Hansard -- Thursday, May 29, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 16, No. 6 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Committee of the Whole House		7095
	School Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 50) J. Kwan

Report and Third Reading of Bills		7095
	School Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 50)

Committee of the Whole House		7095
	Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 51) J. Kwan Hon. C. Clark

Reporting of Bills		7102
	Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 51)

Third Reading of Bills		7102
	Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 51)

Committee of the Whole House		7102
	Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 58) D. Jarvis Hon. G. Collins

Reporting of Bills		7105
	Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 58)

Third Reading of Bills		7105
	Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 58)

Committee of the Whole House		7105
	Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 64) Hon. J. Reid

Report and Third Reading of Bills		7105
	Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 64)

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 50.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 50; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The Chair: I call the committee to order. Members, pursuant to the motion that was passed on the 26th, we have a very tight schedule today. We will adhere to that schedule very closely.

It is my understanding that there is a minimal number of questions on Bill 50. The opposition would like to spend the bulk of their time on Bill 51.

J. Kwan: Yes, just as you stated, the opposition is only given one hour to do committee stage on both bills, Bills 50 and 51. Given that's the situation we're faced with, the opposition has chosen to spend the bulk of the time on Bill 51.

Hon. C. Clark: I move that the committee report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 50, School Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 51; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. Kwan: Section 1 deals with the definitions for the act and adds the definition of "authority" to the act itself. It is my understanding that the change here is that the definition of "authority" refers to a corporation appointed under the Business Corporations Act rather than the Company Act. Is this just a technical change because the Company Act is going to be replaced by the Business Corporations Act?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes. When the Company Act is changed to become the Business Corporations Act, this amendment will come into force at that time.

J. Kwan: Is there anything else substantive in terms of the change between the two acts? Seeing as we actually haven't had the opportunity to review the Business Corporations Act, is there anything substantive that the opposition should be aware of?

Hon. C. Clark: It is simply a name change. Obviously, the act will have its own effect when it comes into force, but for the purposes of this act this is just a name change.

J. Kwan: Section 2 is quite significant in terms of the impacts of this act. It deals with the membership of the council and the changes associated with it. Formerly, the council was primarily made up of elected people. Now the change is going to be appointments virtually for all members except one. I'd like to ask the minister this question: why did the minister make the changes so that the membership of the council, instead of being democratically elected, is now going to be appointed in its majority by government?

Hon. C. Clark: We recognize that education is a broad public enterprise in which the public has more interest than, I think, anything else that government does. Education is the greatest investment that we can make as a society.

We want to make sure that the board of the college reflects the diversity of our community, that it reflects the diverse number of points of view and that it is broadly representative of the public. That's the reason that we've chosen in this amendment to change the composition of the board.

J. Kwan: Actually, where the minister will be appointing the majority of the council members under this act, I would argue that that actually limits diversity. You can actually ensure diversity through a number of ways without it going through a political process — that being that the appointments are made by a par-

tisan process through the Minister of Education and the government. Why didn't the government choose alternative means? If she thinks that the existing system now is not democratic and somehow is not representative, why didn't she change the system to allow that to take place in a democratically elected process as opposed to an appointment process?

Hon. C. Clark: The legislation allows, first of all, for eight members to be elected in the traditional limited form of democracy that the college has used to select 15 of its members. We want, though, to make sure that there are options open for more parents to sit on the board and for teachers who don't necessarily receive an endorsement to be able to sit on the board. We want to make sure that there's a broad public representation. We want to have avenues to make sure that there is always at least one person who speaks a second language on the board. We want to make sure that there's always an opportunity to make sure there are aboriginal people on that board. The changes in the legislation require that the minister consult with a number of representative, democratically elected groups, before she or he makes a decision about who will be appointed to the board in addition to the eight members that will be elected in the traditional way.

J. Kwan: It is interesting, though, because the division is this. You have 11 people to be appointed by the government, and then you have eight people elected. Wouldn't you think that perhaps, if the minister is saying that she wants a broader representation in terms of parents and others, you would switch the numbers around and still actually hold a high regard for the people to be elected? Therefore, the numbers for the people to be elected should be higher than the people that are appointed

Hon. C. Clark: This legislation recognizes that the way elections have been conducted is a very limited form of democracy. It ensures that a limited number of people with a limited number of views sit on the board. We want to make sure that there is a broad range of views represented. It was difficult — and we certainly thought about it — to find a way that we could elect, for example, parents to sit on the board, given that parents are from such a diverse community and aren't necessarily organized into a group that bargains collectively.

We decided that what we would do would be, for example, to consult with parents and then make appointments based partly on their recommendations. We've put the recognition into the legislation for the first time that those groups will be required to be consulted with. We will be expanding the representation from the public and from other kinds of educators who provide other kinds of educational services in our schools as well as continuing to allow for the limited kind of democracy that currently operates to choose eight of the 20 members on the board.

J. Kwan: Isn't it possible, though, that a teacher could be a parent as well? The minister talks as though somehow teachers are these evildoers and are not parents — that they have no role as a parent, that somehow they don't care about children. This is how this act is being perceived. Yet I know many teachers who are also parents and who actually care a lot about the children.

Why would the minister take an approach that would actually pit, I would say, community against community? What's the purpose of that, other than to draw lines on the battleground so that one can fight? Perhaps the minister would want to fight with the teachers. What's the purpose of such an act that illustrates an approach that is so divisive in its nature? It's almost as though, from the minister's approach and her words, that her intention is to simply segregate teachers from parents.

Hon. C. Clark: As usual, I disagree with the member's characterization of everything in terms of war. I would say this: teachers don't just…. The member said: "How come, if the minister doesn't recognize that teachers are parents too…? If she recognizes that they're parents too, then she'll know that they care."

I know that teachers care, whether or not they're parents. I know that teachers care about kids in schools; otherwise, they wouldn't be teachers. People choose the teaching profession because they love kids and they love sparking imagination in kids, inculcating knowledge in them, helping guide them on their way to becoming full and healthy and participating citizens in our democracy. That is why teachers do their job.

There is nothing in this act that would prohibit either teachers who are parents from becoming elected or parents who are also teachers from being appointed. I also think, though, that parents who bring their role as parents primarily to the table sometimes bring a different viewpoint, as people who come at the system from a completely different perspective. It's healthy to have those perspectives there.

One of the things that we've learned, through setting up school planning councils, for example, which is, again, something that I know the member was concerned about for exactly the same reasons she's talking about here….. When we set up school planning councils, she said that it was going to create division, that it was going to mean people didn't talk to each other. In fact, the opposite has happened.

What we've found with school planning councils is that we've built a place in the school system where parents and teachers and principals are guaranteed to sit down and talk about what's important to them. What we've learned from that is that when we build in those opportunities for dialogue, people understand each other better. It's important that principals and teachers know what parents expect out of the system. It's also important that parents understand what's reasonable to expect out of the system, based on their discussions with teachers and principals.

What we've done with school planning councils is take down some of the previous barriers that have ex-

isted and built more discussion and dialogue between the various stakeholders and partners who care equally about education.

I believe the changes to the college board will further enhance that dialogue and ensure that everyone who cares about education and everyone who has a stake in it, which is surely all of us in our society, gets a voice at the table and an opportunity to really dialogue about what education should look like.

J. Kwan: It's interesting. The minister likes to talk about dialogue and consultation, but the reality is this: the minister actually refused to meet with teachers. She hasn't consulted with the teachers. In fact, the act precludes consultation with the teachers in terms of the appointments. Why is that? She talks the talk, but she doesn't walk the walk, and she illustrates it not only by her own actions every single day, but it is actually in the legislation, and it illustrates that as well.

Hon. C. Clark: Actually, that's not correct. We have discussed this college legislation very widely, including at the minister's Education Advisory Council, which includes the senior members from the teachers union. The proof of that, if the member doesn't want to believe me that they were consulted, is the fact that the B.C. teachers union actually made a submission on the legislation about what they thought it should look like. They certainly have brought their views forward, as did parents and many of the other people who care so deeply about education. We certainly had the benefit of their view. They were certainly aware of the changes, and we certainly did consult with them.

J. Kwan: No. The point is this. The minister didn't meet with the teachers at their request, and she refuses to meet with them on this piece of legislation. To date there have been no meetings.

In the legislation, under subsection (3), it reads: "Before making a recommendation under subsection 2 (b), the minister must consult with persons who the minister considers are representative of (a) authorities, (b) public school principals and vice principals, (c) superintendents, and (d) parents."

It's interesting. In the legislation itself, teachers are not mentioned. They're not an important enough component to actually be itemized in the legislation as a group that the minister would consult. I think that speaks volumes for the minister to say that she cares and that she values the work of the teachers, and so on and so forth. Those words ring very hollow when her actions don't match up — her actions outside of this House and her actions inside of this House.

What garbage she purports she's…. Anyway, maybe that's unparliamentary. She can talk about how she values the teachers, but her actions simply demonstrate otherwise. The act shows that as well. It's a complete disregard to include teachers in terms of the changes related to this bill.

The bill also deals with the notion… Actually, the minister likes to put forward the notion of a self-regulated component to this profession. Would the minister consider the changes under this council would deem that the teaching profession be self-regulated?

Hon. C. Clark: The college will continue to regulate itself. In answer to that question, it will continue to be an independent body. In response to the first point that the member has made, I do want to make sure that she's correct in her interpretation. She made reference to section 5(3), where she talked about the minister's obligation to consult with authorities — public schools, principals, vice-principals, superintendents and parents.

I draw her attention to the section just before that, which is 5(2), which specifically talks about "members," who are teachers. It talks about how eight of them will be elected. So there is a specific reference in there to teachers. It provides for eight to be elected — the largest single group that will, undoubtedly, sit on the college. I would argue her point that teachers are unrepresented in this legislation. In fact, they get the plurality of representation.

J. Kwan: No, actually. If you read the council makeup in its entirety, here's what it looks like, so there's no misinformation or misinterpretation of the act and intention of this government. It reads — the council composition: "The council consists of the following: (a) 8 members elected to serve on the council as the representatives of the zones; (b) 11 persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the recommendation of the minister; (c) one person, nominated jointly by the deans of the faculties of education in British Columbia, who is appointed by the minister to hold office during pleasure." So the majority of the council membership is appointed by the minister, therefore making the minister in control of the makeup of the council. That's one point.

How is that self-regulating when the majority of the people are appointed by this minister through a political process? That's not self-regulation. That's one point I want to make, and I'd like the minister to explain the difference between self-regulation versus appointed members of a council controlled by the minister and how that is self-regulating. When you look at other colleges, other professions, if it's truly a self-regulating profession, the majority of the membership is made up by elections from their own profession — members from their own profession — not by appointments by government. That's virtually in every single profession that is self-regulating. So this, in my view, is not self-regulating. There is a fundamental difference.

Second, when you go to the third subsection of the act, it deals with the consultation process. Explicitly, teachers are left out of the consultation process. Let me read that section of the act in its entirety. It states: "Before making a recommendation under subsection (2) (b), the minister must consult with persons who the minister considers are representative of (a) authorities, (b) public school principals and vice principals, (c) su-

perintendents, and (d) parents." No teachers are mentioned there. You would think that the minister, who says she could appoint people who are also teachers under this section, would actually engage in a consultation process and include them in this section of the act. Yet it's obviously clear, because it's excluded. It's not included in this act.

The minister can't have it both ways. Either the council is self-regulating or not. If it is self-regulating, how is it that the majority of the members are appointed by the minister and, therefore, controlled by the minister and not by the profession?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, not only do the eight members that are elected represent…. Not only does that represent consultation by the minister, it also, under the act, will mean that not only do we consult, but we accept that government will accept those recommendations from the teachers. Not only that, it is a plurality, as I said, of members on the board — two important points I think the member is deliberately trying to ignore and minimize.

There is a special prominent place for teachers in this act and on this board. That is very clearly presented in the legislation, which is why the reference to teachers gets its own entire subsection. That's going to be a very, very important part of making sure that this board functions well.

J. Kwan: Maybe let me ask this question. I know that we can probably argue for quite some time, and I am noting the time. There's only half an hour left to debate this bill. I'd like to actually go into this point and argue with the minister some more. But I see it is a waste of time, because the minister's not going to see the issues that are being raised.

Let me ask the minister this question: does she know of any other professions that are deemed to be self-regulating where the majority of their membership is made up of appointments by government?

Hon. C. Clark: Our purpose in changing this act is to make sure there is broad public representation on this board. It is recognition in this act that the public has a very broad and passionate interest in education. Therefore, it's important that we reflect those views in the governance of the college. That's why we have made these changes.

We know that education is the most important public enterprise we will embark on as a society. If we are going to take that responsibility seriously, we need to make sure that we reflect broadly the views of the public. Teachers certainly bring a strong expertise to the board, but so do principals and vice-principals, superintendents, members of the public and certainly parents. As I've said many times in this House, parents are their children's first teachers, and they will be with them, teaching them the longest, throughout their lives.

J. Kwan: I'm not refuting the notion that perhaps there should be other people involved in this stage in the act, but the issue is this: all other professions have self-regulating boards or councils. All other professions' self-regulating boards or councils are made up in this majority by their own profession, not appointed by government but by their own profession, for it to be truly self-regulating. Yet in the teaching profession we have something different.

Now, the minister says in the teaching profession we all care about children. Of course we do. I just became a mother, and I'll be the first to admit that parents play a significant role in the lives of their children and want to spend every single moment with them to teach them, to guide them, to provide support for them and to care for them — absolutely. I completely understand that. If I didn't understand that before I became a parent, I do now. I do now because I have a ten-week-old baby, so I completely understand and accept that.

Now, let's just switch gears for a moment. Let's say the health profession, the College of Physicians and Surgeons…. Health care. We would all argue that each and every one of us cares about our health as well. We want to make sure that we get the best health care available and that the physicians and the surgeons are operating in such a manner that is appropriate and if there's misconduct, it is being reviewed by their own peers and disciplined by their own peers. That is the system that we have with the College of Physicians and Surgeons: ten members elected, five appointed.

I think we stand in the same place when we say that health and education, in terms of how we all care about these two issues, are probably equivalent in measure. Yet how is it that the College of Physicians and Surgeons have a self-regulating body made up of ten elected people and five appointed people and then in the teaching profession we have eight people elected and 11 people appointed by the minister? Why is there a difference in terms of that approach to these two different professions?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, a couple points. First of all, education is, I think, the most important public enterprise we can engage in. It is important that there be broad public representation on the board. I don't make any apologies for that. I think that's tremendously important.

I also think, though, that one of the things the member is ignoring, perhaps because she hasn't thought about it yet — I'm not suggesting she's deliberately ignoring it — is that the other members, like, for example, school authorities that will be consulted — principals, vice-principals and superintendents, most of whom hold teaching certificates…. It's not as though there won't be a lot of members in addition to members who are elected through the auspices of the democratic process that goes on in the teachers' zones. There will be a lot of people who hold teaching certificates on that board.

I don't think it's fair or accurate to suggest that if more than half of the board is appointed by government, then that means more than half of the board won't be qualified to teach. I don't think that's true at

all. I think, in fact, given the groups that the legislation will require the minister to consult with, we will in all likelihood see many more people on that board who hold teaching certificates in addition to the eight that are elected. I think that's important to ensure the expertise of the board.

I am interested in the member's view that she, on the one hand, would like to make sure we continue with the old process. We have a big majority of people elected in this sort of limited democracy we've had for the past many years, where what it has yielded is a vast majority of people on the board who are active teachers and who have been endorsed by the teachers union, leaving five spots for all the other people who are interested in education.

If she wants to go back to that, how does she propose we would structure the system so that there would be broader public representation? I also hear her saying she's interested in making that happen too, and I think that to some extent, she's making conflicting arguments there. I'd be interested to know what kinds of amendments she might propose to this legislation that would ensure there is broad public representation on the board, given that she's taken quite strongly the position that we should carry on with the status quo, which hasn't yielded broad public representation so far.

J. Kwan: You know, this is a classic debate that the Minister of Education would like to engage in. When pushed to answer questions — questions she has difficulties dealing with — she'll say: "Well, gee, how would you do it?" Then she mixes it as though somehow the opposition likes nothing to change. Nothing could be further from the truth. The issue I take with this minister, this act and this section of the act is this.

The government and the minister claim the teaching profession is going to be self-regulated. The reality is that it is not self-regulated, because the majority of the appointments are appointed by the minister. In every other profession — and you cannot deny this — when it is a self-regulating board or council, the majority of those council members are elected from their own profession. That's how every other profession is being conducted in terms of a self-regulating board.

Now we have a first — a first — in the teaching profession. Somehow this minister deems that teachers should not have a self-regulating body. Somehow peer regulation is no longer applicable for the teaching profession. She has changed the structure of the council to do that, and then she claims she's doing it to provide for broad representation. You can still provide for broad representation without taking away the self-regulation component of the council and the makeup of the council.

The minister refuses to do that. She refuses to see the fact that she is setting the teaching profession into a completely different place, a place where it is no longer democratically elected by a majority of its membership from its profession, where it is no longer self-regulating. There is no denying that. That is the reality. If the importance of broad representation applies, one would assume that application ought to go for every other profession as well, yet we don't see changes in — and I'll use the example again — the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

We don't see changes there. Isn't health care important enough, if the minister's argument is sound, that the same changes should be applied to the College of Physicians and Surgeons? One would assume the answer is yes, but that's not taking place for any other profession except for the teachers. What makes the teaching profession so different that somehow the peer-regulating component should no longer be a factor to be considered, that it is no longer a self-regulating profession? It makes no sense.

It makes no sense because that argument is simply not sound. If the minister wants to say, "You know what? I don't trust the teachers to self-regulate; therefore I'm changing the composition of the council," then own up to it and say that. That's what this act does. That's what she is doing. She is saying she doesn't trust the teaching profession.

She is saying to the teachers: "I don't want you to be self-regulating. I don't want peers to regulate themselves. I want to regulate you. I want to control you. I want the control of the board. That's why I'm changing the makeup of the board to be that the majority is appointed by order-in-council by the minister, and that is a fact."

I suppose we can debate this on and on, because we fundamentally differ. The minister refuses to see the point that she has changed the makeup of the council so that it is no longer self-regulating, no longer peer-regulating, and that it is going to be a partisan political board with its majority to be appointed by this minister through a partisan political process.

The opposition disagrees with that. We should not be injecting politics into the teaching profession in such a way. We should not be injecting politics into the regulation of teachers in such a way. The opposition does not support the makeup of the council as it is being proposed.

I want to ask the minister, under section 2, seeing as time is very precious in this House…. The eight zones being talked about in the act that deal with the representation of the eight elected members are yet to be identified. Does the minister have any idea what those zones will be and what that makeup would look like?

Hon. C. Clark: Just two sections to my answer here. The first is in response to the member's first comments. Again, I'd be interested in finding out how she would ensure broad public representation on the board. While she complains that this act does something she doesn't like, she says she wants more public representation on the board, and I'd be interested to know how she would achieve that. She says there are ways to do that — to ensure broad public representation — and I'd be happy to consider those if she has any ideas about that.

But I don't hear any. In the last many weeks I haven't heard any suggestions from her about how we could do that, although she says it's important.

It's important to note, too, that the board will continue to be independent. It will continue to regulate itself. She should note that in the legislation, because the amendments make specific reference to authorities, public school principals, vice-principals and superintendents as a requirement for consult in addition to the eight teachers who will be elected, who are named specifically in section 2(a) or sub (2)(a) here…. In addition to that, it is entirely likely that the majority of the board will be constituted by peers in the teaching profession. When she talks about peer representation, principals and vice-principals hold teaching certificates. There will be nothing prohibiting a minister from appointing more teachers to the board, people who hold teaching certificates. Because those references are made — continue — I hope that will provide some comfort to some of the people listening, if not to the member herself.

In reference to her last question about the members elected to serve and where those zones will be, the zones will be created by regulation. Those zones will be created by the minister on the advice of the college. The college will work to establish those zones, and the government will make those changes by regulation.

V. Roddick: On this final day of the spring sitting, I am delighted to introduce to the House Hawthorne Elementary from historic Ladner in beautiful Delta South. Hawthorne is making up for missing their usual annual visit last year by bringing the entire grade 5 class of 73 students, along with eight parents and five teachers, to view our hallowed halls. Because of the large student body, they've divided into two groups. Will the House please give group No. 1 a very hearty welcome.

J. Kwan: The minister says there's nothing in the act that precludes the membership from being the majority of people from the teaching profession. Yet the act does not explicitly say that it must be. That is the point. In every other profession, it states clearly in legislation, where it is self-regulating, the majority of the makeup of the board is from its own profession. Here, in the teaching profession, it is different. It sets a different standard.

One can only conclude from that deliberate action of the government that they're signalling, somehow, to the teaching profession that she does not trust them, that she does not have the faith in them that they would do a good job at self-regulating. That's the only reason one can come to the conclusion why the minister is making these changes.

Then the minister says that if I have suggestions as to how the makeup of the board could change, she'd be happy to entertain them. I'd be happy to put forward a new act when I become the Minister of Education. Alternatively, if the minister commits right now on the floor that she would adopt these amendments if we put them forward, then I would be happy to put them forward as well. But the fact is this: the minister has refused, herself, to meet with the teaching profession as a collective. The minister is changing the act so that it is no longer self-regulating. She's only hiding under the notion that she's making it and its representation broader.

I don't want to belabour this point. There's less than 13 minutes, to be exact, that I have to debate this bill, so I want to move on and ask her the questions pertaining to this bill.

J. Kwan: I'm still on section 2. I haven't even finished asking all the questions I need to on section 2, so I need to move on and ask the question on another area under section 2.

Section 2 also deals with, aside from the appointment issue and the zone issue…. I'd like to ask the minister, because it will also look into putting forward an interim board or interim replacement of the council, if you will…. There are no dates specified, but there are 20 people to be appointed to the council as such. I wonder if the minister could give some detailed information around the election dates and so on.

Hon. C. Clark: That speaks to section 17 of the act. I'd be delighted to talk about that when we get to that section. I do want to say that contrary to the member's statement, teachers do a tremendous job in British Columbia, just an absolutely tremendous job. We have one of the best education systems in the world because we have some of the most qualified, passionate, dedicated teachers in the world.

The teachers' college, on the other hand, has not done as good a job, I think, in representing them as it could have. They have, for example — although they have started to just recently — not set standards for competence of teachers, something I know that teachers want probably more than anybody else. We want to make sure that they continue and carry on with that role. That's despite the fact that the college was created 13 years ago. I think there are certainly some gaps in the work that the college has done, and we need to make sure that the college is able to adequately do that.

We have consulted, contrary to what the member said, at the most senior levels with the teachers union, as we did with parents and all the other people who we consider to be partners in the education system. We did that. We sought a submission and received a submission, indeed, from the teachers union, as well, about what this would look like. I want to correct some

of the misapprehensions that the member repeats about this, because certainly it's not correct.

I will finish by saying this. I really believe that the public should be broadly represented on this board. Teaching is the most important profession in the world, bar none. We need to make sure that the public — and all of us who have an interest in the education system — are well represented on the College of Teachers board.

The Chair: Hon. members, noting the time and the fact that the opposition has asked for two divisions, one on section 2 and one on the entire bill, I am now going to put the question.

J. Kwan: I understand that the students and teachers from St. Joseph's School are in the precinct, if not in the gallery. They might be in the gallery. Are you in the gallery? No? Sorry. I was just handed the note that they are in the precinct, and they are taking a tour of the legislative buildings. They are visiting the capital to learn about their capital and, of course, the operation of the House.

They are grade 7 students. There are about 30 of the visitors, five of which are the adults themselves. The teacher accompanying the students is Ms. Oye. Will the House please make these students and their accompanying companions welcome.

Hon. C. Clark: I move that we rise to report the bill complete with amendment.

Bill 51, Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the time allocation motion on the order paper, third reading will be called now.

J. Kwan: Visiting us in the gallery today are students from St. Joseph's School. They are 30 grade 7 students along with five adults accompanying them. They are here on a tour to learn about the Legislature and its operation, its history, the fantastic building that we operate in and how democracy ought to be done in this Legislature, and of course to visit the capital as well.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 58.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 58; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. G. Collins: The House, perhaps, can recess for five minutes while we wait, yet again, for the opposition to collect their papers.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment to section 9 standing in my name on the order paper.

D. Jarvis: I wanted to ask the minister if he could give us somewhat of an explanation on that phrase, "appreciably impeding or reducing…competition." It's not that clear to me, and I was wondering if he would care to maybe make it a little clearer to most people.

Hon. G. Collins: Perhaps before I do that, I can just introduce the staff that are here with me today: Leon de Wet, who is from the Ministry of Finance, and Dan Perrin as well. Both these gentlemen have done a huge amount of work on what ultimately ends up being a relatively small bill, but it required a huge amount of policy development and some pretty clear thinking to make sure we got this right.

I just wanted to thank them both for their work and the time they put into it. It was a pretty complex task. It took a lot of hard thinking, and I think they've done a very good job of putting together a model that's going to serve British Columbians very well in the years ahead. I just wanted to extend my thanks to them for doing that work and to put that on the record.

The question from the member relates to section 9, which is a new section 43 of the act, which is really the one that says that the BCUC is going to be the regulator. The wording that the member raised or has some question around is the phrase "appreciably impeding or reducing…competition." Essentially, that is a bit of a qualitative measure, and I think the goal here is that we're trying to create a fairly light-handed regulatory model for this industry. We don't want to be in there heavy-handed or have the BCUC in there in a heavy-handed way running the insurance industry in this province on a day-to-day basis.

Our preference is that we go through a bit of a transition period as ICBC modifies its behaviour, as the insurance companies modify their behaviour, and then we end up with a fairly level playing field. The BCUC will then be able to stand back and let the market work and only step in when it's clear that there is an appreciable reduction in competition. If a problem arises that's a visible problem, which you can appreciably measure and say, "There's a problem here in the mar-

ket," the BCUC would then be able to step in and deal with it. The goal is to try and create a fairly light-handed regulatory model where the intercession is required only when there's a visible problem.

D. Jarvis: Just to go a little further on that, is this regulator at one point going to be asked to go out and do a complete audit on ICBC or bring in actuaries to establish what the rates are going to be?

Hon. G. Collins: How this will probably work is that ICBC will apply for a rate increase at some point. The B.C. Utilities Commission will obviously look at that request, and they obviously will…. I mean, it's very likely they wouldn't be able to do all the required evaluations internally to determine whether or not that rate request was in the best interests of the consumers.

It's likely that the Utilities Commission would need to go outside of the commission and access whatever expertise, advice, studies, analysis that they required in order to make a proper assessment of whether or not that rate increase was justified and whether or not the service that was being provided was commensurate with the cost that was being charged. ICBC would make a request. The Utilities Commission would determine what work they needed to do, and to what extent they needed to get advice, before making a determination.

D. Jarvis: So in actual fact, it will be up to the regulator at that point to decide whether he needs an actuary on that, so that's fine. Well, I'll sit down. Go to the next section.

D. Jarvis: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I led you astray there on that point when I sat down. I wanted to ask another question specifically on the regulator himself, and that's all under section 9.

Now, you're going to give this power to BCUC. The regulator is going to have that power. I'm wondering if it's not a duplication of power in the sense that…. Why would we not still be dealing with or going to FICOM or something along that line?

Hon. G. Collins: The Utilities Commission's primary role really is twofold. First of all, it would be to regulate service and rates for basic insurance, a regulating monopoly. For all these years ICBC has been a monopoly with no regulator to determine what the best interests of the public are. The rates, etc., had all been set at the cabinet table. Now they're going to have to actually report to somebody. The Utilities Commission will oversee that and make sure that on the basic, they're providing good service at a reasonable price.

The Utilities Commission will also have a role to play, as far as ICBC's presence goes, in the optional insurance market. There are other players in the optional insurance market who will not be subject to the Utilities Commission regulation. ICBC will, and the reason for that is that ICBC has about 95 percent of the market on the optional side as well. That's really been the problem, people would say — that there's not sufficient competition on the optional side. ICBC, having that much of a market share, has in essence a virtual monopoly. It does need to be subject to some additional regulation, at least for an interim period until this sorts itself out and we have clearly established a level playing field and a more open, competitive market on the optional side.

The Utilities Commission will also regulate the optional portion of ICBC's business. Again, that will be in a fairly light hand, we hope, depending on the behaviour of ICBC. There still is an ongoing insurance industry — the private sector people, for example — who are regulated by FICOM, Financial Institutions Commission, which rests within the Ministry of Finance. That will continue. There are a couple of roles here for various players. So FICOM continues to regulate the players in the optional insurance automobile market. There does continue to be a role there for FICOM.

At some point, we hope that as this market sort of shakes out and becomes more competitive and there's more of a level playing field, there will be an opportunity under the act for ICBC to go to the Utilities Commission and say: "We believe that there is a competitive marketplace in place for the optional side." They can say to the Utilities Commission under the act: "We believe that exists now. We don't believe we should be subject to any more regulatory burden than the private sector insurance in the optional market." The Utilities Commission then can do a study, make an evaluation and say: "Yeah, they're right. We now think there is a pretty open, competitive market on the optional side. ICBC doesn't have any undue powers." The Utilities Commission can then make a recommendation to cabinet to turn that regulatory switch off for the regulation of the optional portion of ICBC's business. Then ICBC would be just like every other player, subject to no more or no less regulation.

If government were to do that and make that choice, if at a later date it was determined that in fact the market was either going back to the way it was or ICBC was taking advantage of that for various reasons to actually dominate the market again, then government could switch that back on. We're trying to set up a structure that will operate on its own eventually. That's why that trigger is there. Perhaps that describes the two roles the member was asking about.

D. Jarvis: Heretofore, ICBC's rating system and the information they use for their rating have been kept to

themselves, where in the rest of the competitive world it's been open and shared so that they can get the information from other insurers. Will this now be open to the so-called competition out there — the information on ICBC's rating system?

Hon. G. Collins: It's a very good question, because that is one of the issues that's been raised by private insurers — that they're required to share amongst themselves their information as part of creating the market, and ICBC doesn't do that. There are reg-making powers in the act that would allow government to direct ICBC to comply with the practice that's currently there — or whatever the practice would be for the disclosure of that information in the optional side.

ICBC doesn't currently keep information in exactly the same way as the private insurers do. They have to transition their systems, etc., to get to that stage. There will be a bit of a transitional period. Rest assured, we will encourage them — probably fairly vigorously — to comply with that and to make the transitions that are required as quickly as possible.

D. Jarvis: Thank you for the information. That's basically what I was looking for.

One other final question I wanted to know. I assume that he or she who will be appointed regulator has not been appointed yet. Can you give me an idea of what type of individual you're looking for? Will they have had experience in the private system or maybe even just with ICBC? Just where do we stand on that point?

Hon. G. Collins: How the regulation is actually going to work is going to be the nub of it. The regulator — having the right person there is important. We've also identified through this process the issue of which minister should be responsible for what. For example, right now I'm sort of in this strange position of being the minister responsible for ICBC at the same time as I am the minister responsible for the legislation that regulates ICBC. I think that sends a negative message to the marketplace.

We've tried to be very open and involving with all the different players as we've developed this legislation and have treated ICBC no differently in those consultations than we've treated various private sector insurers in trying to determine what this model needs to be. Clearly, there's an issue identified there: that having a minister responsible for advocating for the corporation as well as for regulating that corporation is a problem. Government is about to address that to make sure that's clarified.

Within the Utilities Commission itself, the member will be aware there are changes coming. They are going to be involved with B.C. Hydro again in a bigger way than they were during the period under the previous government as well as taking on the private sector insurance regulatory process for ICBC — or the competitive side.

We do need to have some different people, or some additional people perhaps — expertise at the Utilities Commission. We are looking right now for somebody or several somebodies, depending on what we believe is required or what the Utilities Commission believes is required, to come in and play that role.

It's fair to say that to a certain extent, monopolies are monopolies are monopolies. They tend to behave the same way. There's a lot of economic study on the behaviour of monopolies — things that they do and how they operate. To a certain extent, they're not that different — Hydro, ICBC or some other monopoly.

But there is an insurance issue here. If you're going to be regulating ICBC's optional insurance business, you do need to have some expertise from the insurance sector, you would think. We are taking that into consideration. Ideally, we'd love to have somebody who's worked on both sides, who gets it — the dream candidate — and we're looking. We hope to be able to have some individual or perhaps more than one, depending, come in and be able to do that job in a way that gives everybody comfort that they're knowledgable, fair, even-handed and have the ability to make this work. We continue to look for those people.

I assume that the purpose of this bill and what you're planning to do is so that government will now be out of the insurance business, theoretically, and that government will not be interfering with the rate structures of that for political purposes, etc., forevermore. Am I correct?

Hon. G. Collins: It is government's intention that we at the cabinet table, as was previously the case — as what was done in the past — will no longer be involved in setting rates for ICBC, directing ICBC, directing their service levels, etc. That is something the regulator will be involved in. I think it's bad. You look back historically, and you can see rates that come up after an election and go down right before an election. We probably saw the worst perversion of that prior to the last election when everybody got a cheque — I think it was $100 — around the province from ICBC, and it was probably the worst scenario that you could see. The year afterwards ICBC ran a $250 million loss. Those are the kinds of things that happen when politics is involved in setting automobile rates.

It will probably take politicians a while to get used to not telling ICBC what to do all the time. It will probably take the public a while to understand that the politicians can't tell ICBC what to do all the time. There's a bit of a cultural change there for everybody, and it's probably going to be a bit of a cultural change for ICBC to have to respond to a regulator as well.

This is going to be tricky. It's going to be a bit of a cultural shift for everybody, but at the end of the day I think the model is one that will serve customers well. It will serve ratepayers well. We hope there will be more choice, better pricing, better flexibility in the types of services that are offered, and that can only help the consumer.

Ultimately, as we said with the core review, if we can get that kind of a healthy market happening in what's currently on the optional side, there may be opportunities, if the public is comfortable with that model and it's proven itself, to look at what is currently in basic and say: "Do all of those components that are now in basic need to stay there, or would it be beneficial to the consumers to take some portions of those, put them into the optional market and create a better choice and better selection for the consumer?"

That's the goal. That's what we're trying to achieve. I think this bill does that, but there will be a lot of work that needs to be done on the part of all players in order to make sure that it's effective.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 58, Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the time allocation motion on the order paper, the bill will be read a third time now.

Bill 58, Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2003, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 64.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 64; G. Trumper in the chair.

Hon. J. Reid: I move that the committee report the bill complete without amendment.

V. Roddick: On this final day of the spring sitting, I am delighted to introduce to the House Hawthorne Elementary from historic Ladner in Delta South. Hawthorne is making up for missing its usual annual visit last year by having the entire grade 5 class of 73 students, along with eight parents — Mrs. Boray, Mrs. Creighton, Mrs. Glass, Mr. and Mrs. Clatt, Mrs. Ellis, Mrs. Hatfield and Mrs. Twaits — and five teachers — Mrs. Simm, Mrs. Williamson, Ms. Gonzalez, Ms. Morely and Ms. Radslof — view our hallowed halls.

Because of the large student body, they have been divided into two groups, so would the House please give an enthusiastic welcome to group No. 2.

Mr. Speaker: First of all, pursuant to the order of time allocation on the order paper, third reading will be called now. The question is third reading of Bill 64.

Bill 64, Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: I should ask the House Leader: when shall the committee sit again?

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


	YEAS — 59

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Whittred
Cheema	Hansen	J. Reid
Bruce	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Roddick	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Murray
Plant	Collins	Clark
Bond	de Jong	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Orr	Harris	Brenzinger
Belsey	Bell	Long
Chutter	Trumper	Johnston
Bennett	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Nijjar	Wong	Suffredine
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Sultan	Hamilton
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

	YEAS — 64

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY