 32) Hon. J. Murray J. Kwan B. Bennett B. Suffredine B. Penner B. Locke

Committee of the Whole House		3130
	Environment Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 31) Hon. J. Murray J. Kwan

Reporting of Bills		3132
	Environment Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 31)

Third Reading of Bills		3132
	Environment Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 31) Hon. J. Murray

Committee of the Whole House		3133
	Degree Authorization Act (Bill 15) Hon. S. Bond

Report and Third Reading of Bills		3133
	Degree Authorization Act (Bill 15)

Hon. G. Hogg: Last fall a number of lower mainland shopping malls coordinated a campaign against bullying, entitled Bullying Bites It is my pleasure today to introduce three of the marketing directors of three of those malls: Bonnie Rimple from Lougheed Mall, Jennifer Priest from Semiahmoo Centre and Karen Pilkington from Scottsdale Mall. Would the House please make them all most welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a group of very special visitors to the House. In the members' gallery this afternoon is the Order of British Columbia Advisory Council. These men and women have gathered in Victoria today to review this year's nominations for the order and select recipients for the June investiture. I understand that there are 143 nominations this year, with many submitted by members on both sides of the House from all political parties in the House and from every corner of the province.

The Order of British Columbia Advisory Council is chaired by the Hon. Lance Finch, the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal for B.C. It includes, of course, our Speaker; the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Hans Cunningham; the president of the University of Victoria, Dr. David Turpin; Andrew Wilkinson, the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations; and two members of the order, Judith Forst of Port Moody and Beverly Nann of Vancouver.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 27 grade 5 students visiting from Pacific Academy in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them is their teacher, Mr. Buzza, as well as several parent volunteers. Would the House please make them very welcome.

I am told that we are enjoying today in the House the Richmond Seniors Advisory Council and a number of hard-working members of that council who work to make Richmond a better place for everybody. The people who are here include Olive Bassett, Lois Carson Boyce, Aileen Cormack, Angela Gauld, Mohinder Grewal, Susan Higginbottom, Shams Jilani, Carol Smith, Barbara Angus, George Atkinson, Dorothy Brown, Diane Eward, Jean Fay, Olga Friedman, Georgina Hamilton, Joyce Johnston, Dorothy Koch, Al Martin, Joyce Reddin, Bill Sorrenson, Melvina Sorrenson and Lenore Armstrong.

Would the House please make all of these very hard-working volunteers from the great community of Richmond welcome.

We also have joining us today some hard-working lawyers from the Minister of Attorney General, who have come here today for a tour and a lunch with one of the staff in the Clerk's office, telling the lawyers in my ministry what really goes on here, which is a frightening prospect. I'd like the House to please welcome Corinne Swystun, Catherine Alexander, Rodney Fehr, Noah Ries, Dawn Leroy, Melaney Murray and Christine Owen.

R. Masi: I'm very pleased today to introduce 60 students from North Delta Senior Secondary School. They're accompanied by their teacher, Brian Nixon, and student teacher Ryan Evans. Would the House please make them welcome.

P. Wong: As British Columbians, we see untold riches added to our lives every day by the diversity of the people who make up our communities. It is these riches that we celebrate in British Columbia during the month of May, Vancouver Asian Heritage Month. This time it's under the festival banner "Exploration 2002: Exploring the Canadian Asian Experience," organized by the Vancouver Asian Heritage Month Society. I'm pleased to introduce in the gallery the president of the society, also last year's recipient of the Order of British Columbia, Ms. Beverly Nann. Will the House please make her most welcome.

I. Chong: In the gallery today is a person who is no stranger to these precincts. He's a longtime B.C. Liberal member and supporter. He has volunteered in key positions in my campaigns in 1996 and 2001. Presently, he is the president of the Oak Bay–Gordon Head riding executive. I would ask the House to please welcome Mr. Paul McKivett.

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Food Safety Act.

Hon. C. Hansen: The Food Safety Act consolidates and updates the food safety provisions of existing legislation so that licensing, inspection and standard-

setting are combined into one statute that covers food at every level from production to food service and retail outlets. As a consequence, the Meat Inspection Act and the food safety aspects of the Milk Industry Act and the Fish Inspection Act will be repealed.

The current legislation governing the food industry sets out regulations that are antiquated and overly prescriptive. In some cases, the way standards have been applied has not been changed in over 60 years despite significant advances in the way that food is processed. This administrative lag prevents the food industry from keeping up with modern practices. As a result, British Columbia's food safety system continues to operate in a fractured, outdated legislative framework.

The new consolidated act enables government to set outcome-based standards that focus on the safety of food, not the methods to achieve it. Outcome-based regulations provide industry with the flexibility to meet the food safety standards using modern technology and a variety of methods. The standards will continue to be set by government, and inspection systems will ensure compliance with standards.

Consolidating these acts into one unified statute eliminates unnecessary regulation and, by allowing outcome-based regulations, will reduce the cost of doing business while continuing to ensure high standards for food safety for B.C. consumers.

The Ministry of Health has been assigned the responsibility for provincial food safety since 1988, and we will be looking to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to assist the Ministry of Health Services by continuing to administer dairy farm licensing and inspection under an agreement with the Ministry of Health Services.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 37 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Legal Services Society Act.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 45, the Legal Services Society Act. Members are aware of the need to amend the Legal Services Society Act — that is the act that governs the Legal Services Society — to implement the core review service changes announced last year and to enhance the efficiency, accountability and flexibility of the society.

This act provides new or amended provisions in four main areas: the mandate of the society, the society's governance model, the society's revenue-generating capacity and the relationship between the society and government.

This reform of British Columbia's legal aid legislation is designed to promote greater efficiency, effectiveness and innovation in the delivery of legal aid services while emphasizing the following principles: (1) to provide for good governance through a clear statement of the society's purposes, objectives and powers; (2) to create a real and substantial partnership between government, the Legal Services Society and the legal profession through a new board structure; (3) to develop a new working relationship between the society and government, who will enter into a memorandum of understanding every three years, dealing with such things as the types of legal matters in relation to which the society will provide legal aid and the priority to be accorded to types of legal matters; (4) to incorporate public perspectives and professional skills in the governance of the organization; (5) to ensure fiscal accountability through the memorandum of understanding and an annual budget approval process; (6) to maintain the independence of the society in administering legal aid in British Columbia; (7) to provide the society with the means and capacity to raise revenue.

This bill provides an opportunity for significant changes to the way in which the Legal Services Society operates in British Columbia. We have drawn on experiences elsewhere to inform us of the best ways to modernize the statute to provide the society with the flexibility it requires to run an effective and innovative system. I would be pleased to elaborate on the details of this during second reading.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 45 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

S. Brice: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to announce that May has been proclaimed by the government of British Columbia to be Hepatitis Awareness Month. Currently in B.C., more than 80,000 people are infected by various forms of hepatitis.

Hepatitis is a treatable and preventable illness. Early detection and awareness are vital in reducing harm to those already infected. It is in the interests of all British Columbians to heighten awareness and understanding of the problems connected with all forms of hepatitis and to reduce the stigma often associated

with this disease. It is in the best interests of British Columbians to increase the quality of life of those infected with hepatitis by supporting research, delivering better treatments and finding a cure for all forms of hepatitis.

Today begins Hepatitis Awareness Month, and several B.C. communities are marking both this day and the month of May with awareness events. Today also marks the third annual hepatitis C candlelight memorial ceremony, which originated right here in British Columbia. Now thousands of people across North America gather annually to share and remember loved ones who have succumbed to this disease of the blood.

The province of B.C. is a leader with its provincial strategy on hepatitis. In fact, we are working nationally to share our knowledge with other provinces across Canada. Admittedly, we still have a long way to go, but I believe — and I think the other members of this House will agree — that this proclamation is another step in the right direction.

B. Locke: Mr. Speaker, last September I was involved in an anti-bullying campaign with the Minister of Children and Family Development. Lower mainland mall marketing directors collected pledges from young people and presented them to local MLAs to raise awareness about bullying.

As a mother of two school-age children, I know that bullying is a problem in B.C. schools. My own children tell me of bullying stories in their school. There are simply too many instances of bullying. Tragic stories of children like Hamed Nastoh, Reena Virk and Dawn-Marie Wesley are too often part of the 6 o'clock news.

These instances are so very sad, because they don't have to happen. Bullying is something that we can prevent. In order to combat bullying, we need the support of all sectors of the community. The mall campaign is an excellent example of how the business community can play an important role, shedding light on this issue.

Bullying is a lifelong stigma for both the victim and the bully — a sad legacy they carry all their lives. I am sure that even within our own Legislature, there are hidden personal stories. I stand behind anti-bullying campaigns that help break through that strong code of silence. As an MLA and as a parent, I recognize that bullying deserves our attention. We owe it to our children.

I. Chong: Today being the first day of May, there are several acknowledgments occurring this month and throughout the province. British Columbians can participate in Child Care Month, Cystic Fibrosis Month, Hepatitis Awareness Month and Hospice Palliative Care Month. In addition, people of Asian descent will be able to, during May, celebrate Asian Heritage Month.

British Columbia is home to many diverse cultures where individuals, families and communities can freely enjoy and share their beliefs and customs with their neighbours. Nowhere is this more evident than in the lower mainland region. I take this opportunity to highlight Asian Heritage Month.

Every year Canadians are invited to take part in the festivities that commemorate the legacy of Asian Canadians, past and present, during this month. This year the government of Canada officially recognized May as Asian Heritage Month and encouraged us to recognize the contributions of the Asian community of British Columbia and to thank all those who have dedicated years to preserving and reviving the stories of the past.

From the early days of Confederation, British Columbia has been able to depend upon Chinese immigrants. Not only have they been integral in the building of a national railway, indeed, they have helped to build our country and our province alongside pioneers from many different places and origins. The oldest Chinatown in British Columbia — in fact, the first in Canada — exists right here in the capital region, in the riding of Victoria-Hillside. As the historical contributions of Asian Canadians are becoming more well known, there is increasing awareness of the tremendous role the Asian community plays in the growing prosperity and diversity of this country and our economies.

While our Asian community is not exceptionally large here in Victoria, I do understand that in Vancouver there will be many opportunities to celebrate and support Asian Canadian artistic-cultural practices. Asian Heritage Month is an ideal occasion to remember the legacies of past generations and to acknowledge the committed, hard-working individuals who have contributed to the settlement, growth and development of this province.

J. Kwan: Yesterday the Attorney General was asked about the lobbying efforts of Bruce Clark. The Attorney General may have misunderstood, but the Bruce Clark to whom we refer is not a lawyer but a well-known lobbyist and a very well connected Liberal insider. This government promised a registration system to keep lobbyists from operating in secret, but the Attorney General has not followed through on that promise. So, as was said yesterday, we have to ask about lobbyists on a case-by-case basis.

Again, to the Attorney General: can he tell the House whether or not ministers have met with the organizations represented by Bruce Clark, the well-known, well-connected Liberal lobbyist?

Hon. G. Plant: I thought about this issue yesterday, and I wanted to be sure I could make the following

commitment to the members opposite. It is this: this government will implement and proclaim the Lobbyists Registration Act in a much shorter time frame than was involved in relation to their former government's implementation of the mental health action plan.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a supplemental question.

J. Kwan: I should note that the Attorney General did not answer my question. It is not just well-known and well-connected insiders who are lobbying the government behind closed doors. Liberal backbenchers are joining in as well.

To the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection: is she aware that the member for East Kootenay has been lobbying her ministry officials, on behalf of a close friend and a former client, to direct government business to his helifishing operation?

Hon. J. Murray: I expect that every MLA is representing the interests of their constituents to government.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a final supplemental.

J. Kwan: Well, a couple of months ago the member for East Kootenay sent an e-mail from his Legislature account to officials in her ministry and three others. In that note, the member for East Kootenay encouraged civil servants to hire out the helicopter service provided by his close friend and former client, Barry Scott, for government charters. Does the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection agree that the member's efforts to pressure her officials are completely inappropriate? Can she tell this House whether the member personally had been approached by her member on this issue in an effort to guide the government's business his friend's way?

Hon. J. Murray: I'll just repeat my first statement, and that is that each and every MLA in this government has the job to do of listening to their constituents and representing their interests to government.

J. MacPhail: Well, Mr. Speaker, we've had zero answers today on lobbyists with this government.

First of all, when the member for East Kootenay was a candidate, he told his local newspaper that one of the reasons he was running was to "get the politics out of the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation and the Ministry of Environment." Yet now the same member is using his political influence to apply pressure to public servants in those very same ministries to hire his friend.

Just this morning in the committee on reform the member for East Kootenay, the same member, talked about the need to send a clear message to MLAs with respect to ethical conduct. So given that the member's own views on this matter are that he needs to be reprimanded, what action is the Premier planning on taking to discipline the member for East Kootenay that will send a message to the rest of his backbench that this is completely unacceptable behaviour?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me say that this government's commitment to a lobbyists registration act remains firm. We will bring it in, and we will bring it in, in a way that is proper so that it works for all British Columbians. We believe in doing that, because it's in the interests of all British Columbians.

But we also say to the member opposite, hon. Speaker, that if she has concerns, if she feels there is a fact base there that creates problems for her and she wants to have them reviewed, she can take them to the commissioner. She knows that, and she's welcome to do that.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's so unfortunate that neither the Attorney General nor the Premier gets how serious this matter is. It is very unfortunate. In fact, the details have been outlined for it. The Premier knows very well that this is similar to an event a couple of years ago when a Liberal MLA was caught lobbying on behalf of a family member. At that time the Premier kicked the member out of the Liberal caucus, and everyone agreed it was the right thing to do.

To the Premier: will the Premier apply the same standard today and throw the member for East Kootenay out of the Liberal caucus for lobbying the civil service on behalf of a close friend and a former client? Will he agree to do an investigation to determine how widespread this kind of behaviour is among his MLAs?

Hon. G. Campbell: In terms of this specific case, I am glad for the member opposite to give me the details of this specific case, but let me tell you who I'll throw out of caucus. I will throw out of caucus people who do not stand up for their constituents, who do not speak for their constituents throughout government. That's what their job is, hon. Speaker.

K. Krueger: …that it is the responsibility of every member of this assembly to protect vulnerable British

Columbians. We want seniors, in particular, to feel secure and happy and well supported.

I have in my hand a letter sent out last Thursday by the leader of the NDP. This letter falsely accuses the government of slashing health care and kicking seniors out of long-term care facilities, and then shamefully begs: "Please, if you can spare any money at all, you can make a big difference."

To the Minister of Health Services: what is the consequence of the Leader of the Opposition frightening senior citizens in order to make a few bucks to pay down the debts of the NDP?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think that is the kind of rhetoric that is so terribly unfortunate, because it is such a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. What we have said to seniors throughout this province from day one is that we will ensure that there is a care plan in place for every senior in this province who may be moved as a result of the change of facilities. We want to make sure that their interests are protected, that we consult with the families and that their needs are put first and foremost before any such move would take place.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson with a supplemental.

K. Krueger: I hear the minister being heckled by the queen of credibility, who says in the same letter…. The leader of the NDP says in this letter: "I also need your help in another way. We have to start campaigning right now, and that's going to require money." Having done her best to frighten senior citizens and vulnerable people around this province, she's begging for money like a television huckster. Would the minister comment on the likely effect on seniors of the stress caused by the NDP's cynical fundraising efforts?

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on that kind of misrepresentation, but I will say that this is a government that puts the interests of seniors first. This is an interest that will put the interest of all British Columbians first, ahead of any political considerations and ahead of any fundraising considerations, which is probably the most cynical approach that anyone could expect.

R. Stewart: My question is to the Minister of Management Services. The B.C. Government and Service Employees Union has been circulating a memo to its members entitled "It's Time to Walk the Walk." In it the union asks whether its members are interested in taking long lunches with co-workers, occupying an MLA's office, participating in a long general strike or joining in a community-wide walkout.

To the Minister of Management Services: does the minister consider it appropriate for the BCGEU to be organizing things like the occupation of an MLA's office?

Hon. S. Santori: This government totally condemns and deplores such tactics. It is contemptible for the leadership of the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union to instigate such behaviour. Should this call to do battle escalate, government won't stand idly by and let the law be broken and the well-being of the people of this province be threatened.

There are many avenues available in a civilized society to make one's voice heard. Crippling the delivery of vital public service isn't one of them. Actions that include intimidation and abuse are not democratic rights; they are anarchy. Such actions that are destructive and dangerous shouldn't and won't be tolerated.

J. MacPhail: Are you going to legislate them out of existence? Is that what you do? That's what this government does — legislate….

R. Stewart: I believe strongly in our civil service, in the value of a truly professional civil service. I've heard from a number of civil servants who are concerned that these partisan activities, these partisan campaigns, are damaging the reputation of B.C.'s public service.

To the Minister of Management Services: what is he going to do to protect and improve the image of the public service in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Santori: I can't believe the member opposite would sit there and condone the behaviour that the president of the BCGEU is asking their employees to do.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister responsible for the public service, I firmly believe that the B.C. public service is the best in this country. I do. They are hard-working, diligent and innovative. They provide excellent service to the people of this province. We are not going to destroy the morale of the public service like you and your party did in the last term that you were there.

I would suggest that the member opposite read the AG's report on the morale in the public service when her party was in government.

Hon. S. Santori: This government is 100 percent behind our public service. We have reinforced the support by mounting a far-reaching campaign of continu-

ing renewal in the public service. This campaign is being spearheaded by the Public Service Employee Relations Commission and is ongoing as we speak.

J. MacPhail: Let's just talk about what the reality of health care is in this province. Last week I was in Kimberley, and 300 residents came out to a meeting to talk about the closure of their hospitals. The member representing Kimberley was not present, and the community told me she rarely is.

In many ways Kimberley has been a success story. It's been working hard to move from a resource-dependent economy to a new economy based on recreation and tourism. But it needs to have a hospital to make the new economy exist.

The people in the community need to be listened to and supported. Instead, their hospital is closing while the minister is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars telling Kimberley why their hospital needs to be closed — a big ad campaign to say: "We needed to close your hospital."

Will the Minister of Health Services commit today to actually meeting with the people of Kimberley to find an acceptable alternative to closing this hospital, or is he too busy paying off ad companies to tell Kimberley how wrong they are?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, the member may not be aware, but I was in Kimberley five weeks ago with the member from Kimberley. I had a very good meeting with officials in the town. I had good meetings in the hospital with doctors and other front-line workers in that community. I can also tell you that the work that has been done by the member for that constituency in advocating for that constituency and making sure that those interests are being met…

Hon. C. Hansen: …are far in excess of anything that I ever heard coming out of private members in the previous government.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to table an e-mail from the member for East Kootenay to various ministries.

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: I would like to table a petition signed by approximately 900 persons regarding the palliative care unit and the subacute care program of Richmond General Hospital.

B. Suffredine: I have the honour to table a petition on behalf of 3,070 residents of British Columbia expressing concerns over proposed changes to the Arrow Lakes ferry system.

H. Bloy: I'd like to present one signed by 98 names in the lower mainland pertaining to health care, and I would like to present a petition pertaining to Bills 26 and 27 signed by 15 residents of my riding.

The purpose of Bill 23 is to make it easier for families to get support orders in interjurisdictional cases — that is, cases where one of the parties lives in British Columbia and another party lives in another jurisdiction. This kind of process — the process contemplated by and brought into force by Bill 23 — is particularly important, given our increasingly mobile population.

For many years part 8 of the Family Relations Act has governed the process for obtaining and varying a support order if only one of the parties lives in British Columbia. Part 8 of the Family Relations Act, which will be replaced by Bill 23, also sets out the process for registering a support order made in another part of Canada or in a country with which British Columbia has reciprocal arrangements covering support orders.

British Columbia currently has reciprocal arrangements with all of the provinces and territories of Canada as well as with all of the United States and a number of other countries, including Germany, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia. Between July 2000 and June 2001, I'm told that British Columbia handled almost 2,600 interjurisdictional support cases.

Bill 23 will repeal part 8 of the Family Relations Act and replace the mechanisms and the processes in part 8 with a new streamlined process for obtaining and varying support orders — that is, for getting the initial order and for varying it subsequently. Again, under the old part 8 of the Family Relations Act, two hearings are needed to obtain or vary a support order.

At the first court hearing, held in the jurisdiction where the applicant lives, the judge considers the applicant's evidence and makes a provisional order,

which is an order that has no effect until it is confirmed by a judge in the reciprocating jurisdiction where the respondent lives. At the second hearing under the existing process, held where the respondent lives, the judge looks at and considers the provisional order and the transcript of the evidence on which it was based, as well as the respondent's evidence, and makes a binding order. That is an overview of the existing process under part 8 of the Family Relations Act.

Bill 23 will simplify this process by eliminating the first hearing and replacing it with an administrative step. Instead of going to court, the applicant for support will submit an application, including a sworn statement setting out the details of the claim, to something called a designated authority. That authority will, in turn, send the application on to the other jurisdiction, the reciprocating jurisdiction where the respondent lives. A judge in that reciprocating jurisdiction will then make a binding order based on the information in the application and on any evidence provided by the respondent. In effect, a process that today requires two separate court hearings in two different jurisdictions will be simplified and streamlined so that there will now be only one actual court hearing in the jurisdiction where the respondent lives.

The bill also simplifies the process for registering support orders made in other parts of Canada. Once an order from another part of Canada is registered here in British Columbia, that order will have the same effect as an order made in British Columbia. This means, for example, that it will be able to be enforced in B.C. just like a B.C. order.

Bill 23 is based on a model act developed by an interprovincial committee. It is part of the province's overall commitment to the harmonization of important aspects of civil law. At the annual Premiers' conference last August, the Premier of British Columbia and the other provincial Premiers made a commitment jointly to introduce legislation based on this model by the summer of 2002. With the introduction and, hopefully, the enactment of Bill 23, Mr. Speaker, the government is following through on the commitment made last summer. The goal here is to ensure and work towards a system of family law that protects the rights of parties and partners to obtain support orders and enforce them in the most efficient and least burdensome manner possible. I believe that Bill 23 makes important steps towards that goal.

Hon. G. Plant: I look forward to discussion about some of the details of this bill when we get to committee stage. It's a fairly complex piece of legislation, although the basic process that it brings into force is fairly straightforward. I look forward to committee stage debate.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 23, Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

McLEOD LAKE INDIAN BAND TREATY No. 8
ADHESION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. G. Plant: I move second reading of Bill 10, which is an important step in the implementation of the McLeod Lake Indian band Treaty No. 8 adhesion and settlement agreement. In fact, Bill 10 will permit the fulfilment by the province of land transfer obligations in the adhesion and settlement agreement.

As you may be aware, the McLeod Lake Indian band agreement was brought into effect on March 27, 2000. The agreement settles longstanding litigation commenced by the McLeod Lake Indian band against British Columbia and Canada concerning the desire by the McLeod Lake Indian band to adhere to — that is, to join — Treaty No. 8. British Columbia implemented aspects of the agreement through the McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act.

What the amendment does — that is, the bill that is now before the House — is this. It will remove a requirement that section 70 of the Land Act applies to such Crown land, under the McLeod Lake Indian band Treaty No. 8 adhesion agreement, as has been, must be or may be the subject of a transfer of Crown land to Canada.

There are provisions in the Land Act that limit the size of district lots for certain purposes. Those provisions are found in section 70 of the Land Act. The prescribed limit on the size of district lots in section 70 is 520 hectares, with some exceptions.

In the situation concerning the implementation of the McLeod Lake Indian band Treaty No. 8 adhesion and settlement agreement, there are a number of Crown land district parcels that will be transferred to Canada that are larger than the 520 hectare limit. This amendment to the provision of the Land Act will provide an explicit legislative basis for the confirmation of surveys by the surveyor general of British Columbia, which in turn will lead to the transfer of these parcels to Canada for the purposes of implementing the agreement.

This bill, though relatively minor and technical in nature, affirms government's commitment to negotiate workable, affordable settlements that provide certainty, finality and equality to aboriginal people. The work to

implement the McLeod Lake Indian band Treaty No. 8 adhesion and settlement agreement continues. It's important work, and we as a government are committed to seeing our obligations through. This bill is another step in the fulfilment of that undertaking.

Hon. G. Plant: The provisions of the bill may be examined in some detail during committee stage, although it's a fairly straightforward bill, but I'm delighted to see that the bill will enjoy the support of the House.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10, McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill 30 is to modernize and enhance trustee investment powers to allow trustees who are not operating under what might be described as a sophisticated trust instrument to invest effectively and productively under modern conditions. Bill 30 will also allow the standard of performance that the law requires of trustees to better reflect modern standards and circumstances. In particular, these amendments will allow trustees to be evaluated on the performance of the trust portfolio as a whole.

This is a change from the existing law. The bill will repeal and replace section 15 of the Trustee Act, which provides for a very limited statutory list of prescribed investments that a trustee is authorized to make if a trust instrument does not contain express investment powers.

There are also amendments in this bill to other statutes to ensure that any provisions in those statutes that refer to trustee investment powers are brought into accord with the approach taken by the amendments to the Trustee Act.

In particular, at the heart of the bill — that is, the change to section 15 and the list of authorized trustee investments — the list that is now in section 15 will be replaced with a general provision that says trustees are permitted to invest generally, subject to the terms of the particular trust. In so doing, a trustee will be required to exercise the care, skill, diligence and judgment that a prudent investor would exercise in making investments.

The current section 15 — that is, the existing section 15 — no longer accords with modern circumstances. It is heavily weighted towards government fixed-rate bonds, and it imposes severe restrictions on investment in equities. Mutual funds, for example — a practical investment vehicle, especially for trusts of moderate size — are not mentioned in the current section 15 and therefore are an investment that the law currently does not permit in circumstances where the trust instrument does not contain other express investment powers that would permit such investments.

The amendments in this bill will permit trustees to delegate authority with respect to the investment of trust property that a prudent investor might delegate. This will enable trustees to have access to professional fund management, as do other prudent investors. In delegating authority with respect to investment, a trustee will be required to determine the investment objectives of the trust and to exercise prudence in selecting an agent, establishing the terms and limits of the authority to be delegated, acquainting the agent with the investment objectives and monitoring the performance of the agent to ensure compliance with the terms of the trust.

This bill is based upon a report of the British Columbia Law Institute on trustee investment powers which was released in 1999. That report was prepared by the B.C. Law Institute's committee on the modernization of the Trustee Act. In introducing this bill and, hopefully, moving forward to its enactment, I want to repeat once again that this government is committed to the modernization of civil law, to the reform of civil law and to the reform and modernization of private law. This bill provides a good illustration of the important task that government has of ensuring that its private and civil law is kept relevant, is kept up to date, is kept responsive to the public interest.

The Law Institute has done good work here and elsewhere. In the months to come, I hope government will have an opportunity to continue to look to the Law Institute — both in terms of its existing body of reports and perhaps also in relation to future work — as a source of ideas and solutions to the challenge of ensuring that our private and civil law are kept up to date.

I'm delighted that we have been able to bring this particular initiative forward in this session. I hope that it enjoys the support of members and that we will all be able to move forward together as members to look for and advance other initiatives for the modernization of our civil law.

Hon. G. Plant: It appears that this initiative will obtain the support of the House, and for that I'm grate-

ful. There may be some discussion at committee stage, and I certainly look forward to that. At this time I would simply repeat the motion of second reading.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 30, Trustee Investment Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 34; H. Long in the chair.

J. MacPhail: I want to thank the officials from the Ministry of Education for sending out the Revised Statutes of British Columbia contents, updating it until these changes.

For some reason we haven't been able to find — if it was sent, my apologies — the requirements for annual report. They weren't in the package with this. Thank you for this, and if we can have that sent again, we'd much appreciate it.

We are on the definitions. I want to ask about the issue around repealing "administrative officer." I've had some interesting discussions with people within the system about that.

This definition of administrative officer was introduced in 1989. There was quite a bit of discussion around it at the time. There's at least four now Liberal caucus members who were part of that change when it was the Social Credit government that made the change from principal to vice-principal. The then Social Credit government decided to change it to administrative officer.

From what I was told at the time, that change was a cutting–red tape change. The Social Credit government at that time said: "We're going to cut red tape, and so the people encompassed in this definition will now be called administrative officers." Was the minister aware of that history?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm not sure that history is really necessarily relevant to the changes we're making today.

We've certainly seen that over the last ten years, principals and vice-principals have felt as though their role as leaders in their schools has been diminished. It was certainly a sense that they had from government and from stakeholders throughout the system. We wanted, with this legislation, to ensure that the fact that we respect principals and vice-principals, and the fact that we expect them to provide leadership in their schools, was reflected in the School Act. Principals and vice-principals asked for this change. They've lobbied for it for quite a long time.

I'm not sure that the change will have a whole lot of impact on red tape, but it certainly will, I think, have an impact on the morale that those very important leaders in our schools need to have in order to be able to do their jobs as well as they can.

J. MacPhail: Just for the record, Mr. Chair, at the time the then NDP opposition thought it was a silly change. It's got absolutely nothing to do with this political party's view on it. But it was at least four members of the current government who brought in the change, and it was on the basis of red tape. Of course, I expect that the principals and vice-principals are saying today that perhaps the government putting the money where their mouth is, as opposed to this kind of change, would make more sense.

There will be quite a substantial amount of change required throughout the system to change this definition to the broader and to change all of the titles. So there is a addition of red tape, and the minister is well aware of it. I just wondered whether there had been any…. Did the minister discuss this in caucus or cabinet with any of her colleagues who were part of the government that actually made this change?

Hon. C. Clark: I think it is fair to say that my colleagues are delighted with this change. Certainly I'll let them speak for themselves through the course of this debate, but I know that when we've talked about it, there has been a great deal of support for it. People throughout the system recognize how important principals and vice-principals are in our schools. We expect them to lead a team, to build a team and to create a vision. If we want to do that and if we expect that of them, we should show them the respect they deserve. They told me that the title of administrative officer did not adequately reflect what they did during the day. They told me they would like to see the title changed back to ensure that the respect that they think they are due, and that I think they are due, is reflected in our legislation.

It's a name change; it's a title change. It's certainly something that the principals and vice-principals association spoke to me about the very first time I met with them. Yeah, they're only words, but language is very important, and the language we use in this legislation should reflect our view of the role that each component part plays in the system. I think it's time we recognized as a government that principals and vice-principals

play an absolutely critical role as educational leaders in every single school in our province.

J. MacPhail: Well, that was exactly the debate that went on when the then Social Credit government changed the definition from principal and vice-principal to admin officer.

Hon. C. Clark: This isn't intended to have a legal effect. It's not intended to reduce or increase the amount of red tape that's attached to the job. As I said, it's language. We can minimize that and say: "Well, it's only a word." But language is important, and the labels we use are important. So that was why we decided to accept the principals' and vice-principals' call to change the title in the legislation.

I take the member at her word when she says she opposed this when the Social Credit was in government. She had ten years in government to change it; they didn't. We thought it was certainly time that we did.

J. MacPhail: Always interesting to debate the minister where she tries to make something partisan at this current opposition where none exists. I guess it's her own colleagues that forgot to mention to her that it was them that brought in the words "administrative officer."

Certainly language is extremely important. Of course, real support is even more important, to allow principals and vice-principals to do their jobs. I expect that those are the questions that will arise now.

Catchment area. Can the minister tell me how many school districts have legally defined catchment areas now in existence?

Hon. C. Clark: Most districts do have catchment areas, although different districts apply those catchment areas differently. In some districts they will have very strict catchment area limitations that pretty much require students to go to the school they live nearest to. Some districts have a very open catchment area policy and allow children to go about almost anywhere in the district with very few questions asked.

J. MacPhail: It's my information that not all districts have catchment areas defined, legally or otherwise. The minister did say "most." How many don't?

Hon. C. Clark: We haven't surveyed the districts to ask them how many don't. We know that the big majority certainly do. If she'd like a quantifiable number, we could certainly canvass the districts for her.

J. MacPhail: I'll just tell the minister where I'm going on this, because it will be relevant in the debate later on as well.

Catchment areas take on a new significance, because with the changes to the School Act, knowing what one's catchment area is, is very important, to get a right to attend the neighbourhood school. Districts that don't have catchment areas now are going to be spending a lot of time putting those in place, I would expect, because there's a huge amount of interest on ensuring that one is able to attend one's neighbourhood school, community-located school. Every district is going to have to define a catchment area, because certain things flow from that. What will be the guidelines for defining catchment area?

Hon. C. Clark: The guidelines won't change from our current guidelines, which rely on school districts to set their catchment areas.

One of the things we wanted to achieve in this legislation, as I've said a number of times, is to provide kids with choice so that they can attend any school anywhere in the province, if it fits their needs, based on space available. At the same time we wanted to ensure that every child had a guaranteed right to attend their neighbourhood school. That's the balance we found in this legislation. Those minority of districts that don't have defined catchment areas will draw those catchment areas based on the population in their districts, as the vast majority of districts do in British Columbia today.

J. MacPhail: I've had personal experience with catchment areas in my district. They're very controversial. They're very important to parents. The consequences of inappropriate catchment areas create huge problems for families.

The school boards are going to have to spend a lot of time on this issue. While the minister may think that this is just an easy task of defining a catchment area, and then beyond that it's wide open for anybody to go to, parents have a very different view of catchment areas. For instance, the issue of French immersion in a district and a catchment area for French immersion programs versus non–French immersion catchment areas is very key in urban areas.

The ability to have catchment areas that may change and affect children that are going to high school or elementary school has a big effect. The best example that I can think of about this is that in the last couple of years, the Vancouver school board opened up the process to change its catchment areas. It was very controversial. The school board, to its credit, listened to the parents and paid heed to parents' concerns.

Let me ask this: what's the time line for school boards to have defined catchment areas in place?

Hon. C. Clark: Starting July 1, school districts will be required to start setting up their catchment areas. That will come into effect for next September. That's a year from this coming September. Starting July 1, parents will have the right to decide where they want to

I understand what the member is suggesting. Setting up catchment areas is sometimes controversial. That's certainly why we want to give school districts some time to be able to do that.

J. MacPhail: If I could just get the time line for this. On July 1, 2002, the boards will start defining — will define — catchment areas which will be in place for September 2003. But on July 1 of what year will parents have the ability to send their children to any school?

J. MacPhail: Okay. I'll just reiterate it. This is just for information. It's important for parents. On July 1, '02, the catchment areas will be defined for application September '03, but it will be July 1, '03, that the parents get to choose the school that they attend. That was my question.

Hon. C. Clark: Starting July '02-03 — this year — school districts will start to define their catchment areas and their policies for applying catchment areas. In the same school year, '02-03, kids will be going to the same schools and doing the same things that they did this year. Parents will be able to determine what school. They'll be able to start making application to go to other schools, if that's what they choose for their children. Then in '03-04 children will be able to start attending the schools that they've chosen, provided that there is space for them.

J. MacPhail: Parents will be making choices this summer, as I understand it, for the school year this coming September. I'm sorry to be so thick; I'm really having a difficult time understanding this.

Hon. C. Clark: School districts are going to be putting in place the infrastructure for this process starting in July. The '02-03 school year in September will come, and parents will send their children to the schools, I presume, that they're sending them to now, or operate under the current guidelines. Then in September '03-04 their kids may go to another school. We expect that school districts will have set up the infrastructure and parents will have had the opportunity in '02-03, this coming school year, to choose a school — another school, if that's what they'd like — and make application for their child to attend that school, providing there's space.

What's the public consultation process? Do the guidelines leave the public consultation for establishment of catchment areas up to each school board?

Hon. C. Clark: We don't anticipate changing from the current regime. School boards have been able to determine their own catchment areas for a long time, and they have their own processes for doing that. We don't anticipate changing that.

J. MacPhail: I'm only familiar with the ones that have done this to date, and there has been public consultation. Is there a requirement for public consultation?

Hon. C. Clark: We haven't legislated it. I'm not aware of a board that hasn't engaged in consultation as a result of wanting to bring in or change catchment areas. I know that certainly in the member's district, it was controversial. The school board did engage in a lot of consultation in order to do that. I don't think her school board or any other will deviate from that.

J. MacPhail: I was hoping for more reassurance than just "leave it up to the school boards," for this reason: the school boards have other pressures that have taken on new meaning since catchment areas have been determined in the past. They're under huge financial pressures.

It's disappointing to know that these changes will take place that are extremely important to parents. It's probably one of the most important issues to parents. It's disappointing to know that there won't be the required public consultation. I just point out again for the minister that there are many boards that haven't gone through — ever — establishing catchment areas, so we don't know what boards will do in these particular cases.

J. Kwan: On the issue around catchment areas, it's my understanding that a child could be going to a school in a different catchment or in a different district than he or she lives in, because it's on the basis of the wait-list, and the approval for the child to attend at different schools out of his or her district is on the basis of availability. Is there a possibility, then, for a student to be going to a school, and after, let's say, two years, because there are demographic changes in the school he or she is attending, he or she may well have to be sent to another school after, let's say, two years in high school?

Hon. C. Clark: That's the way it is currently. The legislation will establish a preference for children who are already at the school, but that preference won't override the right of a child who lives close to that school to be able to attend that school.

J. Kwan: In other words, a child could be attending a school of their choice, and maybe in their grade 12 year they'll find that availability is no longer there because the district or that school — the demographics — have changed, and the space is not available. So in the grade 12 year that student could well be faced with a situation of having to go to another school for their graduating year — not only in the district but actually

in a different district. You could be attending a school in Burnaby because it has a particular specialty. All of a sudden you lose your final year in terms of the education and also all the friends. That's a possibility with this piece of legislation and the catchment area that is being defined.

Hon. C. Clark: I appreciate that the member is trying to find — and it's her job to try and find — issues to create with the legislation. This isn't something that couldn't technically happen now as well. If a school district, for example, didn't project its population growth in a certain area accurately and they were so inaccurate that they ended up with no space at a school, they would now, I assume, have to, in many cases, shrink the catchment area. That's perfectly possible now.

Now and in the future that is very, very unlikely, because superintendents and school districts look very carefully at demographic data. They do their predictions very carefully as well. They know what developments are going on in their communities. That's a part of their capital planning process at the moment. I should assure the member that in other jurisdictions where they've done this, her worst fears that she's raised today certainly haven't been borne out in reality.

J. Kwan: I know that the minister likes to accuse the opposition, anytime we raise a question, of creating fears. For the minister's information, the week in which we didn't sit in this House, I went back to my own riding and met with parent advisory committees from a variety of different schools. We engaged in a lot of discussion around Bill 34. Prior to my going back to the riding, I actually had a briefing with ministry staff in terms of what the changes are, so I advised them of such.

Parents actually raised this issue, because there was a parent whose child was going to be graduating from elementary school this year and then heading into high school. They were asking how this new change would work and what it would mean and so on. This is a question that's been raised by parents who were concerned, potentially, that a child could be going into a different catchment area because of the choice that the minister says is being afforded. By virtue of that, if the demographics do change, that child may well in mid-year then be having to go to a different school — or throughout the five years if you want to try to complete your school year. That's a possibility as well.

I'm trying to get clarification for the parents so they understand exactly what the ramifications are. The minister may want to cast it as though it is not an issue, but in the parents' minds it is an issue, and they want to fully understand within that choice what the ramifications are and what some of the possibilities and difficulties are that their children may run into in the future.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I'm glad we had this discussion, because I'm sure the member will be anxious to go back to her community and set those parents' fears at rest. She can certainly tell them a couple of things: one, her suggestion today that perhaps a child could be kicked out in the middle of the year is totally — totally — inaccurate. The legislation very clearly sets out that there's a deadline for application. That doesn't extend into the middle of the year, so there won't be catchment-area kids moving in, in the middle of the year and moving other children out. The legislation explicitly would not allow that, so I'm sure she'll be delighted to be able to go back and tell her constituents about that.

In addition, I'm sure she will be delighted to go back and tell her constituents that if they are not worried now about that issue, they should not be worried after the changes in legislation, because the effect of the power of school boards to do this and the power of school boards to set catchment areas or the power of school boards in Vancouver won't be any different.

J. Kwan: If a family moves into an area where there is not any space available for their children to attend the school because it's full and that school has accepted students from outside of the district, is it the case that the students who've moved into the area won't be able to get access to their school? Would they have to go to a different district until next year, for next year's enrolment, in order to get in? What room will be made available to them — the people who actually live in those areas?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I'm pleased to be able to set the member's fears at rest again. We're not talking about mid-year changes. The legislation explicitly sets out a program that won't allow that. Currently, if a child moves into a local neighbourhood and the school is full, a district may say to the parents of that child: "You cannot attend this school." In fact, there were many instances of districts saying to parents that their children couldn't attend the school they lived by because of the way the previous government chose to structure class-size limits.

This isn't something that's unknown currently. If a child comes into a catchment area in the middle of a year, and there's no room at the school and the school cannot find any way to accommodate that child, although certainly the likelihood of that will be much greater now that Bill 28 is in place…. Certainly we are reducing the number of kids who have to be bused from school to school with the enactment of Bill 28, something that school trustees and many, many other partner groups are excited about. They will, however, in this legislation be entitled to an educational program provided in their home district.

J. Kwan: In this legislation, is there anything that would enable a student to attend a school outside of their area? If the parent decides that there is another school which they want their child to attend but they may not have the means to transport the student there,

are there any supports within the system that would actually enable that as well?

Hon. C. Clark: School districts have busing programs. They may decide that they want to move children around who are choosing a different school outside their catchment area, but we aren't requiring it.

J. Kwan: Is that option, then, made available on a district-by-district basis per the school trustees' decision, or is it more than that? If parents want their children to go to another area and may not have the means, and there may not be a school program available to facilitate that — the district has not provided for that support — what other means are available to these students and these families to get to their school of choice?

The intent of this legislation — I should be clear — is for people to move to a different school if they choose to, as opposed to the regime that we've just ended, where children had to move to a different school not because they chose to but because they had to because of the very rigid, inflexible rules that the previous government built into contracts, which we've changed. We are introducing a new approach to education where children who want to choose to go to a different school can choose to do that.

Now, as I said, transportation is something that will be managed district by district.

J. Kwan: The point that the minister is actually missing is this: in some communities, if the minister wants to make choice available to all students, then she ought to take into account the notion of choice with the socioeconomic backgrounds of the families. Some families may well choose to have children go to school in a different district, but they may not have the means to actually get them there and back and, therefore, to fully exercise their right to choice.

The school districts, because of the funding cutbacks…. In spite of what this minister says in terms of the issue around flexibility, the cutbacks in education programs have created enormous pressures in the school boards, and they may not be able to provide for transportation services.

J. Kwan: The member for Vancouver-Burrard, who wishes that he were minister, is suggesting that there are no cutbacks in education. If you actually went out and talked to the parents and students, you would know — for the member for Vancouver-Burrard — that the programs in his own schools are being cut severely, and his own parents are very worried about it. I met with some of those parents during the holidays.

J. Kwan: …available under this new-era government, with this new Minister of Education, to people who can afford it. Choice is not being afforded to all British Columbians, because they're faced with barriers in getting their children to a different school. If they're not able to provide for and overcome those barriers, and if the school system is unable to provide for that, then they have no choice. That is the reality.

Hon. C. Clark: It seems to me that the world the member prefers is one where rather than having some choice, we have no choice; where if you can't afford to live in a neighbourhood that might be near a better school or a school that's different or a school that offers something different, tough luck. That's the world that we've been living in for the last ten years. That seems to be the kind of structure that the member opposite would prefer.

What I'm suggesting is that just because you may live next door to a school, that may not be appropriate for your child — and maybe you can't afford to move. Maybe you can decide you want to take your child to another school.

I'm not suggesting for a second that this is going to mean that every child is going to have every choice available to him or her. What I am suggesting is that having some choice is better than having no choice at all. The world of no choice at all is the world that the member opposite seems to subscribe to.

We don't believe in that. Parents don't want that; kids don't want that. Every child is different, and they should be able to access different educational programs. They should be able to access the programs that meet their needs.

The last thing I will add is this. If she is worried — and I suspect this is where she's going — that there will be some schools that have less demand from students and parents than others, what other jurisdictions have done and what her school district may decide to do is create magnet schools in those schools.

What happens when you do that is you take a school that was underperforming and create one that attracts people from all over the district. You get children from wealthy neighbourhoods, from less wealthy neighbourhoods, from families who have a lot of education and from families who don't have a lot of education rubbing shoulders in the cafeteria every day.

That's what magnet schools are about. That's what innovative districts who have pioneered choice have done very successfully, not just to the benefit of all the children in the district who are able to attend that school because of the choices that are there, but in particular to the benefit of the children who were previously forced to attend a school that was underperform-

ing. Now they may live next door to a school that's a beacon for the entire district.

J. Kwan: I do have these hopes and dreams that there should be full equity amongst all people in British Columbia and across the world. On the issue around school options, I do wish that, and especially my constituents who are, by and large, faced with multiple barriers and are from a low socioeconomic status…. A lot of them are new immigrants, and they're struggling on a day-by-day basis. A lot of them are urban aboriginal kids.

I want to see them have the full opportunities so they have equal access to the choice of schools that they choose. But this government is not facilitating that at all. What they are doing is cutting programs in the education area. The minister says….

J. Kwan: I urge the member for Vancouver-Burrard to go and talk to the parents or the students in his area, because they have a lot of concerns, including the school trustees.

Here's what the Vancouver school board chair, Barbara Buchanan, has to say about the possibility of bringing in magnet schools as the minister advocates — that without more money from the province, she'll be focused on making cuts, not delivering new programs. That is what the school boards are faced with. That is what the students are faced with.

Does this minister care? No. Does this member for Vancouver-Burrard care? No. That is the reality. Because of this government, they have put so much pressure on the educational funding side that instead of thinking of new innovative programs, school boards are now going to be focused on making cuts instead.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I don't think the member gives her own board enough credit. I think she's got a lot of outstanding people at that board. In fact, she stands up and says they're not talking about any new programs. This member will talk about that, I imagine, until the end of her days. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. In her own district, they are creating their first elementary-level fine arts school at Nootka, and they are carrying on with the creation of that school.

Don't stand up and say: "Boy, innovation is over. Creativity is dead." It isn't.

Hon. C. Clark: I know the member has an ideological path she walks down unerringly, where she says that if all choices aren't available equally to all people, then no one should have any choice at all.

Well, I fundamentally disagree with that. I think there is a better way. I think that the way to equity is to provide individuals with choices, not take them away. I don't think that government knows better what's good for people's children than their parents. That is a big ideological difference that I have with that member opposite.

When she stands up and says, "Well, there isn't enough equity in this, so we shouldn't have any choice at all," I fundamentally differ with her. Of course we should have choices. Of course we should allow people to decide where they want to send their children.

You know, right now today you will find many parents who don't feel that their schools are performing, and those parents would like to be able to send their child to another school. Where's the equity in that? They can't. What we want to do is create a system where school districts, for the first time, are subject to a new kind of pressure from the consumers of the system, which are students and parents — where they can vote with their feet and tell a school district, "No, you're not performing," and the school district will have a whole new reason to step in and try and improve schools that in some cases are operating and performing far, far below the standards that not only we expect of them but every child deserves from them.

J. Kwan: The minister is so blinded by her own rhetoric that she doesn't even see what the reality is. What the school boards and every British Columbian that I've spoken with on this issue are calling for is that there be choice, but for government to facilitate the choice and equal access to all students. This government is not doing that. They're only just selecting some sectors of the population who'll be able to access the choices. What people are asking for is for the government to facilitate choice for all students.

Do you know what? The freeze in the Education budget, which is what this government and this minister are doing and what this member for Vancouver-Burrard is advocating for, actually creates inequities within our school system to the point where students will have less likelihood of success. Their school options, even in their own district, are going to compromised.

I say this once again for the minister, and she needs to heed the words of the school trustees. Without more money from the province, she'll be focusing on making cuts, not delivering new programs. Those are the words of the chair of the Vancouver school board, Barbara Buchanan.

For the minister's information, Nootka school of fine arts was developed before this legislation was brought in, before this government was elected. So that choice the minister talks about already existed, and it was already being produced. School boards were able

to focus on that because they were fully funded by the previous government, not by this government.

Do you know what we face now? The fact of the matter is that Nootka School is now going to be at risk because of the lack of funding and lack of commitment and the lack of priorities of this government on the issue around education.

Hon. C. Clark: I will have to take advantage of the opportunity at the break to bring in some quotes from school districts that would certainly put the lie to what the member has said about how she fully funded school districts when they were in government. She may want to argue that she did, but I don't think she'll find many school districts that will back her up. We could certainly go back and look through the quotes, and they'll certainly tell us that they don't agree. They didn't agree with her at the time, and they probably don't agree with her now.

Hon. C. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sometimes I feel like I'm in Nootka Elementary when I'm in this chamber doing these debates.

I'll just finish with this and say that we believe that choice is important. We think it is important to provide choices, and that is preferable to providing no choices at all, which was the regime that the previous government set up. There's much more equity in giving parents and children choices about the educational programs that they'd like to access in order to meet their educational needs.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, there's a big difference in how this debate can go. The minister stands up every single time and somehow thinks that just because the only two people asking any questions are members of the opposition, somehow they're inappropriate, that they're done for political reasons, partisan reasons. She uses terms like ideological….

J. MacPhail: Well, let me just tell you where we've gathered up these questions: from the parents advisory councils, with whom we have met; from the School Trustees Association, which was informed by the deputy minister that this debate would be finished this week and so they'd better get their questions in, so we're asking these questions; and by the lack of answers provided by the minister to these very people as well.

The minister can approach this in a respectful way by just answering the questions so that everybody can understand the intent of this legislation, or she can choose to engage at this level of silly challenge that these questions are inappropriate. Maybe the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I should sit down and ask all of the Liberal MLAs to stand up and ask the questions their trustees have given to us to ask, because that's what they've done.

J. MacPhail: That's what they've done. I hear people saying they haven't asked questions. Maybe they're using their e-mail for other purposes, but it might be a good idea for them to check their e-mail and find out these questions that are being asked. This debate could go a lot more smoothly. There is no intention here whatsoever to do anything other than reflect the questions that are being asked. The minister knows full well these questions are being asked throughout the province.

On section 2(c), there has been a concern raised that there's no requirement for the board — for anybody — to take into requirement any restrictions to meet class size, that there is no requirement, first, to meet the class-size restrictions which this government brought in under, I think, section 74.1, and that this is not a factor at all in determining who may enrol where. What's the logic of excluding that as a factor?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm delighted to hear from the members opposite that we're going to be getting back to a more civil tone in our discussions here. I'm looking forward to that.

The reference to space is determined by collective agreements that affect it and by the other legislation that governs that.

J. MacPhail: That wasn't my question, Mr. Chair. My question was why these are under section 2(c). There's a list of qualifications as to what determines where a child may enrol. That's the section we're talking about right now. For instance, just for those who don't have the legislation in front of them, it says: "Subject to section 74.1, a person may enrol in an educational program provided by a board of a school district and attend any school in British Columbia if" — and then section 2(c) says — "the board providing the educational program determines that space and facilities are available for the person at the school in which the educational program is made available."

I'm asking the minister why there is not a qualification that includes this government's own legislation on class-size restrictions.

Hon. C. Clark: The class-size reference the member is making is different from the space reference she

seemed to be referencing in this. When we talk about space, we are talking about the physical space that's available. Certainly, the class-size limits that we put in legislation will apply.

J. MacPhail: I'm not saying it's one or the other. I'm asking why this isn't qualified by the class-size limits. If there's a dispute between whether a child can go to…. Well, let me just say this. If the minister thinks that there's such demand for choice, a parent could turn to this section and say: "You've got the space available, school board. It doesn't say anything about you having to meet class-size limits here, so I want my child in there." I know that may come as a surprise to the minister, but just such legal challenges occur on a regular basis.

Hon. C. Clark: This clause is qualified by the class-size limits that are elsewhere in the School Act legislation that we brought in for the very first time in B.C.'s history in Bill 28.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could explain to me how that occurs. Maybe she could walk me through the legislation that demonstrates that.

Hon. C. Clark: The act is read as a whole. The class-size provisions in the legislation will apply to this part of the legislation and, I think, to the extent that the Hansard debate will also, if we're anticipating a legal challenge here — I'm not aware of that — help inform anyone that might have a question about it.

J. MacPhail: Of course there are no legal challenges yet. The legislation isn't in place. Those comments are so unhelpful. Let me just say — I'm just a layperson — that….

J. MacPhail: Well, here it does say "subject to section 74.1." It doesn't say "subject to section 76.1," so I would assume that the principle of exclusion would apply.

Hon. C. Clark: The class-size limits that were enacted in Bill 28 apply for every school district, and they apply for every classroom. That applies across the legislation. Certainly, this part of the legislation is qualified by that overarching requirement for school districts.

J. MacPhail: I think the minister is wrong. I'll just put that on the record. If the minister is going to rely on Hansard discussion to inform parents about what their rights are, the minister is wrong. The way this legislation is written, the class-size limits do not override this provision. They don't. Otherwise….

J. MacPhail: Well, then let me ask the minister or her advisers: what's the necessity to have the qualification saying "subject to section 74.1"?

Hon. C. Clark: The qualification that the member has referenced talks about where their child would come, in terms of the preferences that a school district would make for a child to be able to attend that school. The two are very obviously linked, and that is among the new things that we're adding into the legislation, so it's certainly necessary that it be there.

Let me be clear. There is no question that the class-size limits that we put into legislation for the first time in B.C.'s history, in January, apply to school districts irrespective of this legislation.

J. MacPhail: Well, let me just read…. The minister's answer, I'm sorry, I couldn't follow, Mr. Chair. I actually have the language of section 74(1) in front of me, and it's a qualification on the ability of a parent to enrol her child in any school. The language says: "74(1) A board is responsible for the management of the schools in its school district and for the custody, maintenance and safekeeping of all property owned or leased by the board." I would assume that that qualification is about physical restrictions that the board has, physical restrictions that say you have to have safekeeping of all property.

I'm saying to you that section 76(1) is the pupil restriction. It's the same sort of legal restriction that boards have to uphold. My view is that by including a physical restriction and not including a pupil restriction, the class size doesn't prevail.

Hon. C. Clark: Now I understand why the member is confused. She is talking about section 74(1), which is in the School Act currently. The legislation that we are presenting today and the amendments that we're presenting refer to 74.1, which is different; 74.1 refers to the new catchment area definitions that are being brought in, in the legislation. If she takes a minute to have a reference back in the legislation to that, I think that will certainly clear up some of her confusion in reading the legislation.

J. MacPhail: Thank you for that. Yes, it does. But it doesn't…. Then, indeed, section 74.1 has physical restrictions — geographically, physical restrictions — on how one defines a child. Thank you for that clarification. It still doesn't include…. In 74.1, it doesn't include any reference then, again, to class sizes. If 74.1 now prevails, in the ranking of priorities that a school district has to determine, where does class size come in? Is it equal to 74.1?

Hon. C. Clark: School districts must maintain, for kindergarten to grade 3, very strict class-size averages. That applies across the board. They cannot, for kindergarten to grade 3, exceed those maximums. For grades 4 to 12 they have district-wide averages. They cannot exceed those averages. That governs how school districts manage this process and certainly qualifies anything that's in this legislation. I think that should be

pretty obvious to an experienced reader of legislation like the member opposite.

J. MacPhail: Well, it isn't, but it also isn't obvious to others who are examining this legislation very closely. They're very concerned that class size is not a qualification for enrolment beyond the neighbourhood schools.

I have to tell you, Mr. Chair, it's just simply completely unhelpful, when we're reflecting that, to somehow say (1) that one has to have ten years of experience of reading legislation as complex as this, and (2) don't worry; be happy. People are concerned about this.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, then, it's a good thing the member asked the question. Maybe it's a good thing she asked it four or five times. I've answered it, I think, pretty clearly. Anyone who is reading the Hansard and has any questions about it can make a reference to see that class-size limits certainly apply across this legislation.

Hon. C. Clark: The School Act used to require that school districts fill in and send in an annual report for the ministry in past years. Those annual reports were not necessarily goals-oriented. They would tell us or were supposed to tell us how well the school had done by certain measures, but they didn't set out the goals for improvement. What we've done with accountability contracts is require that school districts set out not just how well they've done but, more importantly, how they intend to improve on the areas where they think they need to achieve more success. The accountability contracts will be expanding in many ways the amount of information we currently are expecting school districts to provide in the form of annual reports.

J. MacPhail: Having not received the information yet from the minister on the annual reports, perhaps she could tell the public what the expansion of information is that will be included in an accountability contract and that was not in the annual report.

Hon. C. Clark: The accountability contracts will cover not just academic outcomes, but they'll also cover a whole range of other human and social development outcomes. Most importantly, they won't just be talking about how well a school did the year before, which is really the focus of an annual report. They'll be talking about how well a school district hopes to do the following year so that they can set goals for improvement.

The information about where they've been over the last year is certainly part of the context they need to provide in order to get an accountability contract in place. There will be things in accountability contracts that are not currently required in the annual reports; for example, goals related to violence at school. If a school or a district has issues with violence, that's not something that any annual report or any minister has ever required that a school district report on. That's something that we are going to start focusing on with school districts in the form of our accountability contracts, because it's a very important part of ensuring that children are able to learn. They need to learn in an environment that's safe and where they feel respected.

There will be information from the parent-staff-student satisfaction surveys included in that, and there will be a range of other measures that often are not provided in many annual reports across the province.

J. MacPhail: Again, that's an output. We talked yesterday about inputs to accountability contracts. There were other ways of determining inputs other than annual reports in the system. Accreditation was one of those. I'm trying to find out, as per our discussion yesterday, where inputs are asked for and determined.

Hon. C. Clark: We did talk about this yesterday. When we talked about inputs, we talked about setting the context for the accountability contracts. That's been part of the discussion with the creation of all the accountability contracts that we've done. Certainly, on the subject of annual reports, that was very output oriented. That's what annual reports are all about.

I want to give the member an example, because she asks for things that are in annual reports but not in accountability contracts. The annual report order says that school districts must report on the percent of grade 8s who graduate. That's an important piece of information, but certainly a more important piece of information is the transition — the number of kids who go on to grade 9 — because we know that we lose a lot of kids from our school system between those grades. Even more important than that, once we get the transition rate, is the process of setting goals for improving that transition rate. If our transition rate was 80 percent, how do we get it up to 81 percent the following year? That's something that isn't required to be contained in annual reports.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, my question is: what's contained in the accountability contract that isn't contained in the annual report? The minister got those reviews reversed.

What I'm looking for is the inputs. Maybe the minister is misunderstanding. I was the Minister of Education; I don't know what was in the annual reports. I'm not accusing the minister of anything other than that it's a question of information, and I was the Minister of Education.

What I'm looking for is the way these accountability contracts are replacing, for instance, an accreditation process that, yes, did occur once every six years but had input measurement as well as output measurement. I'm looking for where the input measurement is as well as output.

Hon. C. Clark: Certainly, as I said, the ministry talks about context and inputs with school districts when we sit down and talk about their accountability contracts. In addition to that, in this legislation — and I know we will get to that subject later — we are creating school planning councils which will also talk about inputs and outputs and goals and ways to improve for the following year. That is going to be a huge enhancement of our current accreditation process, which only happened once every six years.

Of course, as I'm sure the member will remember, the group got together, and they looked at what a school was doing, how well it was doing it and the processes that were involved in that, and then they talked about how they would improve those processes. It's certainly a very valuable thing to do; in fact, so valuable that I think we should start doing it every year and guarantee parent involvement in it every single year. That is one of the things we will achieve with this legislation.

J. Kwan: The minister mentioned that the measurement of the accountability contract would be on the basis of satisfaction surveys. Is that the only measurement of how well the schools are achieving their goals?

Hon. C. Clark: No, as I've said a number of times, there are a whole range of measures that we expect to be able to use for accountability contracts. This year we didn't have the results of the surveys, because it's the first one we've ever done systematically across the province in the recent history of the ministry. We had the results from foundation skills assessment, we had graduation rates, we had specific graduation rates for first nations kids, and we had results of grade-to-grade transition. That was most of the baseline data that we relied on this year to create our accountability contracts. Next year we'll have a whole bunch of other baseline data, including the surveys, which will be important information. The year after, we may be able to incorporate more baseline data as well.

As I've said, the accountability contracts are an evolving process. We hope that over the years they become very individualized and that districts have ones that are quite different from one another based on the needs and expectations of the students and the parents in their local communities.

J. Kwan: On the question around surveys, let me start there. Is there any translation provided for the surveys that are being sent out to parents for them to respond to?

Hon. C. Clark: We certainly did talk to some school districts about translation. I will get back to the member, though, with a very specific answer about what happened with that.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can advise: when she says she's talked to certain people about it, could the minister elaborate on the nature of that discussion? Was it that we would expect this to be done so that people can fully participate, or was it just something highlighted as an issue and then sort of left to see whether or not it gets followed up? What kind of discussion took place around that?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, I'd be happy to get her as much information as she needs on that as soon as we have an opportunity.

J. Kwan: The minister doesn't even know what kind of requests were made around it? I'm curious as to what extent the question was raised. Maybe the minister doesn't know the outcome, but what was the expectation? Was there any level of expectation that translation would be provided, and to what extent?

Hon. C. Clark: My understanding is that the answer to that question is yes. But I'm sure the member will want more details about that, so I'd be delighted to get her more details.

You know, our government is — and as the minister, I am — very committed to ensuring parent participation in the school system. It's something that in my opinion we haven't seen enough of over the last decade. Parents have been frothing at the bit to be able to get involved. There's a huge appetite from parents — parents who speak English and parents who don't — to get involved in our education system.

My goal is certainly to involve as many parents in their children's education as I possibly can. Allowing them input through the parent-student-staff survey is an incredibly important way of doing that. It allows people who are sometimes very, very busy — who may not have time to visit their school regularly or have discussions with their child's teacher regularly — an opportunity at least once a year to tell us in the ministry and tell school districts individually what they'd like to see changed and how they think things could be improved.

To the extent that translations facilitate that for a greater number of people, that's certainly something we've provided.

J. Kwan: I hate to say this, but the words of the minister's commitment to providing a wide range of participation ring hollow, especially in light of the fact that as a result of the pressures put on the education system, some school districts are faced with having to cut multicultural outreach workers. Those multicultural outreach workers are essential to getting the parents participating in the school system, ensuring a bet-

ter education outcome for the students and so on. The fact is that a significant number of multicultural workers have been eliminated as a result of the pressures put by this government on the education funding side.

Her words ring hollow, but I will await the information from the minister. She says that, yes, translation is being asked for and is to be provided in these surveys. I will see what information is forthcoming. I hope the minister is right that translation is provided to facilitate maximum participation. I can tell you, there are a lot of individuals and families in British Columbia, in Vancouver and on the lower mainland who have language barriers. Without assistance on the issue around language, they would not be able to participate.

I know from my own personal experience. My parents couldn't participate in the educational system because of language barriers. They faced tremendous difficulties. They actually relied on the children to go home and translate the information to them. Sometimes, by a young person, that translation is not done as well as it could be. I was nine years old, and I was trying to explain information to my parents from the school back to them. I know I didn't do a good job in trying to translate that information for my parents, and I know that other children are faced with those difficulties even today.

I'd like to ask the minister: does she know the rate of return for these surveys that have been sent out?

Hon. C. Clark: At this point it would be a guess. I'd certainly be delighted to provide all members of the House with a very firm number when we have that in, but we don't have a firm number in yet. I can certainly say, though, that we are delighted with the number that have been returned.

J. Kwan: The minister says she doesn't have the firm number. Can she tell the House how many surveys went out and approximately how many came back?

Hon. C. Clark: I think I'll save that information for when we do have the firm numbers. In the meantime, Mr. Chair, I seek your guidance about ensuring that we stay on the focus of the legislation that we're here to debate.

J. Kwan: This is strictly related to the issue around the accountability contracts. How are they running? The legislation actually talks about how we have to come to these measurements for enhancing and ensuring that there is participation, and the participation goes directly to what language, if there is translation associated with it.

The minister had advised the House that the first round of surveys have gone out. I'd be most interested in understanding how that's going. How is that going? How many have actually gone out? The minister doesn't want to provide information with respect to how many surveys might have been returned. Does she know how many surveys have actually gone out then?

Hon. C. Clark: I'd be happy to provide that information when we have a complete report on the results of the surveys. And I do want to confirm for the member — I've got a copy of it here; I can table it for her — one translated survey. This one is in Chinese. I'm certainly sensitive to the issues that the member raises of language. It shouldn't be a barrier for a parent to get involved in their child's education. We are all here the children of immigrants, with the exception of first nations peoples. We need to remember that, and we need to be sensitive to those issues.

J. Kwan: Yes, I would be interested in getting the information. Aside from that translation being offered, I would be interested in getting the information from the minister on how many different languages are being provided and how that has been distributed in the different school districts to ensure that the different language requirements are there.

I know, as an example, that neighbours of mine just came from Russia, and they speak very, very little English. I think in the community in which they live, there aren't a lot of Russians. I'd be very interested in terms of how to tackle that difficult challenge, because there are many different languages in different communities. How many languages is the information being translated into? How is the school district facilitating full, maximum participation in this area?

On the question around the accountability contract, is there anything within it that will gauge the students' level when they first enter the school system? I know that varies from student to student, from district to district. Is there anything within the accountability contract on issues around measurement of achievement that gauges the entry level of the children as they enter the school system?

Hon. C. Clark: Districts do a whole range of readiness tests. Some of them, I'm informed, use the Yaeger-Smith readiness test, which, I understand, is a very comprehensive way of measuring how well a child is prepared for school when they enter it. Certainly the results of those tests can be part of the discussion for accountability contracts.

J. Kwan: I have one more question around the surveys. Could the minister also please provide the cost breakdown associated with the survey that's been sent out? I'd be interested in how much it costs to do that work.

J. MacPhail: We're on the parent advisory councils. Under the act now there are two issues — let me just be

clear here, Mr. Chair — for which parent advisory councils…. Let me just be clear. My apologies, Mr. Chair. I did have this.

Under parent advisory councils under the previous act — the one we're amending — it has deleted the provisions saying, as I understand it: (1) "A parents' advisory council, through its elected officers, may advise the board and the principal and staff of the school or the provincial school respecting any matter relating to the school or the provincial school." I think that's been repealed. And (5) "A parents' advisory council, in consultation with the principal, must make bylaws governing its meetings and the business and conduct of its affairs, including bylaws governing the dissolution of the council."

Hon. C. Clark: With the creation of the school planning councils, we wanted to ensure that the school planning council as a component of the PAC and the PAC weren't advising on exactly the same issues. We wanted to make sure they weren't doubling up on the same jobs. So what we did was added the line to that section, after the line the member mentioned, that says "other than matters assigned to the school planning council." The PAC can still advise on all other matters, but we wanted to make sure that the school planning council, as a component of the PAC with a very specific job, wasn't doing exactly the same thing the PAC was.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure there will be much discussion amongst parent advisory councils, the new school planning councils, school trustees and teachers themselves about the move from where the centre of responsibility and input rests. I'll let that unfold as it may.

What I do know that I've heard from both parent advisory councils and district parent advisory councils and then from trustees this weekend is that the change in focus from parent advisory councils having the relationship with the school and the district parent advisory council having the relationship with the district now shifting toward a school planning council will mean much change. Pretty much everyone has said it will mean a lot of change.

I'll note for the minister, although I'm sure she's had a chance since yesterday evening to look at this, that a resolution passed at the School Trustees Association meeting of April 25 to 28 said: "The BCSTA requests the Minister of Education to revise the time lines for creating school planning councils, recognizing the boards welcome this opportunity for parental input." We can discuss that under the next section about school planning councils. It does highlight, under this section, the parent advisory councils fully understanding, with the repeal of those two descriptions of their responsibilities and their obligations, that there is a shift of the centre for decision-making and input over to the school planning councils.

The other issue that has come to my colleague's and my attention — not only in our own school boards, where this is very important, but other school boards, such as Richmond, Coquitlam, Burnaby and Surrey as well, with high number of non-English-speaking parents — is that parent advisory councils and district parent advisory councils have been doing a great deal of work to include parents who have not been the natural participants in parent advisory councils in years past because of language barriers and cultural barriers.

To give the minister an example, in one of the schools in my riding the parent advisory council has spent virtually the last two years — well, up until very recently, having to deal with the inner-city school funding issues — working on a program to integrate parents who are not English-speaking. It has been in the form of luncheons. I've actually had the pleasure of going to them, and they're culturally diverse luncheons. Translators are offered at the PAC meetings. It's just a huge range of issues to integrate these parents.

What the parent advisory councils are now saying, and I heard this at the trustees meeting as well, is that all of that work will be a challenge to reflect on a school planning council where there are just three members. I'm wondering whether the minister has heard those concerns and what her thoughts are.

Hon. C. Clark: The member takes a very different view of this, I think, than I do. She talks about where responsibility for school matters rests as though she believes that the school planning council is separate and maybe even in opposition to the parent advisory council. It's not. The very clear intention of the legislation is to create a situation where the school planning council is very connected to the parent advisory council. Not only do we require that a member of the PAC executive sits on the school planning council, but we also require them to consult on the school plan.

What we are doing in this legislation, though — and this is where I think I would differ — is providing the PAC in every school with a guaranteed right to and access to input in planning for that school. It's quite true there are schools where the planning function of the PAC works well, where they are able to collaborate with the principal and teachers in the school to set a plan for the school every year. This isn't by any means true in every school. In fact, it's far from the case, and many, many parents have told me over the last year that they are fed up with being treated like the guys who run the bake sale. They're fed up with what they feel is like banging their heads against the wall to try and get some collaboration at the school level. As I said, that's not true in every case, but it's certainly true in many cases, so what we're doing with the legislation is providing a method of input for the PAC.

The school planning council will be elected from the PAC. A member, a parent representative on the school planning council, will have to have been a

member of the executive of the PAC, and they will be required to consult with the PAC. We are providing the PAC with this focus and with this guaranteed input and guaranteed avenue for consultation into their children's schools.

J. Kwan: Is it the case, then, that only members of the PAC would be able to vote to elect their representative, or would all parents in their school be able to vote?

Hon. C. Clark: Every parent who has a child in a school has an automatic right to be a member of the PAC for that school.

J. Kwan: The minister didn't answer my question. My question was not about whether or not a parent could be a member of a parent advisory council but rather whether or not, if you're a parent who is not on the PAC, you have the right to vote to elect your representative on this school planning council.

Hon. C. Clark: You don't have to be on the PAC executive, but you do have to be a member of the PAC. Certainly, anyone who wants to be involved in their child's school is a member of their child's PAC. I think that's a pretty obvious connection.

J. Kwan: I am very disturbed by this answer from the minister, because I know a lot of parents. They are very involved with their child's education as best as they can be, but not all the parents are involved in the school PACs. They simply can't. Now the minister is bringing in legislation to elect a council, but if you're a parent who is not involved with the PAC, you don't have the right to vote. That limits a lot of parents' capacity to actually exercise that right. I am very disturbed by the minister's answer, and I think it is one that would trouble many parents. I know that in my own community, it would trouble many parents as well.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, on the one hand, I hear the members arguing that the school planning council will diminish the role of the PAC and that that's a terrible thing, because the PAC should be able to advise on school matters. On the other hand, I hear them arguing that if you have to be a member to be involved in your PAC, it's not democratic and it's not fair. I don't think you can have it both ways.

The reality is that any parent who wants to become a member of their child's PAC can. All we are doing in this legislation is giving the PAC a guaranteed right of access to consultation — consultation that in some cases in some schools they already have, an ability to collaborate with the principal and the teachers that in some cases they already have. As I've said, it's not something that's uniform and universal. We want to ensure that the experience of those parents who are lucky enough to be involved in a school where they do have lots of collaboration and they do have lots of input is shared across the province for children at every single school.

J. MacPhail: It's really amazing. I actually am very troubled by the minister's answers to these questions, for this reason: this question was not asked in any confrontational way whatsoever. The question didn't even reflect the views, one way or the other, about my colleague's and my view on PACs and school planning councils. I said at the opening of my questioning that we will leave it up to the world to decide how it will unfold and how it will work. Yet the minister tries to impose some sort of confrontational view on my colleague and me.

I know it's hard to get up to speed on a particular portfolio, but I really do hope that the minister gains some sort of experience on the reality of how parent advisory councils have operated in the past and are operating now. The questions that my colleague and I are raising are questions that we have been asked by parent advisory councils, district parent advisory councils and school trustees. All I did, and my colleague continued, was to ask the minister's thoughts on how that would work, particularly in the area of multiculturally diverse schools. That's all. That's all we were asking.

Just for the information of the minister, the parent advisory councils who wish to know who will vote for the representatives to the school planning councils are coming from a point of view that they hope all parents get a vote, because they understand that every parent can't be involved in a parent advisory council. It is not my colleague in some way suggesting that it's either right or wrong. Parent advisory councils want the vote to be as broad as possible, because they fully understand how difficult it is to participate in a parent advisory council.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I certainly agree that we want to have more parents involved in PACs, in school planning councils and in their children's education — absolutely. That is what this legislation is all about. That's what I've been talking about ever since I was appointed as Minister of Education back in June. I absolutely want to expand the number of parents who are involved. I think that by guaranteeing in legislation that every parent advisory council will have the consultation — the real collaborative role — that they expect to be able to have, we will encourage a lot more people to want to become involved.

I have heard from parents who've said: "I used to be involved in my PAC, but we didn't get any real say, except every six years." I've heard from PAC presidents and PAC members who've said the opposite, but I want to make sure that that access is consistently available across the province at every school for every child. That's what this legislation is all about.

Joining a PAC isn't like joining a political party. You don't have to sign up a membership and hand

over your $5, your $10, your $2 or whatever it is. It's very different from that. I think that the member is quite correct when she says that PACs do want to involve more people. What we are doing with this legislation is giving them a whole lot more reasons and a whole lot more ability to market to their parents in their school why they should be involved in PAC. For the first time they will be able to go out and say to every parent in that school: "You are guaranteed by legislation to be able to collaborate, participate and be part of the decision-making that is going to affect the education of your child, not just every six years, but every year."

J. Kwan: I will simply say this. I urge the minister to go out and talk to some parents who are faced with multiple barriers in their lives. I've spoken with parents in my own community who don't belong to PACs but have one or two particular issues that they're concerned about, whether it be around special needs or other issues, and they could barely manage to raise these issues, for a variety of reasons. They're not involved in the PACs, not because they don't care, but because they don't have the capacity to be involved. It doesn't mean that they don't want to make sure there is a good representative for them and for their children at these school planning councils.

Furthermore, other parents understand that not all parents can participate. Parents do understand that those are real barriers, and they experience them every single day not only in low-income communities that are living with poverty and faced with tremendous challenges every single day. I would urge the minister to go out and talk to those parents, and then maybe she'll have a view to say that the participation and the right to vote to elect these school planning councils ought to be broader and ought to be opened up to parents who may not be involved with parent advisory councils.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm delighted to hear from the members opposite that the PACs in their communities are active in making sure that they're accessible to people who experience language barriers. Certainly, I expect that they'll import those great practices to the school planning council as well. There's certainly no barrier posed to that happening in the legislation. I know that different people have different barriers to being involved, but I don't think that's a reason to say that we should have less involvement. I think that's a reason to say that we should have more involvement. That's what this legislation is all about.

J. Kwan: I'm just going to have a last go at it. Clearly, the minister is just so blinded by her own views and the mantra that her new-era agenda has foisted on the education arena that she cannot see the point that I'm making.

The point that I'm making is this: when she disallows parents who are not involved with PACs from voting to elect the school planning council representatives, she's limiting participation, not broadening participation. She's failing to understand the barriers that parents do face in their ability and capacity to participate. That is the point.

Parents outside of this chamber understand that. I would once again urge the minister to go out and talk to those parents and understand what those barriers are and, instead of putting in a system that quite frankly limits their participation, to open it up and allow for the vote to be afforded to parents who may not be involved with PACs.

Hon. C. Clark: I should explain for the member again that this legislation doesn't change the way parents participate in their PACs. It sounds to me — and, again, I don't want to put words in the member's mouth — from what I've heard that they are reasonably satisfied with the way PACs have functioned and the way they've included parents in the past. We certainly don't intend to change that with this legislation.

What we're doing with the school planning councils is providing the PAC with some guaranteed access — which some now have, but some don't — and an ability to collaborate that is guaranteed under legislation for the first time.

The other point that I would make for the member is this. She talks about being involved in a PAC and being a member of the PAC as being exactly the same thing. I suppose if you looked it up in a dictionary, you'd find that the definitions were similar, but I think that in reality, being a member of a PAC doesn't necessarily mean going to a meeting every single month. It doesn't necessarily mean a huge time commitment in order to be a member of a PAC. That's the way it is now, and that's certainly the way it will be in the future.

The difference will be, though, that every PAC in the province will have a guaranteed right under legislation to be a part of the collaboration process that plans for their child's school. That's an important innovation. I understand that the opposition doesn't have to applaud everything the government does, but I think ensuring that access is there at every school and guaranteeing it for every parent who's a member of their PAC is an important new innovation to ensure that parents are more included in their children's education.

We know that parental involvement is essential to student success. We also know that the intensity of parental involvement makes a difference in the kind of success that that child has. We're making sure, in this legislation, that parents are guaranteed an intensity of involvement that they weren't necessarily guaranteed anymore.

The last point I'll make is this. Just because you're not able to participate in your child's PAC doesn't mean that your child won't benefit from the fact that other parents are involved. We know that every time parents are involved in a school, every child benefits a little bit, not just the children whose parents are involved in the PAC. What we want to do is maximize the number of people that are involved and give them a meaningful, guaranteed role for collaboration. That will certainly attract more people to parent advisory councils. I think there will become a broad understanding across the board that parents are much, much more than the people who organize the bake sales every year.

J. MacPhail: Let me take the minister back to my original question, when I asked why the minister was repealing two sections of what the responsibilities of the parent advisory council were. She responded that it would be that we don't want to have parent advisory councils doing the same thing as school planning councils. There's no question about that. The relationship in terms of advice-giving, by the legislation itself, has moved from a parent advisory council to the school planning council.

Let me ask the minister this. In terms of the changing, of not doing double duty by creating a school planning council, what exactly is the order of responsibility between a parent advisory council and a school planning council in reference to section 8(4)(b), which says: "A parent advisory council, through its elected officers, may (b) at the request of the school planning council, assist the school planning council in carrying out its functions under this act"?

Hon. C. Clark: It allows the school planning council to turn to the PAC if they need some assistance or if they want some assistance on something, for example, like a survey. The school planning council may decide that they want to try and survey the parents on a particular issue, and they may request the assistance of the parent advisory council in doing that.

J. MacPhail: My point was, though, that the relationship between the parent advisory council and the board or the principal and staff was direct before. Under the legislation it was direct, and now the parent advisory council gets input at the request of the school planning council. This is where the concerns are and where questions are to be answered about a school planning council that may not have the capacity by numbers to reflect the diversity of the parent advisory council. The minister still hasn't answered that question.

Let me then ask this: is there any opportunity in the legislation at all to expand parental involvement at the school planning council level to reflect multicultural diversity?

Hon. C. Clark: Maybe I should clarify something for the member. She's made the reference a couple of times to the fact that the section has been repealed. The section has been changed. Let me tell the member. The part that she thinks is repealed is this: "Advise the board and the principal and staff of the school or the provincial school respecting any matter relating to the school or the provincial school." I think that's the reference that she was making.

Those lines remain in the act under the amendments, and the addition — and this is the change — is "other than matters assigned to the school planning council." Section 5, which she suggested had been repealed, has also been replaced intact in this amended section of the act.

J. MacPhail: I'd be happy to know why the minister suggests somehow I'm reading this incorrectly. I said that the parent advisory council is subject to the school planning council according to the legislation in terms of relationships.

You know what? All I'm asking for is a simple answer to my question around the multicultural diversity of a parent advisory council being reflected on the school planning council. There are those out there who think that the primary relationship between a school administration and the parents will be through the school planning council. There are those who think that. I'm asking the minister: is there an opportunity on the school planning council to allow for its expansion to reflect the multicultural diversity of the school parents?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't think it's fair to characterize it as saying that the PAC is subject to the school planning council; it's not. The school planning council has responsibilities that in the legislation are set out to be separate from the parent advisory council. The parent advisory council, of course, maintains a relationship with the principal, and it maintains a relationship with the board. It, of course, by this legislation must have a very direct connection to the school planning council.

I think when the member talks about diversity and ensuring that a whole range of interests and different viewpoints are represented, she's concerned about the number of people that are on the school planning council. Currently, as it stands in the legislation, the relationship with the board is established through the executive of the PAC, which of course is also limited in numbers. The way they get around that currently — and I think the member has talked about some of the ones in her riding who've done a great job of ensuring that they represent the diverse nature of her community — is that they have broad open meetings, I suppose. They make sure that the executive understands what's happening with the membership, and the executive reflects those concerns to the principal and to the school district that they relate to. That certainly won't change.

J. MacPhail: I'm reading through the legislation, Mr. Chair, and I'm sorry, I just have to skip forward a

couple of sections. It's not to discuss it in detail, but just to reflect on the minister's comments.

Let's just see here. Under the new legislation, the parent advisory council can advise the board, principal and staff on any matter relating to the school or the provincial school other than the matters assigned to the school planning council. So the parent advisory council has these abilities to advise; the school planning council has these responsibilities. And hear what the school planning council's responsibilities are. They must consult on the allocation of staff and resources in the school, on matters contained in the board's accountability contract relating to the school, and on educational services and educational programs in the school. It seems to me that parent advisory councils would read the legislation and say they don't have responsibility for those matters. That's what the legislation says.

I have been privileged, along with my colleague, to receive advice from people who are integrally involved with this every day that this is where their concern arises about the diversity being reflected at the school planning council. It seems to have a hugely important role. I know that the minister — I think in a little bit unnecessarily pejorative way — said that PACs in the past ran bake sales. Given what the school planning council is responsible for, one wonders now what the PAC is responsible for. Those are the questions that have been raised.

Hon. C. Clark: There is still a whole range of other matters that the PACs can become involved in. One of those is the school plan, through the school planning council. We haven't got to this section, but I'll advise the member that the school planning council is required to consult with the board about the contents of the plan. It doesn't happen in isolation. This legislation doesn't envisage a situation where the two are working separately, in confrontation or opposite from one another. It envisages creating a framework where they will work very much together. That's why we've ensured in the legislation that there's a direct relationship between them and that there's a requirement for consultation between them as well.

There are many other things that PACs advise on in addition to the school plan that will occur throughout the year. For example, discipline policy, which I know parents are concerned about, may be one of them. Safety may be another issue that parents talk about. Field trips. I mean, there's a whole range of other things that parent advisory councils advise on that aren't related to the school plan, which are extremely important to parents and to the functioning of the educational program for the children in their schools.

J. MacPhail: You know, I only have one child. It's a huge amount of responsibility to just raise one child. I don't think parents — although maybe there are parents with more than one child with all the time available that the minister is suggesting — have the time available to work at these issues, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the new modern parent has the ability to discuss all of these.

I'm a little bit confused then, because the school planning council has exclusive jurisdiction over matters contained in the board's accountability contract. That's why I was trying to ask the minister what is contained in an accountability contract, and matters like school violence were raised. That's in an accountability contract. Parent advisory committees are excluded from dealing with anything in the accountability contract. Perhaps the minister could clarify her previous comments.

Hon. C. Clark: First, this issue of the modern parent that the member raises. I know that the list I read out of things parents may want to get involved in with their children's education sounds like a long one for very, very busy people. But there are very many parents out there who do these things every day. There are many more parents out there who would like to be able to do things every day but sometimes find that their access is stymied. That is certainly one of the things we're trying to correct with this legislation — to guarantee that access for parents across the system.

I recognize that not every parent can be involved. Not every parent necessarily even wants to be involved. That isn't a requirement of this legislation, but that doesn't mean we should limit the extent to which parents can be involved. There are a lot of parents that do very, very much want to be involved, and they have the time and the ability to be involved in a whole range of different areas.

I'd say that first. That's evidenced by the fact that we have such an active parent network out there. The PACs are so active. The B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils has done such an outstanding job of getting parents on track, getting them involved in their children's schools. That evidence of the fact that parents want to be involved and have an appetite to be even more involved is out there every single day. I don't think you have to look very far to see it.

The legislation does not make the accountability contract the exclusive purview of the school planning council. What the legislation says is that the board must consult with the school planning council in respect of the accountability contract.

J. MacPhail: Well, it says: "A board must consult with a school planning council…." Then the previous section says that the parent advisory council's role…. It can deal with matters of the school "other than matters assigned to the school planning council…."

We were asked to ask that question. You have to read the new sections 8.4 and 8.2 together. If the minister's view is that somehow there's no line, no delineation, I'm sure that's good news. It's not what the legislation says, though.

Hon. C. Clark: No, the member is wrong. If I've understood her correctly, she's wrong. The legislation says that the board must consult with the school planning council on matters contained in its accountability contract, but they're not the only people they can consult with.

The board can consult with members of the business community, the labour community or the parent advisory council. They can consult with a whole range of people on matters contained in the accountability contract. To suggest that it's somehow the exclusive jurisdiction of the school planning council to be the only people consulted on the accountability contract is not correct.

J. MacPhail: Well, the title I am reading says: "Role of a school planning council." That's what it says under the legislation. That's where the role of a school planning council is defined. Perhaps a different title for that section is necessary, because I can't find out anywhere else.

Actually, it goes on to say in the next one, "School plan": "By a date set by the board, a school planning council must prepare and submit to the board a school plan…."

I'm wondering: if indeed this language isn't as the words suggest, why did the minister have to bother at all suggesting that parent advisory councils couldn't deal with matters that had been assigned to the school planning council? Where is the role? If 8.2 isn't the role of a school planning council, where is the role?

Hon. C. Clark: Section 8.2 says: "A board must consult with a school planning council in respect of the following: (a) the allocation of staff and resources in the school; (b) matters contained in the board's accountability contract relating to the school; (c) educational services and educational programs in the school."

That does not suggest that the only people the school district can consult with about the accountability contract are the school planning council. There are a whole range of groups that the school district will certainly be interested in talking to about their accountability contract, and the language about that is very clear.

J. Kwan: Earlier the minister talked about the number of parents that participate in the PACs and that in fact it's great that there are many parents who do participate. But the reality is also such that there are many parents who are not participating — again, not because they don't care about the educational system or the education for their children but because they don't have the capacity to participate.

Is the minister aware that about a third of the schools in British Columbia don't have PACs? They don't have PACs because the parents are finding it difficult to participate. In those situations, per the legislation, the school board will actually appoint someone to be the school planning councils — in those instances where there are no PACs and the parents would basically have no say. They would have no say whatsoever in terms of the election of school planning councils.

Hon. C. Clark: That wouldn't be much different from the way the planning happens now, though, because right now if there is no PAC, the principal can set a plan for the school without parental input. What we're doing with this legislation is creating a guaranteed access of input and, I think, real legislative encouragement to parents across the province and giving them reason, in every school, to want to be involved. That's really the purpose of this legislation.

The member is quite right. The number of PACs being at two-thirds of the schools is not good enough, and we need to improve that. One of the ways to improve that is not to just say: "Oh well, it's the parents' fault. They can't get involved. Maybe they don't want to get involved." I don't think that's the answer. I think the answer is to say instead that we will guarantee access for parents who decide they want to and are able to be involved. That will certainly go a long way to ensuring that more parents get involved, because they see that perhaps in places where they haven't been encouraged they can suddenly have real meaningful and regular input into their children's education.

J. Kwan: I think the minister's words that she used were: "It's the parents' fault if they don't participate." I want to say this again: it's not the parents' fault if they don't participate. It's because they don't have the capacity, and I'll say this one more time for the minister, who is unable to see beyond her rhetoric and unable to understand the reality that now exists in different school districts, neighbourhoods and ridings throughout British Columbia. There are some parents who are unable to participate because they don't have the capacity, not because it is their fault, not because they don't care about the education system or any such thing. For the minister to assert such a comment is absolutely unbelievable.

I really do wish — I really do, in a non-partisan manner — that the minister will actually be able to see beyond her rhetoric and the cloud and the blindness that has come upon her for her to understand the reality of what some parents are faced with today in British Columbia.

I want to ask the minister: within this piece of legislation, are there any budgets or resources that would be afforded to parents so they can participate in the school planning councils? If so, what is the budget?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm sure that anyone reading the text of this debate certainly won't be able to hear the melodramatic tone in the member's comments, but they'll certainly be able to read the words that are there, and they'll certainly know that what she has said does not in any way represent my comments. I can only assume that she wasn't really listening, because I'm sure she wouldn't intend to mislead this House in any way with the comments she just made.

I want more parents to be involved in their children's education at every school across the province, and I don't think it's good enough for government to sit back and say: "Oh well, maybe they just didn't want to." I think, instead, what we need to do is create a system that will encourage as many of them as possible to get involved in their children's education. Not everyone is able to. Many parents are too busy to do it. Many parents have too many other things going on in their lives. But I think that many parents want to do it, and we need to be able to create a framework that will encourage parents to become more involved in their children's education at every school across the province.

The legislation, as I've said a number of times publicly, does not provide for remuneration for the parents. Just as PACs don't provide for remuneration now, this legislation doesn't contemplate providing that. I think the experience in British Columbia, through the incredible parent involvement we've had across the province, has certainly been that parents don't need to be paid in order to be involved in their children's education. They have a huge appetite to be involved, and it doesn't take money to do that. All it does is take a warm, encouraging welcome from government and school districts and guaranteed input so they know that what they're doing is meaningful and that the work they're engaged in will have a real impact on their children's education.

So, no, I don't think that parents need to be paid to be encouraged to be involved in their children's education, because I know that they have a real appetite to do it because they care about their children.

J. Kwan: You know, the minister does not listen. If she does, she doesn't actually hear, quite frankly.

I asked the minister this question. I asked the minister about what budget and what resources are made available to the school planning councils. I didn't ask about remuneration. What I asked about is what resources will be available, for example, for the school planning councils to photocopy materials for other parents to have that information. Paper — something as basic as paper. Where will the school planning council get their paper from? Translation. We just talked about translation earlier. Who is going to provide for the translation services if there are no resources or budget associated with the work of the school planning councils?

Hon. C. Clark: On the issue of translation services, the member or her colleague — one of the two — pointed out quite eloquently that there are parent advisory councils that are already providing translation services for parents in their schools. My question to her would be: who's paying for that now? The fact is that the parent advisory councils are providing that now.

More specifically, with respect to a budget for school planning councils, planning happens at every school — or at many schools — now. That consumes part of the budget of the school for paper and those kinds of things. What this legislation is doing is ensuring that parents have access, guaranteed under legislation, to that planning process, which is a big improvement — in many schools, for many parents — over the way it's been for a long time.

J. MacPhail: This government has decided to compensate, in the millions of dollars per year, health authority appointees for the very first time. Prior to that, health authority appointees were volunteers. This government has appointed…. Two-thirds of the appointees are business people, and this government has decided to…. The budget, I think, is in the millions of dollars each year just in compensation to the individuals.

The question here is about parent advisory councils who are going to be responsible for a budget that's exactly the same or almost as big as the regional health authority budgets — not even asking about personal remuneration, but merely asking about what this government is doing to assist them. In fact, parent advisory councils did have budgets before. It's not included now in this government's budget. They did have budgets before. Maybe the minister can stand up and say those budgets continue. But the parent advisory councils…. Amongst the schools that don't have parent advisory councils now, due to a lack of resources, what's the minister doing to assist them?

Hon. C. Clark: PACs across the province are active in their children's schools without government necessarily doing everything for them. They're involved because those parents care about their kids' education. They don't expect to be remunerated, and they don't necessarily need a whole lot of assistance in doing it.

I will say this, though. This government has supported BCCPAC in a way that the previous government never did. They were very concerned about the way the previous government treated them in cutting their budget, and we've restored that to them. It was one of the election commitments we made, and we've kept it.

We believe that parent advisory councils need the resources that government has made available to them in the past to be able to function — absolutely. But do parents need government to come in and offer them an office and a desk and a photocopier and big paycheques in order to be involved in their children's education? No, of course not. They don't. Parents are happy to be involved in their children's education because they care about their children. It's as simple as that.

J. Kwan: I just want to say one thing. I invite the minister, once again, to go and talk to parents who lack resources. You know what? For a fundraising event in my own community, it takes parents all year to raise $700 to support their school. I know that in some other schools, it takes them an hour to raise $7,000, and there's the difference.

With the moneys they get, they provide for little things. It could be paper or photocopying — not a big office, not the big fancy things the minister is taking about that I know she's affording and that her government is affording to the big CEOs and inside lobbyists and so on. In these schools, these little things count — even basics to facilitate it. We're talking about the capacity for people to participate fully and legitimately.

This legislation does nothing to enable that. There is nothing that enables those committee groups, even for basic things like paper, staples, photocopying, translation or any one of those items amongst other things for the parents. In some areas out-of-pocket expenses, especially for people who live in poverty, mean a lot to them in being able to participate. This legislation provides for nothing to enable that.

The minister seems to think that with everything in this legislation, just because they say, "We're going to give you more powers," people will come and participate if they care. You know what? It's not because they don't care, nor is it their fault. They don't have the capacity to participate. That is the reality some parents do face, and this legislation, in the words of the minister, has just assured that there is no budget and no resources whatsoever to enable participation.

Hon. C. Clark: We have, right now, PACs that are involved in their children's schools who are welcome to participate, as I've said. Some of those PACs are able to collaborate directly with the principal and with teachers and have real, meaningful input on a regular basis into their children's education. If the member is suggesting that currently, because those PACs for whom it is working don't have resources, we should stop even that, I disagree.

What I am suggesting is rather than saying, "Gosh, we can't pay for everybody to do everything, so we won't do it at all," I'm saying: "Let's create more reasons for more people to be involved in the parent advisory councils by guaranteeing the kind of input and the kind of collaboration that many parents have at many schools across the province." That's what this legislation is all about: guaranteeing parent input and making sure it happens regularly. I'm surprised that even the members opposite can find so much to complain about in that.

J. MacPhail: Let's see whether the minister can answer this question from the B.C. School Trustees Association. The B.C. School Trustees Association requests the Minister of Education to revise the time lines for creating school planning councils, recognizing that boards welcome this opportunity for parental input.

Hon. C. Clark: We're certainly prepared to talk to the BCSTA about a transition year. As I've said for accountability contracts, we did them this year. We got them in place at the beginning of February. We know they're not perfect. They're an evolving document, and they will continue to be built upon and added to. Certainly, I see the evolution of school planning councils in the same spirit, so we'll talk to them about a transition year, making sure we do this right the first year. In future years it will only get better and better as we get more experienced at doing it.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could say what her plans are for proclaiming this legislation.

Hon. C. Clark: The legislation will be in place for this coming school year. The legislation sets out an October 31 date for the accountability contracts to be in. That date will continue to be in place. We already have accountability contracts in place across the province, so it's a matter of revising them, updating them and adding to them this year. We expect the October 31 date will be met for the submission of accountability contracts.

J. MacPhail: It's now May, so what advice is the minister offering to the B.C. School Trustees Association to deal with their request for a revision of time lines? Perhaps the minister could outline what discussions will take place between May and October and what revisions to time lines are possible.

Hon. C. Clark: We're already talking to school districts about this. The discussions are just beginning at the moment, and I must say I need to be able to speak to the BCSTA very specifically about that resolution to get more clarity about what it is exactly they're looking for so that we can advance the discussions. We will be meeting with the superintendents on May 9 and 10. We will continue to meet and consult with them over the coming months, as we always do.

J. MacPhail: In 8.1(7) it says: "An employee of any board is not eligible for election under subsection (3)(c)" — which establishes who's on the school planning council — "or an appointment in circumstances referred to in (5)(a) or (b)." That's where the board may fill a vacancy on the school planning council directly. Can the minister tell how many employees of school boards there are in the province in total?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't have an exact number here. We can check with BCPSEA, the employers association, and get that number for the member.

Hon. C. Clark: I could give her a ballpark on members of the teachers union. That's about 45,000. I will have to advise, though, later about a more specific number for other employees in the system.

J. MacPhail: Well, I wasn't asking about the teachers union. I'm asking about employees. There's administrators, there's administrative support staff, there's maintenance staff, there's teachers, there's teaching assistants, and there's psychologists. Is it safe to say there are 70,000 employees across the province?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't know if it's wise to engage in ballpark figures. I'd be delighted to give the member an exact figure, or as exact as the employers association can get for us.

J. MacPhail: What's the logic by…? Well, I would put it to the minister that my recollection is that there are between 60,000 and 70,000 employees that would be directly affected by this. What's the reasoning behind denying 60,000 to 70,000 citizens in British Columbia representation on a school planning council?

Hon. C. Clark: In the legislation we wanted to assure that the parent members of the school planning council were not in any kind of a conflict in representing the interests of the children in that school.

Hon. C. Clark: I think I see where the member is going. The Canadian Union of Public Employees, I'm sure the member will be aware, has been threatening legal action against the government, and….

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I'm happy to be able to inform her of that, then. I don't think that legal action has commenced, but certainly I met with Barry O'Neill, the president of CUPE, the other day, and he advised me that it's quite likely. They've been quite public about that in the past. I'm certain that those matters will become public should they decide that they want to commence legal action against the government.

J. MacPhail: Again, here we are asking reasonable questions, and the minister decides…. And people opposite laugh. The question came from….

J. MacPhail: Ah, isn't this nice? We've got the behaviour of a six-year-old across the floor from the member for Burquitlam. He'd better not say anything, because he's out of his seat. The sticking out of the tongue is fine, but he'd have to get back to his seat.

J. MacPhail: Of course, Madam Chair. It's unbelievable, the level to which this debate sinks when people like the member for Burquitlam decide to participate.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and I am. He guffawed about the nature of this question. My question arose out of being raised by PAC members — PAC members who are teachers, PAC members who are janitors, PAC members who are secretaries — who now will be excluded from participation. They're excluded because they work at their own schools, so they are directly excluded. I'm just curious as to how that works in having more parents included in their child's education.

Hon. C. Clark: No parent is excluded from being involved in their PAC. Certainly, every parent can continue to be a member of their PAC. We've ensured in this legislation that there are a lot of connections between the PAC and the school planning council. Any member, no matter who they're employed by, can be a member of that PAC.

J. MacPhail: The PAC participation will take on a meaningful role by participating on the school planning council. The school planning council — even though the minister somehow fails to recognize that the role of a school planning council is to deal with the allocation of staff and resources in the school, matters contained in the board's accountability contract and educational services and educational programs in the school…. The minister somehow thinks that's only what a board has to consult with them about. That's actually how the role of a school planning council is defined in the legislation.

The PAC members who will sit on the school planning council and who will have an exclusive role to deal with those matters cannot be teachers, janitors or secretaries in the system. Yes, they can participate on the PAC, I guess, for matters that have nothing to do with the allocation of staff and resources in the school, matters contained in the board's accountability contract, educational services and educational programs in the school. But what's the logic for that, for the potential for about 70,000 citizens in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, any parent can continue to be involved in their PAC. It is not at all true to say that the school planning council will take away a role from

the PAC because the school planning council is required in the legislation to consult with the PAC, and they're required to consult on the matters in the school plan.

In addition to the school plan, the PAC will continue to have purview over a whole host of other areas — in fact, every single other area. The PAC will continue to have input on the school plan, and they will continue to have input on all the other areas related to education that they currently have.

J. MacPhail: Board employees are barred by law from participating on the school planning council. The minister says not to worry; they can participate in the PAC. The PAC will be consulted by the school planning council, maybe. The legislation actually says: "A parents' advisory council, through its elected officers, may, at the request of the school planning council, assist the school planning council in carrying out its functions under this act."

The minister is very good at painting scenarios. Perhaps the minister could paint a scenario of a parent who is an employee of the school board. What exact participation could that parent have in her child's education?

Hon. C. Clark: The member is wrong when she says that the school planning council may consult with the parents' advisory council. If she looks at the legislation — we haven't gotten to this section yet, but when she gets there I know she'll read it — section 8.3(1) says: "In each school year, a board must approve a school plan for every school in the district." Section 8.3(2): "By a date set by the board…." Actually, we're not at this section, so I won't read it. Again, if she refers to that section, she will see that it says that they must consult with the PAC. That's in the legislation.

It is wrong and very misleading for the member to stand up and say that that consultation is optional. It is not optional; it is laid out in the legislation. When we get to that section and have a chance to consider that in this House, I'm sure that will become clear to her.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said a number of times, any parent is allowed to be involved in the PAC for a school. The legislation requires that the school planning council consult the PAC on issues pertaining to the school plan. That's required in the legislation. We haven't got to that part of the legislation yet, but it's in there.

In addition to that, the PAC has a whole range of other responsibilities that they currently have. The involvement for a parent through the PAC remains, I think, very, very substantial.

J. MacPhail: Is it the minister's view that the PAC has a full and equal role as does the planning council?

Hon. C. Clark: What we've done in the legislation, to ensure that we don't have the school planning council advising the board on exactly the same issues that the PAC is advising them on, is separate the two things, ensuring that there is consultation between the school planning council and the PAC. The sense I'm getting — although the member has not said this, to be fair — is that there is an assumption that the school planning council is in some way superior to the PAC. That is absolutely not the case. The school planning council is part of the PAC. They consult with the PAC, and they are required to consult with the PAC.

J. MacPhail: I wasn't intimating that at all. Then it does beg the question: why are board employees excluded, barred from participating on the school planning council but are allowed to participate on the PAC? That kind of indicates there's some difference. If the member says there isn't, that they're linear, why the need to bar by legislation — outlaw — participation by board employees on the school planning council?

Hon. C. Clark: Let me clarify. I did not say that they weren't different. They do have different responsibilities. I've said that a number of times in the debate. We've been very clear in the legislation at separating those two things.

J. MacPhail: Well, what is the difference then? Let's have some specifics. What's the difference between the role of the parent advisory council, which allows parents who are board members to participate fully but doesn't allow them to participate at all on the school planning council…? Perhaps the minister could distinguish.

Hon. C. Clark: The PAC has a very broad role. The school planning council, I think, as I've said, has a much more focused role. Included in that role are questions about the allocation of resources in the school. As I've said, we wanted to ensure that there were no parent representatives on that board who might find themselves in some kind of conflict with regard to those issues.

J. MacPhail: The allocation of staff and resources will be the exclusive jurisdiction of the school planning council. Otherwise, if they were within the jurisdiction of the PAC, then the minister would have to allege the same sort of conflict. Or am I reading something wrong?

Hon. C. Clark: The allocation of resources — it's quite clear in the legislation — remains the responsibility of the board. The school planning council offers advice on that. The school planning council will be making some detailed decisions, very focused decisions, I think, to forward to the board about how they would allocate resources within the school. They will be required to consult with the PAC on that. It's a very focused role. We did want to ensure that the parent

representatives on that board did not find themselves in a conflict in making decisions about those issues.

J. MacPhail: Okay. It's the exclusive jurisdiction of the board. And somehow the PACs aren't in that same sort of conflict situation, but the school planning council members are in a position of conflict. Perhaps the minister could specify what the potential conflict could be.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the school planning councils will be making decisions and recommendations about the allocation of resources in a school. Certainly, people who work in a school can find themselves in a conflict.

J. MacPhail: Let me ask, seriously: could the minister give to us the legal opinion upon which this is based?

Hon. C. Clark: We sought legal advice throughout the process of preparing this legislation. We certainly had it every step of the way from the Ministry of Attorney General, as is the normal process in preparing legislation.

J. MacPhail: In the past, parent advisory councils certainly were consulted by boards about the allocation of resources. This issue never arose before. Is the document made public? Is there a public document about this legal advice that has the potential for excluding 70,000 people from participation? Could the minister table that, please?

Hon. C. Clark: I think the member will remember from when she sat in government that the process for building legislation involves constant legal advice from the Ministry of Attorney General. I suspect that if the Canadian Union of Public Employees makes good on its promise, we will be having a discussion in the courts about this. Certainly, we will be having some of these discussions at that time.

J. MacPhail: I don't care a whit about any legal challenges that the minister may find herself involved in. I'm asking now, because we've heard that these school planning councils are going to be doing their work by October 31. I couldn't get any extensions of time lines out of the minister. They're going to be up and running.

There's huge changes happening in the school system right now — huge changes. I know the Liberals don't like to talk about cuts. However, there are cuts being made in every single district. There are lots of schools — hundreds of schools across this province — that are facing cuts inside their schools. I just think this is the time for the minister to demonstrate to the parents whom she is excluding from participation in allocation of staff and resources the legal basis upon which she is doing so.

Hon. C. Clark: I am advised that the access to legal opinions is through the Ministry of Attorney General. I'm surprised that the member doesn't remember that from her day. That is the advice that I've received from the ministry. She's certainly at liberty to speak to the Attorney General about it.

J. Kwan: If legal opinion was sought from this minister, she ought to be able to say in this debate that legal opinion was indeed sought and to make that information available to the public and to the members of this House. This minister is carrying the legislation.

For her to say, "Oh well, but don't talk to me; talk to my colleague," the minister has slipped into exactly the consistent approach that she has taken on matters relating to education: "Don't ask me. Ask somebody else. Pass the buck. It's not my responsibility." That's been the approach of this minister right from the start in the area of education.

Let's just go through the logic for a minute, in terms of the minister's logic on the issue around concerns of potential conflict for employees of the board to be involved with school planning councils. The minister says that the employees of the boards would not be exempted from participation in input and ensuring that information and their opinions are brought forward through the school planning councils, because school planning councils will consult with the parent advisory councils. Through the PACs the employees of the board could participate fully. In most PACs, actually, decisions are made with the PACs. If the school planning council is to represent the PACs, they'll bring their opinions forward then.

The minister is arguing that there is no lapse in their ability for participation. The minister also says there is no conflict there for the employees of the board to participate at the PACs, no conflict whatsoever. They can make decisions and be involved 100 percent in every way. There is a conflict, though, when they get involved with the school planning council. That's why they must be exempted, barred, from being involved in school planning councils.

The logic, quite frankly, escapes me. If there is no conflict at the parent advisory council level, why would there all of a sudden be a conflict at the school planning council level? It doesn't make any sense at all. Maybe the minister can explain that discrepancy around conflict.

Hon. C. Clark: As I've already said, the two are not the same. They are connected, but they are different. We are very clear about that in the legislation. One has a very broad role in offering advice to the school board and to the principal. One has a very focused role in that. I think I've been pretty clear about that.

J. Kwan: No, the minister has not explained the difference with respect to the issue around conflict at all. She has provided no reason why these members of the public — about 60,000 to 70,000 employees of the

board — would be barred from participating in the school planning councils. The minister has provided no answer, no explanation whatsoever, on this matter. She has just sort of, I guess, maybe out of a hat or something, made that decision, but she has provided no explanation whatsoever to address this issue.

I want to ask the minister: will planning councils deal with personal and confidential matters?

Hon. C. Clark: No. The principal has an obligation to protect the children in his or her school and protect their confidentiality. Equally, employees of the school are covered by collective agreements that protect their confidentiality, and those will need to be respected.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. I didn't hear whether or not the minister has said that they will or will not be dealing with personal and confidential matters.

Then, on confidential information: would information that the school planning council will be receiving around budgetary items not be confidential information? Would they not be entitled to receive that information? If they're not entitled to receive that information, why not? If they cannot receive that information, how can they then fully participate in devising a plan for addressing issues around allocation of resources?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, school planning councils will have to respect the rules of collective agreements and the rules of confidentiality that govern students and employees at the school.

J. Kwan: I asked the minister a question about whether or not school planning councils would be dealing with matters that are personal and confidential. The minister said no.

On the question around confidential information. For the school planning councils to effectively provide information and advice to the board on issues around resource allocation and budgetary matters, they would need to get access to confidential information. If they don't, then they will be crippled, quite frankly, in their capacity to provide information. Or they may be providing the information after the fact. After the fact is too late, once the board has already made decisions.

Then really, what is the capacity and the role of the school planning councils? The minister says they have been given more authority to participate, yet they won't be receiving information so they can actually engage at that level. It doesn't make any sense at all in terms of the answer the minister has provided. Quite frankly, she hasn't answered my question.

Hon. C. Clark: It is not accurate to suggest that a school planning council would necessarily have to have access to confidential private information in order to do adequate planning for the schools. The members have talked about how great the accreditation process was. Accreditation processes included teachers and principals and, of course, parents. In those processes, many of them came up with very good and thoughtful plans for growth in those schools for improving those schools. They did not have access to personal and confidential information.

J. Kwan: The minister said they won't be getting access to personal and confidential information. Then I asked a question about whether or not they'd be getting confidential information that would assist with their work on the issues around budgetary matters as they relate to the allocation of staff and resources in the schools. The minister said they would not be getting access to confidential information either. For budgetary matters, a lot of that information is indeed confidential. They may not be personal issues, but they are confidential information as they relate to the budgetary issues. If they do not receive this information, how will they then be able to participate legitimately around the question of allocation of resources?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm not sure what aspects of a school budget the member believes would necessarily be confidential. Certainly my understanding is that most aspects of a school budget are quite able to become public, and that's what's enabled the accreditation process to work for all these years.

J. Kwan: Even this year, as the budgeting process went forward from the minister when the budgets were given to the various school boards, there was a period in which that information was confidential. There was all the planning going on, but it wasn't until after that, then, that the open process began. Then at that time it was too late, because the minister had already made a decision around what the budget would be for the various school districts. Anyway, I do raise that issue in terms of the legitimacy and the ability for the school planning councils to participate in this.

I also want to raise this issue as well. If the school planning councils will not be dealing with personal matters as they relate to students or teachers or staff, etc., then what is the issue around conflict? The minister has not been able to answer the question around conflict for employees of the board. Therefore, they ought to be able to participate on the school planning councils.

On that basis, because of section 8.1(7), which bars some 60,000 to 70,000 British Columbians from participating in the school planning councils and because the minister has not been able to provide any rationale at all as to why they should be barred from that participation, my colleague and I will be voting against this section of the bill — section 8.1(7).

The Chair: There has been a request that on section 6, the committee proceed by subsection. Shall section 8.1(7) pass?

The Chair: Noting the hour, we'll recess until 6:30. The committee stands recessed until 6:30.

Hon. J. Murray: I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Bill 35 is the second deregulation bill this session and is another important step towards meeting our government's new-era commitment to reduce red tape and regulatory burden in British Columbia by one-third within three years.

Bill 35 removes almost 250 unnecessary regulatory requirements and cuts red tape by eliminating duplication, providing greater flexibility for regulated groups, enabling e-government and streamlining processes for obtaining administrative and regulatory decisions.

It contains amendments ministers have identified that will cut red tape, reduce the regulatory burden or make it easier to deal with government without raising significant policy issues.

Bill 35 eliminates duplication and redundancy by repealing requirements under the Vital Statistics Act for single mothers to swear an affidavit verifying the mother's relationship with the child, since that verification is already provided under notice-of-birth requirements; by creating a more efficient plan approval process under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, with the removal of duplicate approvals in specified areas and streamlining the regulation of free-growing stands of trees; by eliminating duplicate tax return requirements for quarry operators under the Mineral Tax Act; and by amending the Mines Act to confirm that mining operations with permits under that act do not also have to submit a site profile under the Waste Management Act. When Bill 35 was introduced, the Waste Management Act was inadvertently included in the list of statutes being amended. I would like to clarify that it is not the Waste Management Act itself, but rather the reference to it under the Mines Act that is being amended by this bill.

Bill 35 also cuts red tape in obtaining administrative and regulatory decisions and promotes operational efficiencies by amending the Forest Act to simplify the administration of harvest regulation, which will cut costs for tree farm licence and forest licence holders in government; amending the Motor Vehicle Act to allow businesses to appeal vehicle impoundments when there is an economic hardship; amending the Barbers Act and Cosmetologists Act to remove government from the day-to-day operations of the professional associations governing barbers and cosmetologists; amending the College and Institute Act and the Institute of Technology Act to streamline the bylaw-making process for education councils and boards; amending the Home Owner Grant Act to reduce administrative delays in homeowner grant approval; and amending the Financial Institutions Act and the Society Act to reduce outdated restrictions on the subsidiaries of financial institutions and to broaden exemptions from regulation for non-profit entities that provide insurance to their members.

Thirdly, Bill 35 promotes electronic government — or e-government, as it's more commonly known — by streamlining the ability to alter forms and by enabling digital submissions and electronic processing of paperwork under the Mineral Tenure Act, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act and the Motor Vehicle Act.

Finally, Bill 35 helps to clear the statute books and contribute to the certainty and accessibility of regulation for British Columbians by repealing unproclaimed provisions in the Motor Vehicle Act and the legislation establishing the B.C. Health Research Foundation and the Hospital Foundation of B.C. that was made obsolete by 1996 changes to the federal Income Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with our new-era commitment and with the best regulatory management practices around the world, we have made the review and upgrading of existing regulation a key aspect of our deregulation framework. Bill 35 builds on the results outlined in the first quarterly deregulation progress report and on the earlier Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, which will eliminate over 600 regulatory requirements.

B. Locke: I'm pleased to rise in this House to support the second deregulation bill introduced in this session. This legislation will amend 17 statutes to remove unnecessary regulatory requirements on the people and businesses in British Columbia. Unnecessary regulation in our province is in nobody's best interest.

Under the previous government, a lot of unnecessary regulation was created. Regulation is a quick fix. It's easy to make a lot of regulation, but it's not so easy to make good regulations — ones that will actually work toward solving a problem in the long term. As a result of these quick fixes, many of the government ministries are weighed down by unnecessary and redundant regulation. These needless regulations are a source of frustration for individuals and businesses in B.C. Our government has established that we need to get our provincial economy back on track. In order to do so, we have to clear some of the excess red tape that has been tripping up business and investment in B.C.

The Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, will provide greater flexibility for regulated groups. It will streamline the process for obtaining regulatory or administrative decisions and eliminate red tape.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Minister of State for Deregulation has committed to cutting the regulatory burden in B.C. by one-third within three years. It is a tall order, but one I am confident he will achieve and one that will be a defining example of this government's commitment to return prosperity to our province.

Red tape is a catchphrase that has become popular around B.C. politics, but just what does it mean? Red tape is defined as non-essential procedures, forms, licences and regulations that add costs to dealing with government. It has been made clear that in the elimination of red tape, our government does not include measures that are needed to protect public health, safety, the environment or consumers.

In order to determine where our government needs to eliminate red tape, we have been listening to those who have been caught in the tangle of unnecessary regulation. A waste-buster website has been established to receive suggestions from British Columbians about red tape reduction. A red tape–reduction task force has also been commissioned to listen to sectors that have traditionally been weighted down with unneeded regulation.

Did you know that B.C. has never undertaken a comprehensive review of all the regulations that exist in our province? Did you know that there are still regulations on our books from the 1800s? Did you know that since 1980, the number of regulations in B.C. has increased by almost 50 percent? Deregulation is a fascinating area, one that offers much potential for our province.

Our government is looking at ways to improve the overall delivery of services to British Columbians, and clearing away the abundance of excess regulation is key in efficient and effective governance. It's about time we looked at how many regulations exist and determined which ones we really need or in fact use. I am pleased to rise in this Legislature today to support this bill and the work of the Minister of State for Deregulation.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 35, Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

This bill accomplishes three important goals in the regulation of contaminated sites. Most importantly, it enacts into law an agreement between the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection that eliminates counterproductive provisions and duplication in the regulation of contaminated minesites in British Columbia. Secondly, this bill clarifies the prerequisites to recover by court action the costs of remediation for contaminated sites generally. Thirdly, it sets out the requirements for obtaining authorizations to conduct various activities on land that may have been contaminated.

The background to these amendments is that contamination issues related to mining are currently regulated by the Ministry of Energy and Mines through the Mines Act, as well as by my ministry through the

Waste Management Act. The key difference between the Mines Act and the Waste Management Act regimes in this area is in the allocation of liability for contamination.

Under the Waste Management Act, those responsible for the contamination, even if they are no longer an owner or operator of the site, may be ordered to remediate the site and may be held jointly and severally liable with all other responsible persons for costs of remediation. Under the Mines Act regime only the current owner of the mine may be ordered to remediate the site or be held liable for such costs.

The liability provisions of the Waste Management Act are well intentioned and ensure that all polluters pay for the damage they cause. However, when applied to the mining industry they are counterproductive because they discourage the sale of mines and the exploration of historic minesites.

The first of these problems arises because virtually all mining impacts the environment, even if best practices are followed, and can lead to long-term contamination if not properly managed. If a mine is sold, the Waste Management Act provides that the previous owner remains jointly and severally liable for the contamination at the minesite, including contamination caused by the new owners and future owners down the line. This means that if the new owner goes bankrupt, the previous owner is liable for the entire contamination. This bill provides a mechanism to avoid this problem. As a safeguard, however, the liability of a previous owner for contamination caused by that owner is not automatically extinguished. Liability may only be avoided through a transfer agreement that is approved by both the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, or by obtaining indemnification through the Financial Administration Act which must be approved by the Ministry of Finance.

The second problem stems from the fact that the Waste Management Act regime makes new owners of minesites liable for past contamination at historic minesites, thereby discouraging the exploration of these sites. This disincentive has the potential to cause negative impacts on the environment, since it discourages the recycling of old mines as an alternative to disturbing new areas. In addition to these considerations, it is both unfair and inefficient to require the mining industry to comply with two sets of rules on contaminated sites administered by two ministries.

These problems were temporarily resolved last July by a mines framework agreement between the Ministry of Energy and Mines and my ministry. The framework agreement was adopted after the completion of an independent external review, which included an extensive consultation process involving business, local government, the environmental community and other stakeholders. This bill enacts the terms of that agreement into law.

While British Columbians desire a healthy mining industry that encourages investment in our province, they do not want this to occur at the expense of the environment. This bill ensures that while counterproductive and duplicated provisions will be eliminated, environmental safeguards will be maintained.

While the Ministry of Energy and Mines has the knowledge, experience and authority to manage contamination caused by mining, this bill does not eliminate all of the powers of my ministry to deal with contamination at minesites. The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection will continue to have the responsibility to handle contamination issues for all mining activities concerning historic minesites, spills and discharges of pollutants into the environment.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to mining issues, this bill also addresses the procedure set out in the Waste Management Act that allows a person to file a legal action to recover the costs of remediation from those responsible for the contamination. This procedure has become ineffective due to conflicting court decisions concerning what determinations must be made by managers in my ministry before one can file an action to recover costs. This bill, following recommendations provided by the Canadian Bar Association, clearly sets out what the required determinations are and will, therefore, assist both litigants and the court.

The last item addressed by this bill concerns a number of statutes that prevent the granting of certain types of approvals if particular conditions have not been met. For example, a municipality must not approve an application for a development permit if they have not received a site profile required by the Waste Management Act. The intent is to prevent persons from conducting activities on land that may be contaminated. The wording of these statutes is confusing and incomplete, often resulting in the imposition of unnecessary regulatory requirements. This bill, following the recommendations of a multi-stakeholder advisory group, rewords the existing acts so that they are clear and complete. The result of the amendments will be a streamlined system that enhances development without increasing environmental or health risks.

In summary, this bill eliminates duplication in regulating contaminated minesites, clarifies the prerequisites to cover the costs of remediation in court and clarifies a number of related provisions in order to reduce regulatory burden while maintaining environmental protection.

J. Kwan: On Bill 32, I would like to begin with material prepared by West Coast Environmental Law. For those members who may not be familiar with this group, it was founded in 1974 and holds a combined collective knowledge of more than 50 years of environmental law experience and claims an extensive and broad-ranging expertise that covers virtually all areas of environmental law and policy.

This backgrounder, for the information and consideration of all the members, can be found at

www.wcel.org — "West Coast Environmental Law Backgrounder: Proposed Changes to the Waste Management Act Exempting Mines from Parts of the Contaminated Sites Regime (Bill 32 — Waste Management Amendment Act, 2002, Proposed Part 4.1)."

There are many extremely important issues that have been raised by the West Coast Environmental Law Association. I would like to touch on a few of those in greater detail and relate them back to some of the recent proceedings in this House — specifically, the role of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

Supposedly, it is that minister who is responsible for setting and enforcing environmental standards. As we can clearly see now, the role actually depends on the government's agenda. In this case, it is appeasing the mining industry.

Over and over again, through all the estimates debate, were heard ministers telling us that the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection would be setting tough standards in ensuring environmental integrity. Ministers like the Minister of Energy and Mines said it was the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection that would hold his ministry accountable to tough standards and environmental protection measures. But with this bill I have to wonder where the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection was when cabinet decided to remove most of her authority to protect the environment at minesites. Isn't she the minister of environmental protection?

Then there is the part of this bill that removes the ability of the government to hold previous owners of the mine accountable for any damage or pollution they may cause. The current system acted as an incentive to ensure best practices — something this government seems committed to. So why remove this incentive for best practices? Once again it is to appease the mining industry, ensure certain access to land, make it easier for industry to expand at the potential expense of the environment.

It is also interesting to note from the backgrounder prepared by West Coast Environmental Law Association that in the year 2000, industry and environmental groups worked out a joint submission on meeting industry needs while maintaining environmental protection through accountability mechanisms. One would think that this government, which is so big on accountability contracts and offloading to other groups, would be more than willing to accommodate the accountability mechanisms proposed in the joint commission. However, that approach has been dropped.

It is very discouraging to see that once again the minister for environmental protection is putting the mining industry ahead of the environment. In estimates she refused to provide clear answers to questions around coal burning and expansion of coalmining in use in British Columbia. And now she is willing to let mine owners get off scot-free if they pollute, so long as they sell before anyone finds out what happened. I'm beginning to wonder if this minister actually has any power at all to protect the environment.

Mr. Speaker: Second reading on Bill 32 continues with the member for East Kootenay.

B. Bennett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity. I am pleased to speak on this bill this evening.

It's interesting listening to the comments from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I think she was a member of the government that essentially ruined the mining industry in this province. B.C. was once a leader in the mining industry in the world. People came here to see what we were doing with our technology and how we were doing our exploration on the land. For many, many years, up until the NDP were elected in 1991, we were known as a strong mining jurisdiction. Now over the past ten years we've actually had two mines close for every one open. Exploration has been cut down to 10 percent of what it was a dozen years ago. It's a tough message, I think, for the NDP to accept that they have essentially taken the mining industry in B.C. and brought it to its knees.

I think that this bill is a very responsible attempt to make some change to how we do business in B.C. in the mining industry — as I say, in a very responsible, environmental fashion — and to provide some simplification.

I want to say that in my riding of East Kootenay and also in the riding of my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke, between our two ridings in the region of East Kootenay we have provided about 55 to 60 percent of the total mining revenue that's flowed to the provincial government over the past 50 years.

There's one mine in particular in my colleague's riding, Columbia River–Revelstoke, in Kimberley: the Sullivan mine that operated for over 100 years. It paid over $20 billion in that time to the province, so we can assume that the operations of that mine and the small town of Kimberley built a lot of schools and a lot of hospitals around the province. Mining has that kind of potential. Coming from a mining jurisdiction, I'm proud that our government is looking for responsible

The Mining Association of Canada has a saying that says: "If it can't be grown, it has to be mined." I just want to say a few things about mining as a primary industry. It's unique, really. First of all, it is the safest industry in B.C. Secondly, it leads all other industry sectors in productivity.

I had an interesting experience with an educator back a few months ago when some constituents of mine organized a resource-based industry symposium for high school students. We had the ranching industry, the mining industry and the forest industry represented. We ran into one educator who really thought that the mining industry was still back in the 1950s. He still thought they didn't use much technology and that people who worked at mines didn't have much education, and it was that kind of industry — like it used to be.

There's a perception out there, also, with respect to the environment that mines are back in the 1950s. I can tell you, having toured several mines in my riding and other people's ridings here in B.C., that mines operate very responsibly from an environmental impact point of view. The five operating coalmines in my constituency do a fine job of reclamation, and I have witnessed myself and taken many guests to these minesites over the years to witness the Rocky Mountain elk that feed on the reclaimed areas of the coalmines and the bighorn sheep, the white-tailed deer, the mule deer and even some mountain goats. There's no question they're doing a good job of reclamation.

I did want to say, also, that this bill helps mines operate more efficiently, I think, and in doing that encourages other mining companies to invest in British Columbia. I take it from the comments of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, this evening and during other debates, that she doesn't like mining. From what I've seen, the party she's a member of doesn't like mining. Clearly, from their actions over the past ten years, they don't like mining.

What they miss is what mining really has to offer all of the people of British Columbia. Whether you live in the rural areas of B.C. or whether you live in downtown Vancouver, mining has a tremendous amount to offer to British Columbians. We could have another Sullivan mine for another 100 years someplace here in British Columbia. It paid $20 billion over that 100 years. It probably would pay a lot more than that with inflation today. It would build a lot more schools and hospitals.

I say this not so much for the benefit of my colleagues in the House this evening but for the departed member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. If she really thought about what mining does…. Mining takes up just a speck on the landscape, and from that speck on the landscape, if you took all the mines in British Columbia here today and added them all up, they'd occupy less than parking lots and shopping malls in B.C. If you put all the parking lots together, they occupy more land.

There's a mine in Strathcona Park on Vancouver Island, right in the middle of a park. Most people don't know that. It generates more revenue than the whole cruise ship industry in B.C. put together — from that one little mine. That's not a big mine; that's just a small mine.

Mining has minimal impact on the environment. I think we need more mines in British Columbia, not fewer mines. We need those high-paying jobs. The folks that work in the mining industry in my riding make an average of $79,000 a year. Those are good jobs. It's a very high-tech operation. They have to have education and training to do their jobs. It's very safe and very productive.

I congratulate the minister for this bill. It's another brick in the wall, I think, in terms of turning this province around with respect to mining, making it a more prosperous province. I thank the minister for that.

B. Suffredine: I wish to speak in favour of the bill, but in beginning I want to emphasize that from my perspective and from the perspective of most people in my riding, environmental standards are critically important. The member opposite who got up and spoke first after the minister complained that any change should be postponed. That approach is an approach that is not inconsistent with the approach taken by the former government, and it was an approach that created a problematic situation for mining in this province.

There are many historically polluted sites, or what are thought to be and what are called contaminated sites, that no one wants to touch. The old approach made it impossible to do anything about them forever. No attempt was made to identify what the hazard was on those sites. Trying to fix the costs of reclaiming them on owners from the past was a completely impractical approach that was not only doomed to fail; it was just a way to pay lip service publicly, for politicians to suggest that they wanted to clean up the environment when in reality the approach was one of destroying the industry. That was done quite intentionally.

I can use a very specific example on that. I happen to be an owner of three historic mineral claims near a place called Sandon, which many people may know. The claims are called the Red Fox, the Red Fox Fraction and the Antoine. They were part of a mine called the Antoine. The Antoine was a huge silver mine back in the late 1800s. It was part of the silver boom that began the exploration of British Columbia, and it's one of the mines that was something that created a place where I live now called Nelson.

In 1899 there were 500 miners in the Antoine camp. They were mining silver ore that was as rich as 400 ounces per tonne of silver. That mine failed in the early 1900s. I think it was in 1910 when the miners in Sandon had a strike, and the settlement was too rich for the mine operators. But there's presently a dump — it's a rock dump for the ore — at the site where my claims

are that probably has 500,000 tonnes of rock mined by hand by miners in 1899 to 1910.

Now, it's just rock lying on the ground, but it's probably considered a contaminated site because it's been moved from underground to the surface. Nobody owns that dump, as they call it, or the rock on the surface, but no one wants to touch it, because if it's a contaminated site, they might have to pay the entire cost of removing 500,000 tonnes of rock and putting it somewhere. It's currently at 8,000 feet sea level where no one ever goes, but someone might have to do something with it if they interfere with it. As long as no one touches it, they're not responsible, and the former owners, of course, aren't around anymore, because they mined it back in 1900, and they've all died by now.

Now, there are hundreds if not thousands of minesites like that in my riding. Putting regulations in place and making it so that people can understand the regulations and work with them is reasonable and realistic. Otherwise, sites like the Antoine will remain untouched.

Like any business, the mining business needs certainty to restore itself. We need mining in British Columbia. We're a resource-based economy. Mines developed this province. They provided in the past and they provide now access and recreation opportunities for people that like back-country recreation. They utilize the mining roads to get there.

I spoke about the importance of mining and its restoration in this province a few weeks ago. I know many people who are miners or who want to be miners, who are prospectors and have been denied the opportunity for years. I know they're ready and willing to prove that they can mine in a way that respects environmental protection.

Bringing these regulations into one place not only fulfils the commitment to reduce red tape but makes it so that mining can have some certainty. Mining can know the rules and know that it doesn't have to shop in a whole bunch of places. Also, setting strict and environmentally friendly standards that are based on science, not emotion, strikes the necessary balance. I want to congratulate the minister for a giant step toward the recovery of the mining industry in this province while properly protecting the environment.

B. Penner: It's a privilege for me to have a chance to participate in this debate briefly tonight on Bill 32, the Waste Management Amendment Act. I just have a few observations to make.

Like the previous speaker, I have long suspected that the former NDP government had an openly hostile attitude towards the mining industry. In fact, I think that view was confirmed earlier tonight, when we heard the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant talk about appeasing the mining industry. That's a term that rose to prominence in common parlance just prior to World War II and was used to describe the English government's attitude towards Germany prior to the outbreak of World War II.

I think that is a bit of a subtle slip on the part of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and indicates the type of bias and hostile attitude that the NDP generally has held over the years towards the mining industry. That's extremely unfortunate not just for the mining industry but for all the workers in the province that work either directly or indirectly for the mining industry and as well for everybody in British Columbia who counts on public services, because public services are paid for by tax dollars.

Without revenue-generating industries like mining being vibrant in British Columbia, we have a much greater challenge paying for the whole array of services that all of us in this House support, can think of and often debate. Where do funds come for education? Where do funds come for health care? We've recently increased the health care budget by over a billion dollars just in one fiscal year. I think it's about a 12 percent lift year over year from last year. That's a huge increase. That money — pardon the expression — doesn't always grow on trees, certainly not given this current softwood dispute with the United States. We have to diversify our economy. In my mind, the mining industry still holds the potential for being an important part of the British Columbia economy.

You know, it wasn't just the previous government over the last ten years, led at one time by Glen Clark or Mike Harcourt or Ujjal Dosanjh, who took a hostile attitude towards mining. It was in the 1970s that British Columbia got its first big black eye in the view of the mining industry around the world and for investors and potential investors around the world when the Dave Barrett NDP government came along with a very openly hostile attitude towards mining. In many respects the mining industry has never fully recovered from that episode in the early 1970s.

Last Friday I had occasion to be in Whitehorse in the Yukon. I sat down at a dinner table, and there was a gentleman across from me who said: "You know, I haven't been to British Columbia since 1974." That was right after Dave Barrett introduced some legislation and changed some of the taxing policies affecting the mining industry. That gentleman hasn't been back to British Columbia, and he said: "Quite frankly, we're saluting the new government and its efforts, but it's going to take a lot to convince us that you're serious — that you're not like the former NDP government that went out of its way to create division, to foster public suspicion and to openly reveal its hostility towards this very important economic resource and job-creating industry in British Columbia known as the mining industry."

I salute the minister for taking some concrete steps towards making mining feasible again in British Columbia. We have to protect the environment, and I think the minister has found the appropriate balance here in this bill. It will go a long measure to sending the appropriate signal to people we need investing in mining in British Columbia so that we can have the

jobs and the revenues to fund public services, and we can protect the environment at the same time.

B. Locke: I rise to speak in support of Bill 32, the Waste Management Amendment Act, 2002.

Recently I had a very informative meeting with mining delegates from across B.C. As you know, I come from a fairly urban riding, but I understand the significant impact that mining has on our province. I particularly enjoyed the opportunity to meet with these delegates, as it gave me a chance to brush up on some of my knowledge of the industry.

Mining is B.C.'s second-largest resource industry and is a large contributor to the provincial economy. Mining is the industry which sustains much of the material world today. Iron ore and coal combine to create steel, a basic component of modern living. Building cars and computers, electric appliances — all of these are derived from resources produced by the mining industry.

We know that coal-based methane is a low-cost, clean energy source, and what is really great is that coal can still be used again. We have very high-quality coal in B.C. The member for East Kootenay is always very quick to remind us that this energy source is just waiting to be tapped.

This bill is important in striking a balance between commercial and environmental needs. We are very fortunate to share a most remarkable province with an abundance of clean air and water, incredible vistas and terrains. We live in one of the most livable places on Earth — a place that belongs to all British Columbians. We share our pleasures. We share our love for B.C. No one person or group holds virtue to that. Only democratically can this land be protected, identified and enhanced for everyone. Love and honour for B.C. is shared by all of us, and I am confident that passion is shared by this minister. This bill will ensure that the concern for the environment is protected.

I know that the mining industry itself shares the concern for the environment and is now using new and innovative methods of mining to ensure that we do have a protected ecosystem.

The amendments that are being introduced by our Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection to the Waste Management Act deal with a specific portion of the mining industry — that of environmental regulation. As we know, our previous government was very fond of environmental regulations. They could regulate the life out of any industry. Under the previous government, regulation in the mining industry was rampant — so rampant it virtually destroyed an industry of one of the highest-paying jobs in our province.

This legislation is addressing the overregulation that we have seen in the mining industry. It sets out one clear process for cleaning up minesites that does not jeopardize the environment. The legislation formalizes an agreement with the Minister of Energy and Mines to address mining industry concerns that the industry has to contend with.

In my discussions with the mining delegates, I learned how very important mining is to B.C. — one that we shouldn't be hindering with duplicate and needless regulation. I rise to speak in favour of this bill, because I realize we can no longer strangle the mining industry with regulation. Environmental protection and safety in the mining industry will be maintained in a rational and concise manner. Thank you for this opportunity.

Hon. J. Murray: One of the members spoke about what this amendment signals, and I would just like to comment on my view of the signal that's being given here.

I believe that this amendment signals this government's willingness to make changes that are in the public interest, that make common sense under due consultation — the willingness to make change. It also signals that the polluter-pay principle will continue to apply and taxpayers will not be stuck with the bill. It does that by ensuring that liability provisions are maintained unless a transfer agreement is approved by both ministries, including Water, Land and Air Protection, whose regulators will need to be confident that any financial liability has been assessed and has been covered by the vendor or purchaser of a minesite.

This amendment also signals that government maintains a commitment to high environmental standards. The provisions of the Waste Management Act continue to apply to all minesites, and the ministry continues to have the power to issue an order for pollution spills, for discharges into the environment and for all historic minesite contamination.

I'm very pleased to be putting this amendment forward as a commonsense reduction of duplication and confusion so that resources can be focused in a more effective manner and environmental protection maintained.

Hon. J. Murray: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 32, Waste Management Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 31; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. J. Murray: I move the amendment to section 2 standing in my name on the order paper.

This amendment will correct a typographical error which arose in the editing process of the bill. The amendment will replace the word "each" with the word "either." The result is that the new section 8.2 (1)(c) of the bill will read: "…cooperative working agreements between the conservation officer service and another enforcement agency that are made within the mandate of either agency." The change in wording will ensure that the conservation officer service and other enforcement agencies will be authorized to exchange authorities with other agencies, reflecting the original intent of the provision.

The Chair: At this point in time we are dealing with the amendment to section 2.

J. Kwan: On section 2, which refers to section 8.15(b), members of the conservation officers service are given status as peace officers for the purpose of carrying out their duties under this act. Could the minister please advise what those powers are?

Hon. J. Murray: The conservation officers receive this authority currently through their appointment as special constables under the Police Act. This amendment takes those authorities and brings them into the Environment Management Act. It basically entails the protection of the officer from being assaulted or obstructed while carrying out their duties.

J. Kwan: So the only power that is given to the conservation officers as a result of having the status of peace officers is to prevent them from being assaulted?

Hon. J. Murray: It gives them legal protection from being assaulted or obstructed while carrying out their duties, and it gives them such other protections as other peace officers receive under the Criminal Code.

J. Kwan: The minister said that there are other protections under the Criminal Code. What are those?

Hon. J. Murray: Those powers are that in certain circumstances the officers are authorized to use force under the provisions of a warrant and make arrests. These are laid out in the Criminal Code.

Hon. J. Murray: Compliance officers are not included in this legislation specifically, so they have the same powers as any other member of staff of Water, Land and Air Protection. They are not conservation officers, nor are they part of the conservation officer service. However, they could be designated as auxiliary conservation officers, and in that case they would be empowered to act with authority under specific pieces of the legislation, depending on the criteria of that auxiliary position.

J. Kwan: In what legislation would one find the role and the definition of a compliance officer, if not under this piece of legislation?

Hon. J. Murray: The authority of the compliance officers would be the same as the authority of an officer under the Waste Management Act, an officer under the Wildlife Act or an inspector under the Pesticide Control Act.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have a list of what authority these officers have under the different respective acts, then?

Hon. J. Murray: This amendment doesn't deal with compliance officers. Compliance officers' powers are spelled out under the respective acts I just mentioned, but that's not what this amendment is about.

J. Kwan: With the exception of where the minister said they could be defined under the auxiliary officers component, so that would fall under that. Then the minister says it's when it is the auxiliary officer role. If they take on that role, what powers do they have under this act?

Hon. J. Murray: The compliance officers would continue to have the same powers they have under the Waste Management Act, the Pesticide Control Act and the Wildlife Act. It is an administratively simpler and

more efficient process to have them designated as auxiliary conservation officers rather than to have to go to separate acts to identify the exact role and powers.

J. Kwan: It's just interesting to note, because the minister has mentioned several times that her ministry has created this new position as a way to help cope with the massive funding cuts to the compliance and enforcement budget. I would have expected that under this act, the compliance officers would fall within the scope of the Environment Management Amendment Act, but it appears not to be the case.

That's what the minister keeps on saying, so it's kind of surprising on the one hand that the ministry has created a new role for these compliance officers, but they don't apply here with the Environment Management Amendment Act.

In subsection 5(c), conservation officers are given the immunities of peace officers. Could the minister please inform this House what that means? What is being added in terms of immunities? Could the minister provide an example of a situation where a conservation officer would need immunities as a peace officer?

Hon. J. Murray: The amendment was drafted in this way in order to make sure the conservation officers have the authorities of peace officers.

J. Kwan: Could the minister give an example of a situation where a conservation officer would need immunity in the role of a peace officer?

Hon. J. Murray: A classic example would be where a conservation officer needs to enter a property under the Waste Management Act to carry out an inspection.

J. Kwan: Would the officer enter as an undercover officer, then, so that they could try and find out if there's any violation of the law? Is that what the minister means?

J. Kwan: Is the minister suggesting, then, that in that process the officer could be violating the law himself or herself and would, in that instance, be immune from any challenges for violating the law?

Hon. J. Murray: If the conservation officer were to do anything that was not in accordance to the law, it would need to be under an operational plan approved by the chief conservation officer or in a circumstance that was not predicted.

J. Kwan: Then I would just simply ask the minister to please tell me what immunity means in this instance for these peace officers.

Hon. J. Murray: Immunity. An example is that if the conservation officer is exercising a duty and is entering under a search warrant, they may use force in the exercise of that duty.

J. Kwan: Does that mean to say that the officer could use force and therefore is immune because the officer now has the title of a peace officer?

Because I'm not getting what immunity means in this context, let me use another example. Could an officer have the authority in, as an example, an attempt to catch people who buy bear parts in violation of the law? In an attempt to do that, would the officer be able to, I guess, kill a bear to see whether or not anybody will come forward to try and purchase bear parts so that you can catch people who would be in violation of the law? Would that be an example?

Hon. J. Murray: No. The example that the member mentioned is not part of this section of the amendment. Peace officers are immune from civil action or being charged if they are carrying out their duties according to their search warrants.

I would like to point out to the member that there is not effectively a change in this immunity status, other than an administrative one. Before, conservation officers were appointed as special provincial constables and enjoyed these immunities and the status of peace officers. Now, through being appointed as conservation officers, they will have that immunity. There is no content change here; it's an administrative change.

J. Kwan: The attached schedule reference in section 9(1) outlines all of the acts or regulations that conservation officers may exercise powers and perform duties under. This appears to be a big increase in the powers of conservation officers. While it is encouraging to see that they will have more ability to perform their duties, some are concerned about the granting of powers equal to that of peace officers. Do these powers for conservation officers equate to those of the police? Could the minister please run down the schedule and more specifically explain what abilities the conservation officers will have and how that relates to police officers on the issues around powers to arrest?

Hon. J. Murray: There again, as with the previous section, there's no substantive change to the powers of the conservation officers. Whereas before they were distributed over a number of acts, they'll now be brought into the environmental management act, but the content isn't different.

With respect to the comparison with police under these specific sections of these acts, there is no difference between the powers of the conservation officer and the police. It's effectively the same.

J. Kwan: They have the same powers as the police. Let's just use one area to illustrate some examples of their powers. What about the powers to arrest? Could the minister please advise what some of the powers are that would be afforded then to the conservation officers?

Hon. J. Murray: The conservation officers will have the same powers of arrest as police officers for offences committed under the sections of the statutes listed.

J. Kwan: Are there plans or provisions in place to train the conservation officers in policing and in all other areas that they would be responsible for?

Hon. J. Murray: There is no change in the areas that the conservation officers are responsible for compared with before this amendment. They are trained to carry out their duties, similar to police officers, for the specific activities they are authorized to act on. At the same time, the conservation officer service is working with the Justice Institute and working on a routine updating and upgrading of training in the conservation officer service.

J. Kwan: The minister is saying there have been no substantive changes in terms of powers that are being afforded to the conservation officer service, save and except now that they're being recognized as the equivalent of police officers. Police officers would appear to me to actually have more powers than those of conservation officers, but maybe I'm totally misunderstanding that. Is the minister saying there is no difference at all in terms of the powers that were afforded to them prior to this change?

Hon. J. Murray: Police have a much wider set of authorities to enforce statutes that the conservation officers don't have the authority to enforce. The conservation officers have the equivalent of police authority in specific sections of specific acts as they did before, so there's no change in the content there. This is an administrative improvement, because the expression of those powers is no longer scattered through a number of sections of different acts. It's collected in one place, and it's harmonized, because before there were some differences in the wording of some of the different acts that made it confusing. Now it's in one place, and it's worded in a consistent manner.

J. Kwan: Will conservation officers be granted the ability to do undercover work?

Hon. J. Murray: Could the member repeat the question a bit more loudly, please?

J. Kwan: It might help if all the people around us took their conversations outside of the House. That might facilitate the minister and her staff to hear my questions. Will conservation officers be granted the ability to do undercover work?

Hon. J. Murray: The conservation officers already have the authority to do undercover work, and they do do undercover work. That will be strengthened, because the exemptions from offence provisions that have previously been in only some of the acts that the conservation officers manage will now be consistent throughout the various activities they manage.

J. Kwan: In light of the budget pressures that the minister is faced with, is the minister confident that the conservation officers will have the appropriate training to do the undercover work? Will the budget be able to provide for that training for the conservation officers?

Hon. J. Murray: Yes, I am confident, and that's one of the key things that the conservation officer budget is directed towards. That's to make sure that training is appropriate and up to date.

Hon. J. Murray: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Bill 31, Environment Management Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete with amendment.

Bill 31, Environment Management Amendment Act, 2002, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 15; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 15, Degree Authorization Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.


	YEAS — 50

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Whittred
Cheema	Hansen	J. Reid
Bruce	Santori	van Dongen
Nettleton	Lee	Murray
Plant	Clark	Bond
Stephens	Abbott	Weisbeck
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Long	Johnston
Bennett	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	K. Stewart	Visser
Brice	Sultan	Sahota
Hawes		Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan