Hansard -- Tuesday, May 27, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 16, No. 3 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Second Reading of Bills		6959
	School Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 50) Hon. C. Clark J. Kwan Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 51) Hon. C. Clark J. Kwan R. Masi Hon. C. Clark

Point of Privilege		6972
	J. Kwan

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		6973
	Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued) Hon. G. Cheema J. MacPhail

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call continued debate of the estimates for the Minister of State for Mental Health. In this chamber I call second reading of Bill 50.

Hon. C. Clark: I move that Bill 50, School Amendment Act, 2003, be read for a second time.

This act introduces a number of changes to the School Act to give students a larger voice and further eliminate red tape for school districts. We want to create a quality public education system for every young student in British Columbia, a system that values student input and recognizes the importance of student involvement in planning what happens at their schools, a system with choices so that students can continue to attend the school that they choose even if it's not within their catchment area, a system that recruits the brightest and the best educators and that gives boards the maximum flexibility to recruit, a system with fewer barriers and one that allows districts to spend revenue where it will benefit students most — and that is undoubtedly in the classroom.

Last year government created school planning councils, one at every school, as part of our commitment to improve student achievement. The councils examine how well students are performing, and they develop an annual plan that identifies a school's strengths and weaknesses, sets goals for improvement and monitors progress towards that improvement. The planning councils currently consist of a principal, a teacher and three representatives elected by the parent advisory council. Today's legislation adds a student representative from grade 10, 11 or 12 to secondary school planning councils, and it ensures that students have real and meaningful input into how their schools are run.

Students are not just key partners in our education system. They are the most important people in our education system. They have a keen interest and are able to contribute the firsthand information that we need to improve student achievement in our schools. A quality education system with improved student achievement and more student involvement are new-era promises that we made in the election and that we remain committed to. Including students in grades 10, 11 and 12 on secondary school planning councils puts us one step closer to that goal.

Last year we created open school boundaries as part of our commitment to provide greater choice for students and parents in public schooling. We believe that student success rates will increase when we allow students to take the courses in which they believe they may excel, whether those courses are in the neighbourhood school or in an entirely different school district.

Today's legislation will permit boards to establish rules for students wishing to continue to attend schools outside of their enrolment boundaries or what we call the catchment area. Specifically, the amendment will permit school boards to create rules that allow for out-of-catchment students who attended a particular school in the previous year to remain with enrolment priority the following year. It will allow students access to certain schools to ensure continuation of their educational program. It will make it easier for siblings to attend the same schools, and it will make it easier to determine which students have enrolment priority. School boards asked for this change to ensure the continuity of educational opportunities for students in their schools. This amendment will ensure that boards have the flexibility they need to determine how to prioritize students fairly.

Today's amendments also allow principals to accrue seniority as teachers during their tenure as principals at B.C. schools. This amendment is important. It will give school boards the flexibility to maximize much-needed recruitment efforts as more and more principals reach retirement age. This means boards will have more candidates to choose from, and we can be sure we are hiring the most qualified professionals to lead in our schools.

Today's legislation will also give school boards more flexibility in allowing them to use short-term leases of school property to generate operating revenue. At least 50 out of 60 school districts in British Columbia right now are facing declining enrolment. Boards have indicated that leasing surplus school property has the potential to generate thousands of dollars in operating revenue over a period of years. Currently, boards can lease property, but the revenue generated must be placed in their capital reserve account. Under this new legislation, boards will be given the freedom to spend short-term lease money where it will benefit students most, and that again, unquestionably, is in the classroom.

We promised more autonomy for school boards, and this change to the School Act lives up to that promise. These changes to the School Act will ensure that students have real, meaningful input in school planning. They will allow boards to prioritize enrolment applications fairly and equitably in order to ensure the continuity of education programming for students. It will give boards the flexibility they need to maximize their recruitment, and it will give districts the flexibility to spend revenue where it will benefit students most: in the classroom. These changes are necessary in order for us to follow through on our commitments that we made in our New Era document and in the ministry service plan that we set out last year.

J. Kwan: I rise today to express my dismay at the incompetence, quite frankly, of the Liberal government. Due to their rescheduling of the House — and really, it is scheduling inefficiencies that the government has put in place — the opposition has a mere two hours to give second reading to both Bills 50 and 51. Time allotted for committee stage is only one hour.

Bill 50, School Amendment Act, 2003, contains many issues that would best be explored at committee stage. However, one hour is simply not enough for the opposition to fully critique two very important pieces of legislation. It's not enough time for the public to come to understand what these issues and their ramifications are and to have their questions answered through the opposition by the minister in this House. One hour to try and figure out the changes being made to the College of Teachers. One hour to explore enrolment priorities. One hour to critique the government's new position on teachers' seniority. Now, when I say one hour, this is one hour collectively on the bill's entirety.

There are some aspects of this legislation that may be quite beneficial to British Columbians — for example, allowing students to have representation on school planning councils. But to canvass even a good idea in this short amount of time, this limited amount of time, I would argue, does not do justice to the importance of the issue.

Other aspects of this legislation are more troubling. The word "teacher," for example, is substituted by the word "person" in a clause dealing with seniority. Many people are concerned that this change will allow administrative officers to accumulate teacher seniority. This is a section that would best be examined at committee stage. However, due to the massive changes being made to the College of Teachers, the opposition is forced to decide how best to allocate precious resources between Bills 50 and 51. There simply has not been enough time assigned to properly examine both bills at committee stage.

Bill 50 also gives school boards the option to establish new rules and guidelines regarding enrolment preference and priority. Again, this could be beneficial to students and their families, but the language is so confusing that it is hard to tell. Currently, there are four levels of priority for enrolment, and Bill 50 proposes to add an additional four levels. But instead of clearly outlining which students would be eligible, Bill 50 contains incredibly confusing language.

Let me just give you an example. Let me just read this amendment to section 74.1 of the School Act, of which there is subsection (6.1). It reads:

Bafflegab. Most people wouldn't understand what that means, and we would have to go through a bill that's filled with such language to canvass in order to get clarity on its meaning so that people will understand how they are to operate.

What does this section even mean? Perhaps if the opposition had been allotted more time at committee stage, we might have an opportunity to ask the minister to elaborate on the consequences of these changes. But with only one hour, we'd not be able to fully canvass all the required issues.

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

Then there's section 6, which has many people concerned about the ability of the administrative officers to acquire teacher seniority retroactively. Perhaps there's a good reason for this. Perhaps there's no need to worry. But it would be nice to have more than one hour to find out why these changes are being made — why allow retroactivity on something like this.

The opposition did not unanimously agree to the schedule that was moved by the House Leader, voted for by every single member of the government side, with my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings and myself opposing it yesterday. The government has an unprecedented majority in this chamber — some 75 caucus members to a mere two members of the opposition. They've had since February to work out their legislative calendar, and yet here we are in May, after 43 sitting days, and the government is ramming through legislation on time allocation.

Now, I know that the House Leader blamed me for holding the government up — that somehow my pregnancy and having a child derailed the government's agenda; that they could not introduce legislation until the last two weeks, the second-to-last week of the House sitting. Ten pieces of legislation in one day — 16 over two days. Upon my return, somehow I'd held the government up.

Isn't it ironic? If we reduce the caucus numbers, the government's business can't get done. Maybe the effective strategy for the opposition would be for my colleague and I just not to be in this chamber for any debate. Then perhaps the government would never get anything done. Is that the logic here? It appears to be so for the Government House Leader.

Or is the real issue this? This is what I suspect: the real problem that the Government House Leader is faced with is that his own caucus members are having difficulty with the pieces of legislation that are being tabled in this Legislature. Perhaps they're fighting

amongst themselves with disagreements. Maybe some of them are struggling to represent their constituents. I hope that they are.

It's like the Coquihalla issue, the Coquihalla tolls. You'd think that some of the MLAs will step forward and say: "Hold up, government colleagues. This is not a good idea. It's not good for my community. We don't want generations and generations of the future generation to have to pay tolls. It's not a smart move for my community. It's not a smart move for B.C.'s economy." It's not a smart move for the heartlands community that this government likes to tout, saying that they have a heartlands strategy and that they are going to put heartlands tests on the table to make sure government decisions will meet that test.

In reality, with the Coquihalla tolls it does not meet that test. It is up to the Minister of Transportation and the Premier to listen to the public and to listen to the MLAs.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair allows quite a bit of latitude at second reading, but could we please return to the principle of Bill 50.

J. Kwan: Yes, of course. I'm outlining just as an illustration of the problems here that we're faced with, with Bill 50 and the amount of time — the lack of time — which we have to debate these issues. The government saw fit to bring in time allocation — one hour of committee debate for a substantive piece of legislation that has huge ramifications for our education system and for our children.

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

The opposition will try to address as many concerns as possible during the 60 minutes available to us in committee stage. We'll continue to try and hold this government accountable for their actions, even though it is their habit — and particularly it is the habit of this Minister of Education — to say: "Don't blame me. It's everybody else's fault, but not mine. Everything that I'm doing is just great." It is her approach to the challenges and problems that this government, her government, has created in the area of education.

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

Anybody else who has legitimate concerns that they brought before this government, this government has set them aside and said they were somehow special interest groups and that somehow their concerns are not worth consideration. Somehow their concerns are not legitimate. Somehow when people don't agree with cuts to the education system, they are deemed to be special interest groups, and they're cast aside — that they have no voice, and they ought to have no voice, hon. Speaker.

The bill. As I mentioned, there are some troubling components within it. There are some pieces that may well be good, but it requires time for the opposition to canvass. With only one hour, there is a huge limitation on what the opposition can do and the answers that the opposition needs to seek from the minister for clarity on the School Amendment Act, 2003. But as I said, we'll do the best we can given that this is a government who's really not interested in debate, who really is just interested in shutting down debate and not allowing for clear, concise debate in this House.

It's a shame that the time allotted for second reading for both Bills 50 and 51 is only a mere two hours. Bill 51 is another big bill that deserves a lot of discussion, so I'm going to save that time — the scarce amount of time that's made available to us — so we can engage in second reading debate for Bill 51 as well.

Mr. Speaker: We are at second reading stage of Bill 50. The Minister of Education closes debate.

Hon. C. Clark: I move that Bill 50, School Amendment Act, 2003, be referred to a Committee of the Whole House…. My apologies.

Mr. Speaker: We must move second reading. The question now is second reading of Bill 50.

Hon. C. Clark: I move that Bill 50 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 50, School Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

This act introduces changes to the Teaching Profession Act that will increase public accountability, clarify

the role of the College of Teachers and enhance efficiency. Amending the Teaching Profession Act is part of our strategy to increase accountability at every level of our public education system. These changes will help increase public confidence in our system and support our government's commitment to ensuring a quality education for every British Columbia student.

The College of Teachers is an independent, self-regulating body that is responsible for establishing standards for education, certification, conduct and competence of teachers. Currently, the college is governed by a 20-member council; 15 of whom are elected and five of whom are appointed by the provincial government. Right now, while all members of the college are eligible to be elected, it is a limited form of democracy in practice, because only teachers nominated and endorsed by the B.C. Teachers Federation get elected or acclaimed to the board.

Changes to the Teaching Profession Act will increase public accountability by changing representation on the College of Teachers council to ensure broader representation of the public, and as a result, it will improve public confidence in the teaching profession. These changes will also ensure that the public has a right to make a written complaint about a teacher's conduct. Until now in British Columbia, parents have not been able to pursue their concerns in this manner. These amendments will increase accountability and provide the public with an avenue to question the conduct of a college member. The College of Teachers will now be required to submit an annual report to the Minister of Education. This will include details of the financial affairs and administration of the college, including a report on the performance and competence of the teaching profession. College members will now be required to report professional misconduct of another member, and this, I believe, will also promote professionalism within the teaching profession.

In the past there has been confusion over the role of the college and the role of post-secondary institutions in approving teacher education programs. Changes to the Teaching Profession Act will clarify the role of the college by giving the college the authority to set standards for teacher certification, but not to approve how teacher education programs are administered or taught.

The college will now be able to delegate the power of decision-making to a discipline committee to ensure procedural fairness for all parties, and amendments to the Teaching Profession Act will provide broader representation on the council of the College of Teachers. They will allow the public to make written complaints when they are concerned about a member's conduct. They will require members of the college to report professional misconduct of another member. It will require the College of Teachers to prepare an annual report. It will clarify the role of the College of Teachers, and it will enhance the administrative efficiency of the college.

J. Kwan: Bill 51, Teaching Profession Amendment Act, in the minister's view, is an attempt to reduce political influence with the College of Teachers. Instead of electing teachers, this minister will appoint people of her choosing. Wow. So much for getting rid of political influence.

Let's just take a look at this fundamental change and some of its ramifications. Bill 51 will change so that teaching will no longer be a self-regulating profession. Why is that? Bill 51 changes the composition of the board members to eight elected members, 11 cabinet appointments on the minister's recommendations and one person to be nominated by the deans.

Under the present legislation the council consists of 15 elected members from 15 zones, two cabinet appointments, two ministerial appointments and one person nominated by the deans of faculties of education. In fact, an election is currently underway in the even-numbered zones of the college.

The issue around the change in these appointments is fundamental. In all self-regulating professions the majority of the council is to be appointed by the profession, through their own peers. That's what peer regulation is about. That's how you do it in the professional world — but no, not when it comes to education and the teaching profession.

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

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

That's what we have with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, but that's not what we have in the teaching profession. That's not what the government is bringing forward. Instead the government is going to appoint all except one member of this council, so there's no self-regulation whatsoever. It is clear. It's transparent from this point of view that it is a partisan council.

Now, this government went on and on about how appointments need to be non-partisan when they were

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

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

The majority of the councillors on the college council, as I mentioned, will be appointed. All other self-regulating bodies in B.C. have councils or boards with the majority being elected by members. The question is: what makes the teaching profession different from every other professional body that exists in British Columbia? I used the example of the College of Physicians. Maybe the next thing that this Liberal government will decide is that the College of Physicians and Surgeons will no longer have the ability or the authority to be self-regulating, and maybe the majority of the college will be made up of appointments by the government. Are we going to see those kinds of changes? How can the minister and this government rise in this House and claim that somehow they're creating a self-regulating body that is democratic in its nature when, in fact, it's anything but democratic, and it certainly is not self-regulating.

The teachers will continue to pay for the operation of the college, but they will have no say in its operations. Again, the College of Physicians and Surgeons…. They pay for its operation, but they decide how business should be dealt with. The majority of the people are elected by their own peers who will make that decision.

The new bill will wipe out the current council. In the interim, do you know what's going to happen? The minister has the authority to appoint 20 persons to the council. Its entirety in the interim would be political appointments. That's what's going to happen.

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

The minister has made it quite clear that she sees the B.C. Teachers Federation as a special interest group. For some reason, this government has decided that special interest groups are an annoyance hindering progress in British Columbia.

I should actually pause here and clarify my remarks. I wouldn't want to generalize. To this government, special interest groups are only those that disagree with them. This government consistently shuts down community advocates all over British Columbia. Their views are treated with hostility, their efforts discounted and their concerns brushed aside. It is a trend that is both unfortunate and worrisome.

Opposition voices are essential to the democratic process. They are our sources of knowledge, debate, development and progress. And with only two members in opposition, the role of the community's voices is even more important. But what does this government do? It ignores those voices and brushes them off as special interest groups. Instead of consultation, cooperation and commitment to process, this minister chooses conflict and confrontation. Mount your horses. Draw your swords. The battle lines are set.

This is the methodology the Minister of Education has chosen to deal with education in B.C. — conflict, confrontation, and cuts that hurt children and their families and, therefore, our community. How about that? Some example for our children.

Parents are concerned about school closures. School trustees are slammed with cost pressures and underfunding. Teachers are being bashed around with legislation. Children are losing valuable services.

The Minister of Education thinks she can get away with it, because she can count 75 sheep in this House — 75 government MLAs who'll sit back and just let it happen; 75 MLAs who at the end of the day say to themselves: "Gee, that wasn't so hard. We picked a fight with the teachers. The battle's done, and we kind of, well, won. So who cares? Now we can do whatever we want. We can interfere as we choose. We can stick it to the teachers — and, in fact, we just did." They pat themselves on the back, and they're very proud of their actions.

Well, who are these people that the Liberals are bashing around with the heavy hand of legislation, such as Bill 51? It's a simple answer. They're the teachers, the guardians of education. They are the people we entrust our children with every day, the people who helped every single person in this chamber get to where we are today. The people who guide our kids through math problems, teach our children the history of this country, coach their soccer teams, sponsor their clubs, console them after they've been bullied and provide them with a caring ear. They're the hard-working, undervalued but pivotal — pivotal — members of the youth of this province.

What does this Liberal government do? It wages a battle against these people and their democratically elected organizations. This minister labels them a special interest group, and refuses to work with them in a constructive and collaborative manner.

Just what lesson is the Minister of Education trying to teach our kids with her approach? Where would she be without the wonderful teachers of this province? Why wouldn't the minister consult with them?

The teachers have many questions and concerns. They feel they have not been adequately consulted. They have requested a meeting with the minister, but that has yet to happen with this bill. Why would that be? Why would that be when the Minister of Education claims that she's consultative? Yet on the bill that fundamentally impacts the people whom we entrust our children with, she would not meet with them, and she has yet to do so. Instead, the teachers had to meet with staff. They were delegated to somebody else, where their questions were not answered. It makes no sense.

Hon. Speaker, I think a member wants to make an introduction, so I'm going to yield the floor to her.

Today I have great pleasure in introducing 27 grade 5 students here from Doncaster Elementary School. They have done the tour of the building, and they're just the most enthusiastic bunch I've ever come across. They're wonderful. With them is their extremely well respected teacher, Ms. Boyce. I would really, really appreciate this House making this bunch of great students welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. Excuse me. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant just yielded the floor for an introduction.

J. Kwan: Bill 51 follows in the footsteps of many changes brought in by this government designed to reduce the ability of teachers to represent themselves and work with government to improve education in B.C.

It has been two years since the last election — two years since this government began its battle against organized workers and their families in British Columbia. It is not just teachers. Nurses, doctors, government employees, forestry workers, teaching assistants — the list goes on and on and on. Working people of this province are just special interest groups. It is a shame. With all this talk of the heartlands and revitalization, the minister and her government somehow forgot that people are the heart of our communities, that schools and the hard-working educators keep those communities ticking.

This minister's complete disregard for those people as a special interest group is shameful. Maybe the minister will stand up and disagree with the points that I raised, but her actions, even the simple ones, speak volumes.

During estimates debate in March, the Leader of the Opposition brought to the minister's attention an odd omission from the service plan. On page 5 of the current service plan is the ministry's overview. It states: "The ministry is committed to local autonomy for school boards, strong accountability measures and a broader range of choice for students and parents." Last year the same statement read: "…range of choices for parents, students and staff."

It is an odd omission. Why would the minister leave out "staff" in their overview? Why would she eliminate the reference to teachers? The Leader of the Opposition gave the minister the opportunity to explain herself. The minister said it was a simple issue of rewriting. The omission was not an intentional slight, she said. The Leader of the Opposition gave the minister another chance. Why not rewrite it and update the website to recognize that staff and teachers play an important role? Why not make the gesture to recognize that fact? The minister said the document was final and that it could not be changed. Well, we know that is not the case, since the Minister of Health Services tabled a completely rewritten service plan only three weeks ago. The only reason the minister could possibly have is that she does not want to include staff and teachers. Her ideological bent and dislike for a caring, hard-working and crucial segment of our population is shameful.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Let's look at the last two years. Since June 2001 rising fixed expenses, growing cost pressures, government-imposed settlements and persistent underfunding have plagued the education system in B.C. Districts all over British Columbia have been forced in an unprecedented manner to make major cuts to programs, classrooms and schools over the last two years, all at the hands of this Minister of Education. Last year British Columbians saw 44 schools closed in communities. This year that number is likely to be over 50 — nearly 100 schools closed in two years.

Recent reports suggest that special education and English-as-a-second-language programs are suffering. Many schools in the lower mainland and Victoria desperately need seismic upgrades to ensure the safety of our students. Rural areas are being hit especially hard, and it is not just the education system. Schools have

closed. Courthouses have shut down, and now we're facing the closure of mills all over the province.

How are we supposed to support our provincial economy when the government is refusing to support our communities? Instead, they're selling off core assets, downloading costs to communities and abandoning the social network. At the heart of these communities are their schools — schools like Radium Elementary, Chimney Creek Elementary, Honeymoon Bay Elementary. All closed. In total, 11 schools in single-school communities were closed last year. How does that meet the heartlands test? Without the programs, the space and the educators to give children the skills to develop and eventually enter the workforce, our smaller communities will only see more people pack up and move.

Not all of these are new problems. Declining enrolment and adequate funding for schools have always been a challenge. However, what we're seeing now is unprecedented in British Columbia. Children have to be bused to Alberta for an education, for the first time in the history of British Columbia.

The Liberal government and this Minister of Education have exacerbated this challenge. Since they came to power, they put a funding freeze on education spending, while they gave their rich friends a massive tax cut. But that's not a special interest group, though, you see. That's a tax cut that the Liberals said would pay for itself. The tax cut plan was a failure, and now we have record deficits. To pay for this failed plan, the government froze education funding. They claimed that this was a sort of protection.

Instead of protecting the system, the government imposed a wage settlement on districts and refused to pay for it. The minister refused to pay for rising energy costs that this government is contributing to. They increased gas taxes. They refused to pay for the fuel tax increase and refused to pay for the increased MSP costs. This Minister of Education refused to cover all the costs that her government has forced on the education system. So much for protection. If this is how this Minister of Education defines protection, you know what? British Columbians — I, for one — do not want this kind of protection from this minister. I say: thanks, but no thanks.

We know the impacts, though. We have seen them in our communities. I have mentioned them already: programs, services, jobs — all cut. In my years as an advocate and as a politician, I've never seen anything like the boxes of letters, drawings, booklets and artwork that arrived on the doorsteps of the Legislature in February. As I listened to representatives from the Caravan Against the Cuts, I immediately thought that we had to do more. You know, the minister didn't even have enough caring to demonstrate to the people who had done all this work to show her the impact of what these cuts are throughout our community — to go out and talk to the people and receive the information. That was just too much. Oh, no can do — actually talk to real people who know what the impacts are. The Minister of Education is saying: "No, thanks. I don't want to see it. I'm going to keep my eyes shut, because that's how I operate."

I was thankful for all the people who care so deeply about our education and our children's education: administrators, parents, trustees and, of course, teachers. Thank goodness we have them. We have those who care about our education in British Columbia. The opposition leader and myself went out there and met with them and took the boxes of information in so that it could be shared, so that I could read that information and understand it.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. The Clerk was just asking if I'm the designated speaker. Yes, I am the designated speaker, given that the small House is running concurrently and my colleague the opposition leader is in the small House doing estimates debate with the Minister of State for Mental Health and the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. There are only the two opposition members, so we do have to split ourselves up accordingly.

J. Kwan: It's funny. The Minister of Education goes: "Whose fault is that?" Actually, let me tell you. Why we're backed into this situation with time limits with this government for Bills 50 and 51, where we only have two hours of debate for second reading for both bills, is the fault of the government.

Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat, please. Member, the issue is not debatable. I would suggest you move on with second reading debate on Bill 51.

J. Kwan: Actually, ask your House Leader. That's what the House Leader said. Check with the media. It's on record. That's what they're saying.

So what's wrong with this picture? What's wrong with this picture is that this Liberal government and this bunch of MLAs are trying to ram legislation through without debate. That's what they're trying to do.

There's only three days left, including today, in terms of debate, and the time allocated to Bills 50 and

51 is two hours for second reading for both bills that have substantive impacts for our children. The Minister of Education is very proud. She is so proud that there's limitation to debate, because, thank God, there's limited opportunity for accountability.

That's what all these Liberal MLAs want. They do not want to be held accountable; they don't want to answer questions. God forbid anybody should have any gumption to step up to the plate to ask them questions and hold them accountable. For shame. For shame — this minister and this bunch of Liberal MLAs who are sitting around smirking, thinking that this is funny.

In the estimates debate in March, the minister commented that the opposition constantly argued that our education system was in shambles, that we were too negative, that we were somehow naysayers, that we were trying to discredit B.C.'s education system as a political ploy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Education is far too important. As the lone opposition voices, it is crucial that we ask questions, challenge decisions and enforce accountability on this Minister of Education and this government, even if we are viewed negatively by those in power, even though in this House every single day they rise and mock the work of my colleague and me in trying to hold this government accountable, even if they try to shout us down by heckling, the way they did just now. You know what? We will continue to persist. Even if they laugh at our efforts, we will continue to persist.

Speaking up in the Legislature is one of the few precious opportunities for other viewpoints to be heard. Therefore, we speak as much as we can. However, that does not mean that we're out to discredit our education system. In fact, B.C. has a top education system — one to be proud of, one to cherish. That is why we must protect it, truly protect it — not the kind of definition of "protection" that this Minister of Education puts forward. We must do everything we can to ensure that our children get the best opportunities they can. They deserve it.

But, unfortunately, we have a Minister of Education and a government that have chosen to be divisive and arrogant. We have 75 MLAs who have elected to enter into battle against the people who stand as the best chance our kids have to get ahead and thrive. The battle lines are drawn by this Minister of Education and by this Liberal government. They have put children in the middle, placing their education at risk. Of course, they say that was not their intention. However, it is the reality we're faced with today. Their actions have put children, their education and their future at risk. It is all because of their ideology and a desire to win a public relations fight that should never, ever have existed.

One thing I've learned from listening to teachers, trustees, students and parents is that a strong, honest and open relationship between stakeholders and the provincial government is paramount to ensure our education system continues to improve. It's not just about teachers. Within the last two years there's been a significant amount of strain between the government and the school boards, from non-confidence votes to editorial debates and deep concerns over funding cuts. It is clear that a lot of work needs to be done to improve relationships and maximize everyone's undeniable desire to provide our children with an ever-improving education system. Parents have been calling on government to stop the government closures, to restore programs. Parents are being stretched too far, just like trustees, just like teachers. This bill will do nothing to ease the harmful tension in the system. It will only make it worse. We must act now to end the battle and work together, to collaborate, to listen and to learn. It is time for government to back off the editorial war and do what is best for students — work with the teachers, not against them. It is time for a new vision of education in British Columbia, one that goes beyond the Minister of Education's rhetoric and removes the children from the front lines and the trenches.

One of the most important things a society can do is provide programs and services that support children, from the K-to-12 education system and affordable child care to programs that give parents a chance to earn a living wage and access affordable housing. The health and welfare of our children are paramount to B.C.'s prosperity. All of our kids in the classrooms, in all their diversity, represent the future of our society. They deserve every opportunity to reach their potential and become healthy, educated and active citizens. We need to work with all stakeholders to ensure that happens.

The value of public education and support for the most vulnerable members of society cannot be reduced to a simple administrative formula. However, that is the system we have. It is based on a formula that many criticize and acknowledge as being insufficient, in rural and urban areas. I recognize that it is a challenge to somehow put all of the different variables, all of the values and all of the needs into a mathematical equation that meets the needs of the system. It is a challenge for government. It is a challenge for the trustees. And ultimately, it is a challenge for students and communities when the formula is not enough.

There are many things we can do. We can listen to the voices in our communities instead of shutting them out. School boards can continue to speak on behalf of their communities and ensure that the Minister of Education is listening. Students and parents should be granted the same ability. We must also listen to the teachers, to the professionals that work day in and day out to ensure that our children receive an education.

As for myself, I will continue to listen. I will continue to stand in this House to ensure that all of their voices are heard, even as this government brings in closure. Just as this government uses the heavy hand of legislation to silence advocates, it uses the heavy hand of closure to try and silence the opposition. Unlike this minister and her government, the opposition will continue to listen to all the stakeholders. Furthermore, the opposition will search for solutions and push for alternatives to the current situation. We must learn from the

experience of others and work together to fulfil our obligation to our children and our society.

One of the lessons we must learn comes from Dr. Rozanski's assessment report of Ontario's education system. On December 10, 2002, Rozanski's education task force released a lengthy report entitled Investing in Public Education: Advancing the Goal of Continuous Improvement in Student Learning and Achievement. The report is critical for us here in British Columbia, because much of what is happening right now under the Liberals occurred under Ontario's Conservative Party. Overall, the report contained 33 recommendations that, in the words of Dr. Rozanski, were "aimed at improving equity, fairness, certainty and stability in the funding of Ontario's students and staff."

At the heart of these recommendations was adequate, flexible funding. Dr. Rozanski insisted that funding needs to reflect real, current costs. In Ontario there was a funding freeze set at 1997 levels. As a result, officials were forced to make significant cuts to the education system. Rozanski then recommended that Ontario spend $1.08 billion just to reverse the damage done by the funding freeze. Rozanski's message is clear: forcing cuts will lead to long-term difficulties and the potential deterioration of the system — something we cannot afford. We need to listen to Rozanski's recommendations here in British Columbia in order to avoid the consequences seen in Ontario.

We cannot impose salary increases on school boards without funding them. The cost down the road would be too high. We cannot download MSP increases to school boards without properly funding them, or we'll see impacts in the classroom. We cannot expect school boards to pay for increasing energy costs and gas prices in the face of declining enrolment without giving them real tools to ensure fair and equitable access for students. We cannot cut services to classrooms without putting more strain on the professionals who work in the schools.

Teachers need the support of society and government to maintain the quality of education we cherish so deeply. We cannot afford this battle that the Liberals, this Minister of Education, have put in place and are determined to fight. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes that Ontario made. Instead, we need to support teachers, educators, parents, school boards and students.

Dr. Rozanski argues that we need to create an atmosphere of reciprocal accountability. If the government wants to impose performance standards on schools and teachers, if government wants to hold school boards accountable, government itself must be accountable for providing schools with adequate resources to ensure that targets and accountability measures can be met. Government must be accountable to work with all of the people involved and not against them. So far, it's not happening in British Columbia. The opposition, however, will continue its efforts to ensure that the voice of accountability is heard.

We will continue to ensure that the voices of communities, parents, workers and children are heard in this Legislature even as the government works to restrict debate; even as this government puts forward time limits on debate; and even as this government, with less than 21 hours of debate when they first introduced some 13 to 16 pieces of legislation — with estimates of Health Services, which consumes 40 percent of our budget, and with estimates for the Premier yet to be dealt with — brings forward a litany of legislation. Then, with their majority, they will ram this legislation through without proper debate in this House.

Our schools, our children and our teachers are the foundation of our communities, and we need to support them. We need funding that recognizes the real costs of maintaining and improving education in B.C. We need a government that will end its public relations war and focus on the real issues at heart. We need a government that will be true to the word "protection" in the area of education. We need a government that will be true to the notion of putting education first. We need a government that will set aside its partisan approaches. We need a government where, when they say they will bring in legislation that would allow for peer as well as democratic self-regulating professions, the legislation would actually reflect those words. We need a government that will ensure that all voices are at the table.

The proposed changes in Bill 51, aside from what I had mentioned before, also change a section that will no longer allow educators to have a say in approving teacher education programs. Bill 51 gives the college the authority to set the standards for teacher certification but not to approve how teacher education programs are taught or administered. This means that the college is no longer involved in the approval of teacher education programs. The existing piece of legislation provides for the teachers to approve, for certification purposes, the program of any established faculty of teacher education or school of teacher education.

Why would the government bring in a piece of legislation that takes the teachers' involvement away from teacher education programs? Are teachers not the people whom we entrust with our children to teach in the classrooms? Shouldn't they have a say in teacher education programs? It makes no sense. It makes no sense whatsoever.

We have a group of professionals who I think — I know, actually — entered into this work, who invested their years in university to get their degree to become teachers. Why? Because they care about children. Because they want to share knowledge with students. Because they want, I suspect — in fact, I know in speaking with them — to see the shine, the sparkle in the eyes of children when they learn something, when they are exposed to something new. They bring the wonderment that lights up their faces when they learn something new — the magic that happens when young people, young children, are excited about what they're learning, curious about what their future is, curious about the unknown.

You know who provides for that in the education system? It's the teachers. You would think that the

teachers should have some relevance in the teacher education programs. You would think that they would have some relevance. I would have thought so, but not so from this minister. It's twisted logic. It really is. I simply don't understand the logic that this Minister of Education has around that.

The legislation brings other questions to the table. In Bill 51, it changes the wording from the "member" to the "council member" in a section. This, of course, gives the appointees on council — appointees who are not teachers, appointees who are not democratically elected, who are not chosen by their peers but politically appointed by the government — the same powers as council members. Yet council members need not be college members in order to sit on committees. Once again, there is a double standard that is being applied in sections of Bill 51.

You have to ask the question: why is that? Except to say that what this Minister of Education wants to do is exclude the voices of educators and make it explicit that educators have no role whatsoever.

It's almost as though the message one has to read into this is that the Minister of Education and this government do not value the people who teach our children. They have so little regard for them that she's taken them out of the equation under Bill 51 — substantively.

The minister is prepared to continue to wage the battle that she has begun against the very people who, in some years — about five years, to be exact — I will be entrusting with the educational development of my daughter. I have every faith that the teachers know what they're doing, that they have the best intentions in their hearts to bring out the curiosity, the wonderment and the sparkle that I spoke of earlier and that I want to see in every child's eyes. What the government must do is give them the tools and the resources to do so, to make sure that the students' potential is maximized and not restricted and limited.

D. Hayer: It's with great pleasure that I introduce 39 students from grades 10, 11 and 12 visiting from Guildford Learning Centre, Cloverdale Learning Centre, Newton Learning Centre, North Surrey Learning Centre and White Rock Learning Centre. Joining them are their teachers, Mark Maretic, Julie Chic, Sheila Smith, Gail Mackinnon, Steve Robertson and Tina Thompson. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. Kwan: I will simply wrap up my comments with this, and I can't emphasize enough the importance of this issue — a mere two hours for second reading for both Bills 50 and 51, limitation on committee stage for both bills to be one hour. I've only raised some of the questions that need to be canvassed with the minister on these bills in the short time allocated to us.

I want to be very clear that the opposition will be voting against Bill 51, and the reason for that is…. Well, there are many, but the primary reason is this: this bill does not allow for peer regulation. In fact, it takes away peer regulation. It sets, I think, an unprecedented approach to the regulation of professions.

It is my view that professionals should be regulated amongst themselves, that they should have the opportunity to do so, that it should be truly self-regulating, that it should be democratic and that people from their own profession ought to be holding each other accountable. From my own point of view, I know when I'm being critiqued by my own colleagues, it has another level of impact on you than critiques coming from other people who are not from your own profession, your own area of work.

When I was an advocate working in the community, I know that if my colleagues from the advocacy community came forward and critiqued my work, I wanted more than ever to examine that critique in a constructive way to learn from it. That's the purpose — and then to take it to heart. The people who know that profession and know it well, who work within it, are the best people to provide that critique, to do that regulation — not unlike any other profession that exists in British Columbia.

In doing this, in changing the way peer regulation is to be administered for the teaching profession, are we now on a slippery slope for every other profession for that change to take place? Are we poised to allow professionalism within their own profession to be in second place behind political motivation? Is that where we're heading? It is my view that that is where we're heading for the teaching profession under Bill 51. It is my view that this Minister of Education and this government have put partisan politics before education for British Columbia, and that is inappropriate.

The second reason why the opposition will be voting against this is that there simply is not enough time for proper debate to take place in this House, for the opposition to hold this government and this Minister of Education accountable, for her to answer the many questions that exist for this legislation. You cannot pretend that there's democracy when the government has disallowed democracy to take place, when they are ramming through legislation, when they are limiting debate for substantive bills that have huge ramifications and consequences without allowing adequate time for those questions to be asked and for answers to be provided in this bill.

The opposition will not be supporting Bill 51 for these reasons, and as such, we will be calling division on second reading of Bill 51.

R. Masi: I rise in support of the bill. I might point out to begin with that this is not a new issue. The col-

lege was created in 1987 primarily to separate professional and bargaining issues. Over the years I think we've had a case of undue influence by the B.C. Teachers Federation union in direct involvement with the affairs of the college, and unfortunately the separation and the influences of the BCTF really have overcome the original premise for the college.

I brought this question forward many times in the past six years, discussing this with various Ministers of Education. I questioned the various ministers on the construct of the College of Teachers, and of course no changes were made. I think these changes were far overdue, and I'm very happy to see that the present Minister of Education has brought forward substantial changes that make the college much more representative for the teaching profession.

We all understand, of course, that the education of our children and our youth is critical. It's critical to all aspects of provincial development — economic, social and any other areas of development you want to talk about. But the College of Teachers is a very valuable and critical component of the education system, and it's my feeling that it really should be the foundation of education in British Columbia. I don't believe, because of the strong influence of the BCTF union upon the college and upon the philosophies and the actions of the college in a number of past issues, that this is in fact the case. We can't have a college of teachers that essentially is an arm of the BCTF union. We can't, in fact, have a college of teachers that is limited to one union with de facto control, and this is, in a manner of speaking, what we've had since the college was formed.

Education is broadly based. It's not like other professions. It's very broadly based. There are a number of stakeholders in it. You know, we have this attitude in the BCTF today that, in fact, principals, vice-principals, superintendents and parents are not on the same page as the members of the union. Well, that's not a fact; that's not true. Principals and vice-principals are teachers. Superintendents are teachers. People who work in the independent schools in various capacities are teachers. Many university education deans are former teachers who are very much involved in the education of teachers today. Some people would even say that a parent is the single most important teacher in a child's life. So to restrict the College of Teachers to a narrow, union-influenced focus has been a wrong thing, in my opinion, since it was formed.

I say strongly that these changes to the organizational structure are long overdue. The new college will, in fact, present a much more representative body which will speak for the professionalism of teachers. I'm looking forward to the new structure.

I think another factor that has come about in order to speed up this legislation has been the move by the BCTF leadership, the union leaders, who led the campaign to join the B.C. Federation of Labour. Once that happened, it really changed the whole educational scene in British Columbia. I think it's really unfortunate that many teachers did not involve themselves in this decision-making process. I understand that it's a democratic process. Those who wish to vote will vote, and, in fact, the vote was to join the B.C. Federation of Labour.

That's a very serious commitment now. Once they've made their choice to do union things and get involved in union activities — which verge at times on political activities — this is above and beyond, I think, what professionalism really is in the field of education. You can't have it both ways. You can't be an advocate for union policy and professionalism. They're two different areas.

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

It's unfortunate that it's come to this. But when it does come to this, the government has a role in protecting society as a whole and protecting the children and the professional teachers of this province. And I think that role now has been undertaken by the minister.

The college, of course, should deal with professional ethics and conduct. This is very important. Over the years there have been numerous cases of misadventure there in terms of teacher conduct, and I think the college has dealt with many of them. Many of us probably don't understand or don't realize the number of cases the college has dealt with. That's good, and I think they're to be commended for those actions.

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

I think this is the interaction of a political philosophy stemming from a philosophy of the BCTF and sort of inserted into the college thinking, which is unfortunate. It's unfortunate when we get into different philosophies, again, when discussing whether a university should have the right to train teachers and to put teachers forward for certification. Because there's a difference in backgrounds and philosophical stances, then we have problems again.

I think these are the things over the years…. This is the discussion that goes on throughout the educational world. This is not a new thing. This has been permeating, going on for years. It was high time for a change. We look at the changes, and as I pointed out, the college should deal with professional ethics and conduct, should deal with the advancement of professional status. That's very important.

I was discussing this morning with a dean of education how teachers should develop. We call it professional development, and professional development is a very important component. It's something that school boards and teachers associations deal with. Everybody has sort of a piece of the pie, but the bottom line is that the teachers college should have the responsibility for professional development.

I know it's not specified in the legislation, but I hope the inference is there — that with the reconstruction of the teachers college and the council, they will look at professional development as a responsibility they will ultimately carry forward. I think that's important for the good of all.

I fully support the clarification of the situation with the universities and the College of Teachers. I've thought a lot about this, in terms of academic freedom for the universities and just how involved the college should be and what the interaction should be there.

There have been two judgments. Two judges have ruled that it's up to the government to clarify this. This step is a step in this bill to clarify the situation we have existing today.

There have been comments made — that the teachers college should be establishing the criteria, the guidelines, for the universities and how universities should develop programs. Well, the reality is that when you're a student teacher, you are directly involved with teachers, with BCTF members, for six months of the 12-month program. You're directly involved. You're practise-teaching with a sponsor teacher. You have a faculty adviser who is generally a teacher, who has been a teacher, probably working for the university. There is interaction. It's not like there are two separate things going on.

The point is that I don't believe the college has a right to decide on class sizes at the university level and how many faculty advisers should be assigned and things like that. I think those are the universities' responsibilities, and they carry them out well. It is the responsibility of the universities to train and evaluate their student teachers, and let's make no mistake about that. That's their responsibility. It's the responsibility of the college to certify those teachers — two different things entirely.

I think this thing was bubbling and boiling. I'm not criticizing the original legislation, because it was a first go-round for them, but now that the judge has said, "Clarify it," it is now clarified. I think that with cooperation, now they will work together again for the betterment of all.

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

The other part of this is the safeguard that the complaint first goes to the registrar, and that includes parents' complaints as well. So we're not going to have a rush of complainants coming in. I think the safeguards are in place. We still have the processes in the school districts. We still have the whole process of principal, superintendent and school board, and many, many situations are settled with that process.

I also would like to comment that I think it's a very solid thing that the independent schools are involved in this as well. I think it's important that the protection of students extends to that area, and I'm sure that the independent school system is fully supportive.

In reference to the annual report component of the bill, I'm sure that this will, in fact, drive the college to more open and effective administration. This requirement is essential. I think it's time that the college was accountable, that what they do is brought forward to the public, and it will reinforce the confidence of the people in the education system today. I think that, in fact, this bill will grow the professionalism of the staff and bring about a renewed confidence by the public in our education system.

Hon. C. Clark: We are bringing forward this bill as a government because we recognize that public education is the biggest and most important public enterprise that we can embark on as a society. It is the best investment that any government or any society can make — public education. In recognizing that public education is a broad public enterprise, we need to ensure that the bodies that govern education are also broadly representative of the public. We need to recognize that everyone in our society cares — many people care passionately — and everyone has an interest in our public education system. That is what this bill recognizes.

Our critics, one of whom stood up here today in an effort to defeat the government on all fronts, often stand up and bash the education system day after day after day. They stand up and say how the education system is doing worse all the time. Well, the fact is that they are wrong.

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

Deputy Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, let's hear the response.

Hon. C. Clark: That's why we are investing more money in our public education system. That's why over the next two years we will have the highest per-pupil funding we've ever had in British Columbia history, and we will have the highest…

Hon. C. Clark: …education budget that we've ever had in British Columbia history. Those are facts we should be proud of. There is no question about it.

Not only is there more money, there is also more parental involvement. That's made a tremendous difference in our system. I know the member of the opposition doesn't get excited about parental involvement. I know it's not something that she saw as a priority for ten years in government. I know that the moves they made, in fact, meant that there were fewer parents involved in our public education system. But it's time to turn that attitude around. It is time to recognize that parents are the most important teachers any child will ever have and that parents have a bigger impact on children's educational success than anyone else.

Hon. C. Clark: If the member of the opposition was unable to make her points adequately in second reading in an hour of speaking….

Deputy Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, give the courtesy to the minister to give her response.

Hon. C. Clark: We believe in more parental involvement. That's an important part of our government's platform. We believe that we should throw open the doors of schools to parents. We believe that parents can make a big difference in how well our public education system performs. We know, from all of the evidence out there that was ignored for ten years by the previous government, that more parental involvement means better marks for kids, that more parental involvement means better teaching practices and that more parental involvement means a better civic society and a higher-functioning democracy. We know that when parents just ask their kids what they did at school that day, it makes a tremendous difference, and we can't ignore it anymore.

It is time we involved parents. That's why, when we change the board of the teachers college, we are going to include a strong parent voice in that, because we recognize, as I said….

Hon. C. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm delighted to engage in this debate with students in the audience observing the important work of this House. I know they'll all go back to their classrooms and their lives with a sense that the behaviour we model in this House isn't always appropriate behaviour for classrooms.

Parents are our children's first teachers, and we need to recognize that. Parental involvement makes all of the difference in the world, because schools are, as I said, the biggest public enterprise, the biggest public investment that we'll make. Not only is there more money and more parental involvement, but we are also seeing — and you will never, never hear this from the critics — better results, despite…. [Applause.]

I remember clearly hearing from the members of the opposition and the critics of the government, who are so anxious to advance their own political agenda: "You just wait until the end of the 2003 school year, and things will be so bad you won't believe it."

Well, guess what. Our results in our public education system are improving. Children in our schools are getting better results. That means that teachers are continuing to deliver the incredible quality work that they've always….

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, please come to order.

Hon. C. Clark: We have more graduates in our public education system than we've ever had in history. We've got 77 percent of the kids in our system who now graduate. That is a tremendous, tremendous improvement.

The reason it's important is because a Dogwood Certificate makes a huge difference in every child's ability to succeed. If you have a Dogwood Certificate in your hand, you are less likely to end up on social assistance, you are less likely to end up in the corrections system, you are more likely to vote, you're more likely to read newspapers, and you're more likely to participate in our civil society. We should be proud of the fact that our education system is continuing to improve and continuing to graduate more students every year.

Not only that, though. The children who are graduating are graduating with better results this year than last and last year than the year before. We have seen a continuing improvement in how well children are doing. That is wonderful. It is particularly good for aboriginal students, who traditionally have had a pretty tough shake in our public education system. Aboriginal students are doing better now than they have been since we started tracking those marks. That is wonderful.

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

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

With this bill and the changes that our government has made, we are ensuring that our education system is one that meets the needs not just of students, not just of parents, but also of teachers. With this bill we are recognizing, as I said, that education is our most important public enterprise. In that, we need to make sure that the public is broadly represented on the board. We need to make sure that there are clear standards for public education. We need to build public confidence in this, the most important profession in British Columbia or anywhere in the world.

I move that Bill 51, Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2003, be now read a second time.

Hon. C. Clark: I move that we refer the bill to Committee of the Whole for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 51, Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

J. Kwan: Given that this is my first opportunity, I rise to reserve the right to raise a matter of privilege.

Hon. G. Cheema: Mr. Chair, I wanted to clarify a statement I made in the House yesterday with regard to the funding for mental health and addictions in this province. I stated that our government had not reduced any mental health services or programs in this province.

While the sector funding for mental health and addictions is still continuing to rise from $925 million in 2001-02 to $1.005 billion in 2002-03 to a projected $1.06 billion in 2003-04, this does not mean that we are not making changes to the services in this province. We are revitalizing the mental health and addiction service system to improve patient outcomes. Health authorities have been asked to look at their systems to ensure that all programs and services are evidence-based and that they provide services that promote recovery.

In the past, many contracts and programs were provided that did not support recovery from mental illness and addictions. We are monitoring spending and contracts far more closely now to ensure that all services provide the most successful outcomes.

I would like to give you an example of why some of the programs will not be continued as we move forward with mental health and addictions reform. This example is a vocational rehabilitation contract that had been in place for over four years. The purpose of this contract was to provide employment for mental health consumers in the program. During our health restructuring, the health authority had to look carefully at their contract to ensure it was evidence-based and an effective use of funding. In this case, the health authority could not provide a single example of a consumer who had actually been able to be employed through this program — not a single example in four years. That was not very good.

The health authority decided to terminate the contract and retarget funding to better meet the needs of consumers. In fact, the health authority directed more funding to the area of vocational rehabilitation through other, more reliable channels.

I wanted to provide this example because I think it shows that the health authorities are operating under a new structure. The status quo will not reform and revitalize the mental health and addiction service system in this province. The status quo is not what we expect. The programs that offer the best programming and the best recovery results will continue to receive funding.

Our government will continue to provide the leadership and the direction for mental health and addiction in this province. Already during these estimates I have provided many examples of all the work we have done to revitalize mental health. This work will continue.

As I stated at the beginning of this statement, funding for mental health and addiction will continue to rise. There will be no reduction in funding for mental health and addictions across this province. Mr. Chair, I hope this will provide the appropriate clarification to my statement yesterday.

Hon. G. Cheema: We can provide further information on this specific program. I will get the information from the Vancouver coastal health authority and give it to the member as soon as possible.

J. MacPhail: I would have assumed, with the minister making a statement this morning, that he would have known where the program was. He's quite emphatic about how awful it was, so I would have assumed he would at least know the contractor, the agency, when he derides it and claims it as a failure. Yet the first questions I ask are what is the program and who was the contractor, and he can't answer the question.

Has the minister had a chance to track down how the mental health services at the Quesnel hospital, the Baker Memorial Hospital, are being provided?

Hon. G. Cheema: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant asked me that question, and I told her that I would provide the information as soon as possible.

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

Funding for mental health and addiction services in Quesnel during the last two years has remained the same.

J. MacPhail: What was the experience learned from the shutting down of the unit over Christmas?

Hon. G. Cheema: I'm not aware of any crisis that happened during that time. If the member has any spe-

J. MacPhail: I'm not accusing the minister of anything. I'm asking what he learned about that.

Is the six-bed crisis stabilization unit fully funded for '03-04? Associated with those crisis stabilization beds was a mental health nursing expert in terms of admission, through emergency. Are those services all remaining in place for this fiscal year?

Hon. G. Cheema: The services in that area will continue to be provided as well as assessed by the health authorities with the help of experts and based on best-evidence practices. Our intention is to continue the best possible care.

J. MacPhail: I'd like to move to an item that I brought up with the Minister of Health Services. He referred me to the Minister of State for Mental Health. It's particularly crucial that we have this discussion today. The federal government has introduced legislation to decriminalize marijuana. When I asked questions several weeks ago about what educational programs are in place about the uses of marijuana, particularly targeted toward young people, the Minister of Health Services referred me to the Minister of State for Mental Health. I ask him for that information.

Hon. G. Cheema: My colleague the Minister of Health Services gave the answer, and the Minister of Health Planning said the same thing. The person who will play the lead role for this file is the Solicitor General. My responsibility is to have the education and information campaign to let the public know the harmful side effects of marijuana.

Yes, this morning the federal government released their policy. We are reviewing that policy, and we will be looking at if there is any funding coming from the federal government.

My role is to ensure that we continue to focus on the prevention, treatment and early diagnosis. I think it's very important. As the member has asked many times…. I think she's absolutely right that we need to continue to focus on the early prevention and early identification and treatment.

For the first time in this province we have combined addiction and mental health. Our addiction and mental health reform in B.C. is focused on evidence-based best practices. This is a recovery-oriented model that includes health promotion, prevention, early identification, treatment, rehabilitation, relapse prevention and self-management of illness to provide better health outcomes.

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

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

The ministry is also working with the Kaiser Foundation and the provincial mental health agencies to develop evidence-based information on substance use disorders for individuals, for the families, for professionals and for the sector of the public.

As a part of our public information campaign — I will give a copy to the member — we released about two weeks ago what is called a primer. This is a fact sheet on mental health and addiction in this province. This has been done in cooperation with all the major mental health organizations in this province. I think we'll be spending close to somewhere between $1.2 million and $1.5 million. That will give information on all the issues that are related, including the use of the drugs and other things. I will give her a copy. I think that will be helpful.

J. MacPhail: Is that the plan that will encompass the new law about decriminalization of marijuana?

Hon. G. Cheema: As I said, that part has to be addressed by the Solicitor General. My responsibility is to develop a plan to ensure that we work on the prevention and the treatment part related to drug use and abuse and specifically to marijuana. We will continue to focus on that. We will let the public know all the side effects. Our campaign will focus especially on the young generation to ensure that they understand the harmful side effects of this drug.

J. MacPhail: I'm taking no position on marijuana; I just want to make that clear. I'm a little bit taken aback that the government isn't further along on this matter. I have to be very careful about how I address this issue because I don't want to in any way suggest that I'm speaking from personal experience here. No, I mean this seriously, because I'm going to talk about children.

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

What discussions has the minister had with the federal Minister of Health, who was the one that re-

leased this program? It was not the Minister of Justice. It was not the Solicitor General at the federal level. It was the Minister of Health who released this program. So what discussions has he had to date around either advocating for greater control or understanding what programs will be put in place to not exacerbate misuse, particularly amongst young people?

Hon. G. Cheema: Let me try again. The member has put forward a very valid argument, and I think this is so important. As she has said, the role of the use of drugs in schools and at a very young age is so crucial, and I think we need to be focusing on that. I do agree with that.

We have been very proactive on this issue. We have transferred to the health authorities funding for the school-based prevention programs. For the interior health authority we have funded $363,093, for the Fraser health authority approximately $695,000, for Vancouver coastal approximately $313,000, for Vancouver Island approximately $322,000 and for the north $230,000.

Our main purpose is to ensure that we continue to focus on the prevention and early treatment part of any drug abuse in this province, especially in the schools. The issue here is that the health impacts are the same whether marijuana is criminalized or not.

The lead minister, as far as the federal minister is concerned…. The lead minister from our government is the Solicitor General. Mr Hansen's office has been in touch with the Minister of Health's office, and we got some information this morning. We are reviewing the information. I like what I see in that report. I'm sure the member has had time to look at their initial press release. The federal government will be investing approximately $245 million over the next five years for this strategy.

Some of the highlights: they want to have community-based initiatives to address a range of prevention, health promotion, treatment and rehabilitation issues; a public education campaign on substance abuse with a specific focus on youth — I think that's very positive; new funding for research activities on drug trends to enable more informed decision-making; a biannual national conference with all stakeholders to set research, promotion and prevention agendas; and, finally, proposed legislation reform regarding marijuana, new resources to help decrease the supply of illicit drugs.

I think that's what we like, and that's part of my responsibility. Along with Mr. Hansen, we will work with the federal minister to ensure that we have access to all of these programs.

J. MacPhail: Will the education programs be in place for the September school startup?

Hon. G. Cheema: We are looking towards the new year, and we are working with the Ministry of Education. As this plan has come forward from the federal government, we will work with the federal minister to ensure that we have access to any funds which are going to come from the federal government. But more importantly, we already have funds in place for this school-based prevention program and will focus specifically on programs for drug use and marijuana.

J. MacPhail: I would urge this government to take a very, very aggressive approach to this matter, because I'll just say that our kids are way ahead of us on this.

Given the fact that the government has taken what I find a very unusual decision to not treat this particular substance in the same way as alcohol, with there being no age limit for legal use now or decriminalized use, I think we have to take a very aggressive approach on education.

I want to ask the minister to continue along in the areas of alcohol and drug addiction. Is the minister also responsible for gambling? What addictions does he include in his programs?

Hon. G. Cheema: Gambling addiction is the responsibility of the Solicitor General. All other addictions are part of my responsibility. If the member wishes to ask me further questions, then I can elaborate.

J. MacPhail: The last time we were in estimates, the alcohol and drug programs were being transferred to regional health authorities. I'm wondering if the minister could give me an overview on the alcohol and drug programs on a health-authority-by-health-authority basis. Are they cookie-cutters? Has each health authority set up their own method of approaching alcohol and drug addictions? Perhaps the minister could give me a range of services.

Hon. G. Cheema: Each and every health authority is going to have its own approach to the issues of addiction in its area of responsibility, but I will give this member a framework of how we want to proceed and how we are expecting them to proceed on this very important issue. Until April 1, 2002, the mental health and addiction systems operated in isolation from one another.

This separation was inappropriate, because people with mental illness and addiction were often excluded from treatment by one or both systems. The two systems should not work independently, because about 70 percent of the people receiving addiction services are also receiving mental health services and about 50 percent to 80 percent of people with a mental illness also have an addiction.

Funding of approximately $64 million for addiction services was transferred to the health authorities in April 2002, and the health authorities began the process of integrating mental health and addiction services to meet the needs of all patients. Our goal is integrated care — integration of mental health and addiction programs at the community level to meet the needs of every client, with the most complex illnesses. This inte-

We are in the process of working with the health authorities to implement standard minimum reporting requirements for mental health and addiction programs. As health authorities develop and implement their programs and information systems, the quality of data will continue to improve. This improvement will help us measure outcomes as well as spending. Best practices in mental health and substance use disorder were released by Health Canada about one year ago, and health authorities are using these best practices to guide them in their planning.

The mental health evaluation and community consultation unit at UBC is reviewing Health Canada's best practices and developing training modules and further tools that will be implemented in 2004. Health authorities are integrating mental health and addiction services to ensure access to effective and efficient service systems for clients and their families.

Health authorities are focusing resources and intensive services on clients with a complex mental disorder and substance use disorders, ensuring barriers are removed, eliminating policies that prevent clients from entering addiction programs and applying evidence-based best practices to ensure the resources are focused on treatments that work. These changes take time, but progress is being made.

For example, staff at the Vancouver Island health authority in the authority's mental health and addiction system are developing a comprehensive approach to treatment for people with both mental illness and addiction problems. This is in consultation with Dr. Kenneth Minkoff, an internationally recognized leader in this area. A new program charter will establish standards based on best practices and designing a case system that will provide better health outcomes with the existing resources.

To sum up, we have a policy framework and we are working with all the health authorities. The health authorities are in the process of integrating mental health and addictions, and that will address the most pressing needs of the patients.

Let me give some of the funding we are giving to the health authorities. Vancouver coastal will receive approximately $19 million this year. That's about 30 percent of the total budget. Vancouver Island will receive approximately $11 million for addiction programs. Fraser will receive about $13 million for addiction programs. Interior will receive approximately $10 million. Northern will receive $9 million, approximately. We'll be spending $64.852 million in the year 2002-2003.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister provide guidelines in terms of alcohol and drug addiction services in terms of what approach has to be taken? Do communities have to provide harm reduction as well as programs for abstention? What's the requirement for education as well as treatment?

Hon. G. Cheema: The Ministry of Health Services considers addiction to be an illness and a health issue. Addictions and mental health reform in B.C. is focused on evidence-based best practices. This is a recovery-oriented model that includes health promotion, prevention, early identification, treatment, rehabilitation, relapse prevention and self-management of illness to produce better health outcomes.

Health authorities are working towards treatment effectiveness, access, equity and cost-effectiveness by focusing resource-intensive services on clients with complex mental disorders and substance use disorders.

An addiction-planning framework and best practices for B.C. are being developed in partnership with the mental health evaluation and community consultation unit at UBC. Following consultation with the health authorities and other community stakeholders, including experts in the fields of addiction, the framework is targeted for release in the fall of 2003.

The ministry is also working with the mental health evaluation and community consultation unit, the Kaiser Foundation and provincial mental health agencies to develop and disseminate evidence-based information on substance use disorders and mental health to individual's families, professionals and sectors of the public.

J. MacPhail: What's the status of residential detox services? How are they spread throughout the province now?

Hon. G. Cheema: We do have a capacity for residential detox facilities in every health authority.

J. MacPhail: Let's look at the Vancouver coastal health authority, then. The Liberal opposition made much of a lack of detox beds when they were in opposition. What's changed? How many detox beds are there in Vancouver? Let's just start with Vancouver. How has that changed over the last two years?

Hon. G. Cheema: Through partnerships with…. The Vancouver coastal health authority, since June of 2001, has implemented the following addiction services in Vancouver. The Vancouver Detox and Cordova Detox expanded to accommodate an additional 700 clients per year. The new out-patient detox at the Vancouver Detox will accommodate an additional 550 clients per year. Sobering capacity has expanded at the Vancouver Detox from 1,000 to 4,000 client spaces per year. An ambulatory detox was established at the Three Bridges health clinic, targeting youth and women. There are 28 new supportive recovery beds for women outside the downtown east side, 80 new methadone treatment spaces at the Three Bridges health clinic, 15 new housing units for women and increased counselling services for the Seniors Well Aware Program.

In Richmond the Vancouver coastal health authority is investing in community beds for addiction ser-

vices. The Vancouver coastal health authority is also integrating and enhancing addiction services for mental health clients.

Let me give some more information. The Vancouver coastal health authority is also focusing resources on intensive services for clients with complex mental disorders and substance use disorders. They are also ensuring that barriers are removed. For example, they are eliminating policies that prevent clients from entering addiction programs. Also, as I said earlier, they are looking at evidence-based best practices to ensure resources are focused on treatments that work. I think that is quite an improvement from the past.

J. MacPhail: What is the relationship between the drug courts and these services? What has been the success of the drug courts in moving people into these services?

Hon. G. Cheema: The Ministry of Health Services is working with the Solicitor General, the Attorney General and the Ministry of Children and Family Development to bridge that gap between the drug courts and the community. The Vancouver coastal health authority is examining all the options for how they can provide service to the clients who are coming from the drug courts.

J. MacPhail: How many people have gone through the drug courts and been referred? What's the rate of success after the referral?

Hon. G. Cheema: I've been informed that there is an internal evaluation underway. By the fall the Solicitor General's office will be looking at that report. Then we can have a look at the numbers. I don't have the numbers at this time. The lead minister for that is the Solicitor General.

J. MacPhail: I'm wondering whether the minister could comment on the bylaw passed by Surrey city council last night — what effects it will have on addiction services and methadone treatment in Surrey and his views on the change brought in by the Surrey city council.

Hon. G. Cheema: I am very well aware of this issue. Our office has been involved with this issue since it came to our attention. Ministry staff met with the council, along with Dr. Penny Ballem and Dr. John Anderson, and they had a good discussion. That was about four weeks ago. All the information was given to the council. Both the College of Pharmacists and College of Physicians have been working with us.

I'm very happy to report that last night they unanimously approved the new bylaw. The main intent of that bylaw, and our main objective, is to make sure there is access to services for patients. If a person needs methadone treatment, they should not be denied. Also, their privacy issues are protected. We are very happy with the outcome. I know that some of the city council members were initially not supporting the process, but now everyone is supporting, and that's a good solution.

To give you another update, our staff have also met with the Delta council staff. We hope to resolve that issue also. Our objective is to be as helpful as possible. I think the police have played a very important role. We are very grateful to all the community activists and the city council and the colleges, who have been very proactive. I think that's the way we should be working to resolve the issue. We didn't want to make it a political issue. This is a health issue, and that's the way we dealt with this issue.

Hon. G. Cheema: As I said, the main intent of the bylaw is that the patient access is assured. That's number one. Number two is that the rules for the methadone programs will be followed, and the quality regulations are going to be implemented. That's going to be done in consultation with the colleges, the city council and the police.

J. MacPhail: What discussions occur between the Fraser health authority and the Vancouver coastal health authority about community-based services for — I call it the four pillars approach — the three pillars that are affected by health in terms of equitable distribution amongst all communities of those services?

Hon. G. Cheema: This is another important issue, and I'm glad the member has raised this issue. We have a steering committee, and this committee is being chaired by Dr. Perry Kendall. On this committee we have the CEOs of all the health authorities — Fraser health, Vancouver coastal health and VIHA. They are dealing with the framework and implementation of the harm reduction policy in the area, and they're looking at the issue that the patient is a person who will need access. The access should be provided. They have to have a plan where, if the person is crossing one boundary to another, there has to be access. We, however, look for their input. This is a process that will continue to evolve.

As I said, for these things there is no definite yes or no answer. We need to follow the framework, and we rely upon their best judgment. I think Dr. Kendall and his staff have played a great role. We have full confidence that we will continue to work also with the federal government to have the best evidence-based best practices for addiction in this province.

J. MacPhail: Does Dr. Kendall act as a mediator or facilitator across the two health authorities in resolving these issues? I know that there are some communities…. I just had a chance discussion with the mayor of

Abbotsford, for instance, on Friday where they've said they're not going to have any of these services in their community. What role does he play, and is there any sort of decision-making role at the end of the day?

Hon. G. Cheema: Dr. Perry Kendall is the expert in this area, and he works as a facilitator. He's working with all the health authorities, and his role is to facilitate our discussion and to continue to focus on the four pillars approach.

Also, each and every health authority has a medical officer, and they are in touch with Dr. Perry Kendall. At the end of the day, the policy decision is going to be made by the health authorities based on the four pillars approach. We invite other municipalities. If they want to participate, they can be in touch with Dr. Perry Kendall and have their input.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could update me on the four pillars approach and the Vancouver agreement strategy taking place in Vancouver. The Minister of Health Services referred this discussion to this minister.

Hon. G. Cheema: The lead minister for this file is the Hon. George Abbott, but the ministry plays a very important role. The person who is responsible on our behalf on this file is Andy Hazlewood. This is called the Vancouver agreement strategic plan. The vision is that the city of Vancouver be a healthy, safe and sustainable place to live and work for all residents.

Our first focus is to make the downtown east side a vibrant place where people, business and the community thrive together. Our goals are to increase economic development in the downtown east side, to improve the health of downtown east side residents and to increase public safety in the downtown east side.

We are focusing on outcomes. Outcomes are to increase economic activity in the downtown east side; to improve living conditions in the downtown east side; to decrease preventable deaths, injuries and illness in the downtown east side; and to increase community cohesion in the downtown east side.

Our initial strategies are to (1) revitalize the Hastings corridor, (2) dismantle the open drug scene, (3) turn problem hotels into contributing hotels and (4) make the community safer and healthier for the most vulnerable. Our priority action is — I will just go through one that is part of my responsibility; I deal with Mr. Andy Hazlewood — to dismantle the open drug scene.

The Vancouver coastal health authority is finalizing their addiction plan. They are going to prioritize and implement key initiatives that will help the open drug scene. Also, they are in the process of finalizing and implementing a communicable disease intervention strategy. That's where I play my role, working with Mr. Andy Hazlewood.

J. MacPhail: What's the status of the funding for the safe injection site? I read in the paper in the last 48 hours that the funds are flowing. What's the status, and what's the relationship with the federal government in proceeding with the opening of the safe injection site?

Hon. G. Cheema: This question was already answered last week, but I'll answer it again. It was answered by the Minister of Health Services as well.

Hon. G. Cheema: Sure. The Ministry of Health Services, under Dr. Penny Ballem's leadership…. The Ministries of Health Services and Health Planning have a provincial steering committee. This committee is chaired by Dr. Perry Kendall, the provincial health officer, and the membership is drawn from senior levels of the city of Vancouver and other interested municipalities; the Vancouver coastal, Vancouver Island and Fraser health authorities; the provincial health services authority; the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS; the Vancouver police and other municipalities' police forces; the RCMP; Health Canada; and the Ministries of Health Services and Health Planning.

As the member knows, the Vancouver coastal health authority submitted a Vancouver supervised injection site scientific research pilot project proposal to Health Canada on March 3, 2003. This proposal constitutes an application for exemption under section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Vancouver coastal health authority's proposal submitted on behalf of the various partners, including the city of Vancouver, contains research protocols; copies of scientific and ethical reviews; procedures and management protocols; start date, duration and hours of operation; staff members; site identification; community support; and declarations.

The proposal outlines the range of services expected in that supervised injection site. These include injection supervision with the emergency response for drug overdoses; injection–related first aid — for example, for wound care — access and referring to primary health care; addiction treatment services and mental health providers; harm reduction; teaching and counselling; and needle-exchange programs.

The Vancouver coastal health authority has identified two sites in Vancouver as the most suitable locations for the supervised injection site. The first is 135 and 139 East Hastings Street to serve walk-in injection drug users, and the second is the Dr. Peter Centre in the downtown Vancouver site as a supervised injection site for the centre's registered HIV/AIDS day program clients.

There will be a three-year evaluation of this project to monitor the impact of the supervised injections and the referral to the treatment services, communicable diseases transmission, prevalence of drug injection in public places and other public health factors in the surrounding community. At present, Health Canada is reviewing this application.

Our Ministry of Health has given to the Vancouver coastal health authority approximately $1.12 million for the capital complement of these two sites, and our

objective is that these sites must be a part of the federal government's initiative, must be legal and must be scientific. We are hoping that soon the federal government will make a decision.

We are one of the three partners. Other partners are the municipality as well as the federal government. We are waiting for their reply.

J. MacPhail: With what other cities besides Vancouver is the plan proceeding with for safe injection sites? Do they remain the same as they were two years ago?

Hon. G. Cheema: I am not aware of any other city that is participating at this time. We are hopeful that others will participate so we can have comparative data to look at these sites and evaluate them in the due course of time.

J. MacPhail: I'd like to turn to the issue of Riverview Hospital. I want to start, though, with the closure of the Skeleem brain-injured residential centre with an update of what's happened to those residents who were being transferred.

Hon. G. Cheema: I want to give a little bit of history on this facility. It was the Cedar Lodge Society, not the government, that decided to close this facility. We have been able to find placements for all those patients. I can give more information if the member wishes on where those patients went. I'm trying to get the exact location of where those patients were placed, if the member can wait for a few minutes.

I've been told that it will take some time, but I want to assure the member that all the patients were given appropriate placements.

J. MacPhail: Why does the minister distinguish that it was the society that closed down? Is it not a publicly funded society? I'm not quite sure why he's trying to distance himself from this.

Hon. G. Cheema: The decision to close Skeleem was made by the provincial health services authority in consultation with experts in the field. Looking at the history of Cedar Lodge, there was an operating deficit of $520,000. The provincial health services authority decided they could provide the service in other places. This was done in the most appropriate way, and I am informed that all the patients have found other placements.

Our ministry's objective is to continue to provide the service, and that's what we have done. If there were financial difficulties with Cedar Lodge, those were their difficulties, and they were unable to resolve them. The Ministry of Health's only interest is the patients, and that's what we have done.

J. MacPhail: Skeleem lodge provided residential care to brain-injured patients. How many of these patients were placed in facilities for the mentally ill?

Hon. G. Cheema: Madam Chair, I do have the information. All residents except one have received community placements. One transfer is pending to South Hills in Kamloops. So nine other patients did find community placements and one is being transferred to South Hills in Kamloops.

J. MacPhail: So the plan to transfer some of the patients to Riverview did not take place.

Hon. G. Cheema: South Hills is a part of the Riverview redevelopment project. There was a place for this patient at South Hills, and it was decided by the provincial health services authority that this is the place where this patient could get the best possible service.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister describe the nature of the community placements of the other patients, then?

Hon. G. Cheema: I don't have the exact location for each patient, but I want to assure her that all of them were provided with community placements. We can provide her with the details of each patient and where that patient went, without compromising their privacy.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister update us, then, on the downsizing plans for Riverview Hospital?

Hon. G. Cheema: I will give a brief summary of the Riverview redevelopment project as I have indicated to others in this House as well.

The Ministry of Health Services has committed over the next five years to the redevelopment and enhancement of the provincial tertiary mental health services in this province. In 2002 and 2003 the Ministry of Health Services provided the provincial health services authority with $3 million in transition funds to facilitate this development. It's a total of 916 beds, which includes 808 funded beds at the Riverview Hospital plus 108 additional tertiary beds planned with this initiative that are being redeveloped into 646 tertiary mental health beds and 270 highly specialized residential beds across British Columbia. That's a total of 916 beds.

Schedule A of the performance agreements between the Ministry of Health and the health authority requires the development of Riverview Hospital replacement units in selected locations over five years.

Beds to be developed by fiscal year…. I will give the breakdown. For the Vancouver coastal health authority, the Fraser health authority and the provincial health services authority for 2003 and '04 it's going to be 114 beds; for '05 and '06, 277 beds; for '06 and '07, 125 beds; for a total of 516 beds.

For VIHA for 2001 and '02 it's going to be 24 beds; for 2002 and '03, 33 beds; for 2003 and '04, 69 beds; for 2004 and '05 it's going to be 48 beds; for a total of 174 beds.

For the interior health authority we are going to have a total of 150 beds, out of that, 40 beds for 2002

For the northern health authority we are going to have ten beds in 2001 and '02, ten beds in 2002 and '03, 22 beds in 2003 and '04, 34 beds in 2005 and '06. That's a total of 76 beds.

That summarizes the total redevelopment of the beds across the province. At the end of the plan we will have a total of 916 beds — out of that, 646 tertiary mental health beds and 270 highly specialized residential beds across British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: How does funding work for the transition plan? Is the funding for Riverview in place until the community beds are up and running? Perhaps the minister could outline for me the funding over that period of time.

Hon. G. Cheema: Funding for the redevelopment project is in place. Capital funding is in place. When the patients are going to be moving — and some of them this year have moved, for example, to South Hills in Kamloops or Iris House in Prince George — funding is going with the patients and will stay with the patients. There is a transition team in place, and they're monitoring all those things. We are very mindful of all the difficulties patients can have, but we are examining those as we go along. This is a very complex process. As I said last night, we want to know if there is something that's not being done right.

The main objective of this plan is to ensure that no patient is moved to another facility without a community placement, without consultation with the family or without the consent of the family and the patient. As well, there has to be a plan approved by the receiving community as well as where the patient is being moved.

This project is being led by Leslie Arnold. We are in constant discussion with her. I want to ensure the member that we are very careful, because if you move a patient without a community placement to another facility without the consent of the family or without the proper funding, it will create more problems for that patient. For mental health it's not only about one person, it's about the family and it's about the community. It's also about the trust, and we are very careful of that.

J. MacPhail: What is the nature of change in terms of the patient who requires residential care treatment? Or is there any? The reason why I ask this question is the development of new anti-psychotic drugs and whether that precludes the need for residential care or whether it increases the need for residential care.

Hon. G. Cheema: For mental health, early intervention and the early identification of the diagnosis is very crucial. That's why we are also focusing on the early diagnosis.

I'll give one example. The Fraser health authority started an early psychosis campaign. It's part of the schools. They go to the school, and they talk to them. If you diagnose, say, schizophrenia at an earlier age, you have many more chances of improving the outcome.

There are many medications coming. They will assess them. We have a team in place, and also we are basing everything on evidence-based best practices. I don't want us to say this is the only right answer. We don't know how this is going to evolve, whether there are changes required or the medication will do that.

I will give the member an example. When the patients are being transferred to an institution — for example, to South Hills — we have a team that will go and visit the place and ensure the medications are all in place so that they are being taken care of properly. We need to really be very vigilant.

I am really happy this morning that the member is asking very important questions. It is so crucial that we have the confidence and trust of the patients and their families. The Riverview redevelopment project is a cornerstone of the mental health plan. The member was Minister of Health. That was in 1998. We have looked at the plan, and we are meeting all the objectives of the plan, but the main issue in that plan is how we deal with a patient with a chronic and persistent mental illness. That's where our focus is now for the redevelopment of the plan.

We were able to secure the capital funding. That's very important. You can't shut down a bed and not have a place. We have done that, and as time goes on, if there are any difficulties, we will correct them.

Certainly, I want to assure her that if medications are required for a patient, they are being provided. We have plan C, we have plan G, we have Pharmacare plan I and, as I was telling the member last night, we are spending close to $152 million on the medication policies for the patients with mental illness.

I want to assure her that we are doing everything possible. It's also being monitored by the experts in the field. We only know so much. There are experts in the field, and we should rely upon their judgment.

J. MacPhail: Actually, the trend I was asking about was the demographic trend about shifts from proper treatment with anti-psychotic drugs not requiring residential care treatment. Is there any evidence of that? What are the long-term trends for that? What is the ministry doing in terms of investing in infrastructure as opposed to greater anti-psychotic prescription coverage?

Hon. G. Cheema: The need for medication is always going to be there. Some patients may require a short-term stay in the hospital, some patients may require a long-term stay in the hospital, and other patients may just require supportive care in the community. That is why we are also working with B.C. Housing to ensure that supported independent living in the community is being supported.

Each and every patient in mental health care is a different patient. Some patients may need an anti-

psychotic medication for a short period of time, and they may be able to function in a community with community support. Some patients may never be able to leave the institution. We are focusing on all parts of the mental health system. That's why the continuum of mental health is so crucial. It is not only about a community-based program; it's about, when the patient is diagnosed, whether this patient gets early identification and treatment. Is this patient going to have as short a stay in the hospital as possible? When this patient is able to move to the community, do we have the placements put in place?

As far as the medications are concerned, the trend is that we need to get these patients out into the community so that they can live independently as much as possible. In some cases, it may not be possible. I don't want us to give the impression that every patient who gets better for a short period of time can function independently. Some patients may never be able to do that, but others may very well.

We will continue to monitor this. We are working with the health authorities. They are developing programs based on evidence-based best practices. We have the mental health community evaluation unit at UBC. We are very mindful of their work, and they will be able to monitor those things for us.

Mental health will continue to evolve. It is not a one-time plan. That is why if you look at the 1998 mental health plan, it says on one of the pages that this plan will continue to evolve. It's not the end result. It will continue to improve services, and we should learn from past experiences.

I think the member knows that. I do understand the hard frustrations and the frustrations in the past because things have not happened. We can say things, and we can say we will take care of these patients. Sometimes patients will fall through the cracks, and we will have a difficulty. My role here is to ensure that every patient who is part of the Riverview redevelopment is being taken care of in the most compassionate and most caring way, but that should be based on evidence-based best practices. That includes medication policies. We will continue to review them. We have an excellent group of professionals, and we have full confidence that we are on the move.

We are improving. This is the only province where we will be increasing capacity. If you look at the Riverview redevelopment numbers, we are going to have 916 beds at the end of the plan. We know that the population is growing and that there will always be a need for these facilities, but these facilities are very unique. They are very small, they are home-like, and they provide care that promotes mental wellness. I would ask the member, if she has time, if she would visit one of the facilities. That would be very good for her, and they would be able to know how the patients are functioning.

In Prince George some of the patients are visiting churches. They are being part of the community. It is very good for them. In Kamloops — I've told this story twice — one patient has met his family after 23 years. That's very positive.

We are providing all kinds of care. I will continue to work hard. If there are deficiencies, I would like to know so that we can improve upon the system.

J. MacPhail: I do visit facilities on a regular basis. The reason why I'm asking the minister these questions, from his point of view of this being his responsibility, is that I don't know that the demographic trends are that the need will continue for residential care. I don't know that. Clearly, the minister must have some evidence that supports it.

Who advises the minister? Does the minister have a consumer advocacy council? Does he work with the B.C. Schizophrenia Society? Perhaps he could tell us whom he receives his advice from.

Hon. G. Cheema: I do get a lot of advice from staff. We have an exceptionally good policy shop at the Ministry of Health, led by Irene Clarkson, who is executive director of mental health and addictions. I work with all the provincial mental health organizations. I talk to them personally. I visit them. I get their input.

I have Mental Health Advisory Council in the province. I have participated in almost every meeting. There are probably one or two I have missed. I meet with them every three to four months. This is a group from all across the province that was initiated by the previous government. This was a good concept. We learned from them. This group comes from the consumers, from the families and from the health care sector also.

We do have good advice, and we continue to learn from them. Mental health has become a very non-political issue for the province. We get information from the mental health community consultation unit at UBC, Dr. Goldner, who is the expert in this field. He's very helpful. We are continuing to work with them. I work with anybody who wants to tell us how we can improve. Our objective is to work on the basis of best-evidence practices. We can't say there is only one option; there are a number of options.

To answer the question more specifically, all these facilities are required, because we have close to 800 patients at this institution. Some of these patients are going to require places. We can't just leave them in the community without a proper placement. These facilities are very home-like. They will provide rehabilitation care.

We will continue to monitor the trend. We are hopeful we will meet those needs. As I have said many times, this plan will continue to evolve. We need to examine it every year to see how we are doing. If there is something we should not be doing, we will not. That's why I'm asking the member…. If she hears of anything which we should not be doing, I would like to know. I would like to get her input, because she was the Minister of Health, and I know her intentions for mental health have always been noble.

I've read the plan, and I'm very confident that we will do it right. We need to move very carefully. I do agree with her: we need to be very cautious.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister tell me who's on the Mental Health Advisory Council, please?

Hon. G. Cheema: I know some of the names, but I will provide the list. The chair is Patrick Storey, who was the chair when the previous government was in place. We have many other consumers. I will provide her the names of the committee.

J. MacPhail: Does the committee release a report or have minutes that are publicly available?

Hon. G. Cheema: They do publish their reports on a regular basis. Their report is available on our website. Anybody can have a look at that. It's very open. We are communicating. They work very effectively. They have produced a number of reports. I have taken some of their reports, and they are part of our policy platform now.

J. MacPhail: Turning to depression, I'm wondering whether the minister could describe for me the chronic care management strategy for depression.

Hon. G. Cheema: I will provide the member with the Minister's Advisory Council on Mental Health — the names I do have. You want me to read the names? To save time, I can give you the list.

The member, again, has asked a very important question, because the issue of depression is very important in this province. I will give a few statistics. I won't repeat what I said earlier.

At any given time, there is 4 percent of the adult population — that's approximately 140,000 people in B.C. — suffering from clinical depression. Approximately 1 percent of the population, or 35,000, is highly disabled by severe anxiety disorders. This is at a great personal loss to the sufferers and their families and a financial cost to the system.

In October of last year the Premier announced the provincial depression and anxiety disorders strategies to improve the quality and effectiveness of British Columbia's approach to prevention and treatment of depression and anxiety disorders. The two reports were released in the fall of 2002. The first one, British Columbia's Provincial Depression Strategy, was created in October 2002 and developed by the Mental Health Evaluation and Consultation Unit at UBC. Second was the Provincial Anxiety Disorders Strategy, prepared by the Provincial Strategy Advisory Committee for Anxiety Disorders.

These reports identified a series of recommendations: to improve the awareness of depression and anxiety disorders, including prevention and treatment; to provide educational support to people with depression and anxiety disorders, their families, health care professionals and segments of the general public; to improve the appropriateness of services to ensure that the intervention is based on the current evidence and best practices; to improve outcome of services in terms of reduced disability and symptoms and reduce use of medical services; to apply a chronic disease management model to the depression and anxiety disorder; and to support primary care models so that the primary care physicians and mental health care specialists work together more closely.

Progress to date for the provincial depression and anxiety disorders strategies: to support physicians, the ministry is developing provincial clinical practice guidelines on depression and anxiety disorders in partnership with the guidelines and protocol advisory committee of the BCMA.

The ministry has initiated the development of a permanent communication infrastructure for mental health and addiction to improve mental health literacy for people experiencing mental health and substance use disorders, their families, professionals and the general public. Improving mental health literacy is a key way to support the provincial depression and anxiety disorders strategies; to improve awareness, prevention and treatment of depression and anxiety disorders; to provide education and support to people with depression and anxiety disorders and their families; and to enhance the ability of families to seek professional help available and make informed choices and decisions regarding the types of services and support. An example of the new initiative supporting A Provincial Anxiety Disorder Strategy is the living effectively with anxiety and fear program launched in April 2002.

This program was developed and implemented by the Anxiety Disorders Association of British Columbia and is operating in Kelowna, Kamloops, Delta and Surrey. This program provides skills training in how to self-manage symptoms of panic disorder and is showing positive results. As a result of this program, several participants who were unable to work due to panic disorders have been able to return to work.

The ministry is applying chronic disease management activity to support the prevention and treatment of depression and anxiety disorders. Chronic disease management is a systematic approach to improve health care for people with a chronic disease. Health care can be delivered more effectively and more efficiently if patients with depression and anxiety disorders take an active role in their own care and care providers are supported with to access tools and guidelines and are provided with evidence-based information to better assist their clients in managing their lives.

The ministry is also developing and implementing a range of chronic disease management activities. Through the health transition fund the Ministry of Health Planning is supporting health authorities to develop a primary care model so that physicians and mental health specialists work together more closely.

I think, Madam Chair, that this should be sufficient at this time. If the member would like to know more, I can give her more information.

Hon. G. Cheema: We don't have specific funding for this program. What we have done is given the health authorities these two reports, and we expect them to work with health care professionals to develop a comprehensive approach to depression and anxiety, based on evidence-based best practices and based on these two reports. We are very hopeful they are developing those policies.

J. MacPhail: Are there any changes to the fee-for-service plan in terms of dealing with anxiety disorders?

Hon. G. Cheema: Madam Chair, we are having such a great time. The Leader of the Opposition is asking exceptionally good questions, and I am enjoying this. I'm here to say I don't want to go into a closer relationship here — a very cosy relationship — but I always knew that this member does have a passion for mental health, and it's coming out today. That's very good.

It's a very good question. It's very difficult to meet the needs of the patient by a primary care physician. If you go and see a doctor for depression four times a

year, that's what they are paid for. To have the support of psychotherapy, it doesn't work. If you go as a patient for anxiety disorder, it doesn't work. You need to go and see more and more, and the system is based on a fee-for-service.

We are very mindful of that difficulty, and that's why we think the primary care projects are very important. They can play a very integral role in how a person can be served by a mental health worker, a physician and a psychiatrist. They can all work at the same place. A great example that was set by the previous government is on King George Highway in Surrey. They have a primary care project that's working extremely well. When the patient comes there, it's a shared-care project. They come and first see the nurse; then they see the primary care physician. We are evaluating that program. I had a good discussion with the Fraser health authority, and I think we should expand those programs. They're very effective, and I will look forward to working with the member on such issues in the future.

J. MacPhail: Madam Chair, noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.


	YEAS — 66

Falcon	Coell	L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt	Whittred	Cheema
Hansen	J. Reid	Bruce
Santori	van Dongen	Barisoff
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Collins
Clark	Bond	Nebbeling
Stephens	Abbott	Neufeld
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Harris	Nuraney	Brenzinger
Belsey	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Wong
Bloy	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Hamilton	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY