Hansard — Tuesday, May 1, 2007 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		7371

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		7371
	Anniversary of Chinese Immigration Act repeal
	J. Yap
	Victoria Sketch Club
	C. James
	100th anniversary of city of North Vancouver
	K. Whittred
	Child care in B.C.
	C. Trevena
	Sports in Nanaimo
	R. Cantelon
	May Day celebrations in Port Coquitlam
	M. Farnworth

Tabling Documents		7373
	Independent Commission to Review MLA Compensation, majority report

Oral Questions		7373
	Compliance with government conflict-of-interest rules for former civil servants
	C. James
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Call for conflict-of-interest legislation for former civil servants
	J. Horgan
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Authority of Privacy Commissioner to investigate conflicts of interest
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Call for independent investigation into Ken Dobell contracts
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Local government representation to Premier
	C. Wyse
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Disclosure of documents on sale of B.C. Rail
	L. Krog
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Attorney General response to questions related to court proceedings
	B. Ralston
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Possible RCMP investigations into sale of B.C. Rail
	H. Lali
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Government action on farmworker safety
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. O. Ilich

Committee of the Whole House		7378
	School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 20) (continued)
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. S. Bond
	C. Trevena
	G. Coons
	D. Chudnovsky

Second Reading of Bills		7390
	Teaching Profession (Teacher Registration) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 21) (continued)
	M. Farnworth
	M. Sather
	B. Ralston
	L. Krog
	Hon. S. Bond
	Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 22)
	Hon. S. Bond
	Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 24)
	Hon. B. Penner
	S. Simpson
	C. Trevena
	D. Thorne
	S. Fraser
	Hon. B. Penner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		7408
	Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (continued)
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. J. Les
	C. Puchmayr
	R. Fleming
	M. Karagianis
	M. Sather

M. Karagianis: I have the privilege today of having some more students from one of my schools, Colwood Elementary School. I have 22 grades 2 and 3 students visiting in the precinct today with their teacher Mrs. Karen Leeson. Would the House please make them very welcome.

N. Simons: Today in the House I have a visitor from the Sunshine Coast and a friend. Joan Milina is here from Halfmoon Bay. Her friend Kate Evans — a board member of Theatre Terrific, which we all know and love — is also in the House. Would the House make them welcome.

J. Yap: I rise today regarding a very important anniversary in British Columbia's history. May 14, 2007, will mark 60 years since the repealing of the Chinese Immigration Act.

You know, British Columbians pride themselves on being part of a multicultural society. For us today it is a way of life, and for many, we do not know any different. It's hard to imagine a British Columbia without tolerance and acceptance, but that was not the case a century ago. Immigrants from China faced an expensive and unfair head tax upon entering Canada. Not only was this meant to discourage immigration, it was also blatant racism, as Chinese nationals were the only ones to face such discrimination.

To add insult to injury, on July 1, 1923, Canada passed the Chinese Immigration Act, more commonly known as the Chinese exclusion act. This all but banned Chinese immigration to Canada, but those already in the country persevered.

The contributions of Chinese Canadian soldiers abroad, the establishment of vibrant communities and the general Canadian population becoming more enlightened on multiculturalism combined to make British Columbia a more open society for them. Eventually, on May 14, 1947, the act was repealed, giving full citizenship to a community who had deserved it for years.

The community is working hard to gain recognition for this very important anniversary, having already received proclamations from the cities of Vancouver, Richmond and Burnaby proclaiming the week of May 14 to May 21 as Chinese Canadian Citizenship Week. They are now petitioning the federal government for a similar acknowledgment. I am pleased that the province will be making such a proclamation.

I applaud all those who were able to stand up in the face of adversity and set the foundation for our wonderful, inclusive society that we are all so fortunate to live in today.

C. James: It's my pleasure today to recognize a talented group of our local artists. The Victoria Sketch Club is the oldest Canadian art group west of Ontario.

An outgrowth of the Island Arts and Crafts Society, the Victoria Sketch Club promotes creative expression as well as art appreciation in our community. Former members of the Victoria Sketch Club include Max Maynard, Jack Shadbolt and Emily Carr. Current members include Victoria–Beacon Hill resident Ted Harrison, whose vibrant depiction of Canada's north is internationally recognized for its distinctive style.

The Victoria Sketch Club meets regularly to hone their craft, working in a range of media, formats, subjects and styles. In the spring they share that work with the community. Every March the Sketch Club holds a week-long spring show at Glenlyon Norfolk in Oak Bay.

As MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill, I'm honoured to host a temporary exhibit of the Victoria Sketch Club in my community office. Our Art in the Office program showcases the work of local artists on a rotating basis. The Victoria Sketch Club will be on display until the end of May.

Art is an essential part of our community. It has the power to enrich our lives and promote greater connection and understanding between people. I'd like to thank the Victoria Sketch Club for their commitment to share their work with our community, making Victoria an even richer place to live.

K. Whittred: I rise today to bring congratulations from this House to the city of North Vancouver, celebrating its 100th anniversary. The city of North Vancouver was incorporated May 13, 1907, with official ceremonies following on July 1.

The city of North Vancouver was originally known as the ambitious city set to rival Vancouver as the economic hub at that time. North Vancouver began as Moodyville in the 1800s, when Sewell Prescott Moody purchased a local mill. This was followed by the North Vancouver Land and Improvement Co., which bought up most of the land which defines the current city. The North Vancouver Land and Improvement Co. planned a beautiful city of gracious boulevards, today being developed as the Green Necklace.

During World War I North Vancouver's shipbuilding industry, pioneered by the Wallace Shipyards, thrived. The famous St. Roch schooner was built at Burrard Drydock. The city commemorated this with the

naming of the St. Roch Dock located at the former Burrard Dry Dock at the foot of Lonsdale.

During World War II the city of North Vancouver had an abundance of work. More than 100 ships were built on the North Vancouver waterfront. For the first time, women were a major factor in the workforce, with hundreds of women working in shipbuilding.

In 1925 North Vancouver and the lower mainland were linked with the Second Narrows Bridge. This was followed by the Lions Gate, opened in 1938. The first SeaBus came into existence in 1977, making the connection from the city of Vancouver to the city of North Vancouver much easier.

I look forward to the many events taking place in my community this year, and to have this opportunity to look back through our history as the city continues to grow into its future.

C. Trevena: I'd like to talk to the House about Child Care Month. May is the start of Child Care Month, which is a month that should be a cause for celebration. Unfortunately, in B.C. there is really too little to celebrate. There are thousands of hard-working child care workers, and we should celebrate them. They're working for $10 to $15 an hour with a huge amount of responsibility and very long days.

There are many excellent child care centres in group settings and in family homes which give our infants and toddlers a great start in life, and we should celebrate those this month, but that is about it. We should be in a position to celebrate the availability of child care spaces for every family that needs one. We should be in a position to celebrate an affordable, accessible system, but sadly, at the moment that's not the case. Spaces are short, and trained professional staff are leaving the workforce.

I'd like to read to the House a letter to the editor from a parent published in the Nelson Daily News. It's about an early childhood educator who is leaving her job to work as a tree planter.

This is not an isolated case across the province. Early childhood educators are leaving the profession. I know of another ECE worker who is working in a clothing store. Another found she'd earn more looking after dogs than looking after children. Is it a wonder that there aren't enough spaces for the parents desperate to find a place for their children?

R. Cantelon: Recently a third team from Nanaimo won a provincial championship. The Nanaimo Clippers, coached by Bill Bestwick, won the B.C. Junior Hockey League championship. This, on top of the Dover Bay Dolphins high school triple-A tournament championship recently and the Vancouver Island Raiders, brought to a total of three the number of teams that have won championships. All of these were last-second, heart-stopping victories. But I quickly add that those with heart conditions in this chamber need not reach for their nitro pills. I'm not going to do a play-by-play today.

However, I think that based on these victories, Nanaimo can legitimately lay claim to being the city of champions. The inspiration of these athletes, the young children, to dream the big dream to become champions, has had a real effect on our youth. But they're more than champions on the playing fields or on the ice rinks or on the hardwood. They're champions of all worthy causes in Nanaimo. Leading the cheers at every fundraising event, they'll be there. There are many more sports at which Nanaimoites have excelled, from baseball to soccer and volleyball. Recently I attended a U-12 girls tournament where my daughter Abigail is competing, both at Gordon Head and Saltspring. In both cases, again, they emerged champions.

One of things at these events that I learned is how good the coaching is — the volunteer coaching and the professional coaching — to instil a sense of sportsmanship in all of the teams. Healthy eating is part of it, too, during the breaks. The minister of broccoli would be happy to learn that indeed during the breaks the U-12 soccer girls were eating broccoli — quite happily, it would seem.

I'd like to say, from the parents who get up at the crack of dawn or well before the crack of dawn to take their children to the rink, from the parents who stand in the rain at soccer games, from the fans who support their teams, to the coaches…. I think that all of our community has enthusiastically supported all of their athletes and are very worthy of the title of community of champions.

M. Farnworth: Members of this House have commented that it is May, and that can mean only one thing in Port Coquitlam. That is our annual May Day, which will be taking place on the 13th of May, on the weekend.

It's a celebration of our community that goes back to the very beginnings of our community back in 1913. It's a celebration that has all the best of what the history of our community has been about: celebrating the traditions of the original settlers. It's combined over the years the traditions of people who have moved into our community to make it the vibrant place that it is.

It has such traditional things as maypole dancing, which has young people from all the schools in our

community participating in a much-attended event. As well, we have a traditional May Queen. The tradition goes back to 1923, and in keeping with the changes in times we also have the May Day ambassador. These two young people go out from the city of Port Coquitlam to other communities and let other communities know what a great community Port Coquitlam is.

On the weekend of the 13th of May, for those of you who are looking to see something unique and a little different, in Port Coquitlam we have the second-oldest continuing May Day parade and May Day celebration in the province. I can see my colleague from New Westminster looking at me. Yes, we know that New Westminster has the oldest, but Port Coquitlam has the second-oldest, and it is every bit as good.

It is great because it's a testament to the community, to the volunteers that make it such a unique occasion. To the volunteers, principals, teachers — such as Glen Macdonald, who kept the maypole tradition alive in Port Coquitlam during the '60s and has passed on that tradition to community volunteers…. They truly have made it the celebration of the year in Port Coquitlam.

I invite everybody to come to Port Coquitlam on the 13th of May and join us in our annual May Day celebration.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 50 grade 5 students visiting here from Pacific Academy in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them are their teacher Rick Bath and Mrs. Nancy Bakken as well as 30 parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedule to bring the students. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the majority report of the Independent Commission to Review MLA Compensation pursuant to the commission's terms of reference announced on January 30, 2007. Copies of the report are available now in my office, the Speaker's office, or the Clerk of Committees office.

C. James: Under the Premier's own rules, officials like Mr. Dobell are supposed to wait one full year before accepting other contracts that could put them in a potential conflict. Last week Jessica McDonald, the Premier's deputy, defended that policy. She said it was necessary to "protect the integrity of confidential information." Despite those words, we know Mr. Dobell was excused from the rules, and now the Premier's office is covered in a cloud of potential conflict.

My question is to the Attorney General. We know Mr. Dobell was excused from these rules. How many other senior civil servants have been excused from this conflict rule?

Hon. M. de Jong: The opposition leader should choose her language a little more carefully. The guidelines were applied. They do apply, and they continue to apply. This individual, Mr. Dobell, has for almost 40 years been a respected public servant. He has abided by the guidelines that were in place for departing senior managers.

In fact, those guidelines were specifically enhanced in the contracts that were signed. They were specifically enhanced. Mr. Dobell and the contracting parties specifically turned their minds to the possibility of potential conflicts. He got advice from a former chief justice. The matter was considered by three deputy ministers — the deputy to the Premier, the Deputy Attorney General and the deputy responsible for the public service.

The hon. opposition leader rejects that advice and rejects those opinions. We do not.

C. James: Well, I'd suggest that those on the other side actually listen to the question, because this wasn't about Mr. Dobell. This was about the Premier. This was about the Premier's own rules that state a one-year cooling-off period.

Mr. Dobell only waited ten months. Mike Marasco, a former vice-president of Partnerships B.C., only waited six months. He resigned from Partnerships B.C. and immediately took a position with the Plenary Group, a firm that regularly bids on Partnerships B.C. contracts.

He was barred from participating in Partnerships B.C. bids for only six months — half the time required by the Premier's own standards. The Premier's one-year policy was put in place to protect the integrity of information and protect conflict of interest. So my question, again to the Attorney General: why is no one in government following the Premier's own set of rules?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the opposition leader is right about one thing. There is a set of guidelines. I've got them here.

Hon. M. de Jong: I suspect the members opposite are as disinterested in them today as they were when

How is it that, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition seeks to build a question and yet another assault on an individual around the guidelines, but she neglects to refer to the very section that would have relevance to how those guidelines are applied in circumstances where there can be a reduction in the one-year limitation — part of the guidelines? On the one hand, she seeks to rely on these guidelines, but typical of this opposition, she gives us an incomplete, inaccurate and completely misleading notion of what is in the guidelines.

C. James: Perhaps my question should have been: how many people have actually followed the one-year rule, since it appears to be nobody? Ken Dobell and Mike Marasco aren't the only ones who've been excused from this policy.

In 2006 Richard Turner became the director of Mobile Lottery systems, a company that promotes and develops high-tech gambling. Only seven months earlier he was chair of B.C. Lottery Corporation. Mr. Turner went from a Crown corporation to a private firm in seven months.

Six months, seven months, ten months, one year. Again to the Attorney General: is anyone in government following the Premier's own rules?

Hon. M. de Jong: A desperate leader making desperate and unsubstantiated allegations in a desperate attempt to direct attention away from the problems she's having internally within her organization. That's what….

Hon. M. de Jong: Remember that lofty idealism we heard not so long ago from this Leader of the Opposition, who said: "I want to conduct politics differently"? Well, that lofty idealism has yet again given way to desperate attacks by a desperate leader more interested in character assassination than she is in legitimate debate in this chamber.

J. Horgan: You know, when the minister of defence is on his feet day after day, that they've got some serious trouble over there in motor city.

My question is to the Attorney General. I appreciate that the facts pattern seems to be inconsistent with the reality over on that side, but last time I looked at a calendar, 12 months was one year — not ten months for Mr. Dobell, not six months for Mr. Marasco, not seven months for Mr. Turner, but 12 full months.

My question to the Attorney General is: can we get a commitment from him that this elastic ethics code will be turned into a legislative covenant with the people of B.C. to protect the public interest, in this session before we rise?

Hon. M. de Jong: What a remarkable assertion. What a remarkable statement from the representative of a party that never had any guidelines. Can you imagine that? They never had any guidelines. What a remarkable assertion from the representative of a party who has demonstrated time and time again in this chamber that they're not interested in the facts.

When a respected public servant actually abides by them, actually takes the time to consult with a former chief justice of the province, what do we hear from over there? "It doesn't matter. That doesn't fit with our notion of the conspiracy. We much prefer to make things up." That's what they're doing. There are guidelines. They're in place, they're being followed, and we're proud of that on this side of the House.

J. Horgan: …to the Attorney General. Citizens of British Columbia have seen how effective the guidelines that are currently in place have been with respect to B.C. Liberals and insiders. We want to know on this side of the House and British Columbians around this province want to know that there's a legislative prohibition to using your inside influence after you leave the public service.

My question to the minister: will he table legislation before this House rises to ensure that happens? If he doesn't have any, I've got a piece right over here. You're welcome to it.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, we've seen it here yet again, Mr. Speaker. Take a few names, pull out a few names, disregard the facts, disregard the years of dedicated service, make some assertions in this chamber that no one is prepared to back up out in the hallway, make some allegations and spin this web of conspiracy.

There are guidelines, and they are being followed. That's what distinguishes this side of the House from that side of the House. We said there would be guidelines. The guidelines are in place. They're being followed, they're being enforced, and that's the way it should be.

M. Karagianis: Last Thursday in the House the Attorney General told us: "If there is a conflict of interest and if there is a violation of the Lobbyists Registration Act, that is surely something that the fact-finding review will tell us."

By Friday morning, Mr. Loukidelis sent out a statement from his office that said that his office has not been empowered or requested by the Legislature or the government to investigate conflict-of-interest allegations against Mr. Dobell.

So my question to the Attorney General is quite simple. Is he wrong, or is Mr. Loukidelis wrong?

Hon. M. de Jong: I would have thought that the member, if she didn't hear the response clearly yesterday, would have taken the time to read Hansard. The member….

Hon. M. de Jong: Apparently, they don't want to hear the answer today either, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. M. de Jong: If the member is having difficulty with the notion of understanding the jurisdiction that Mr. Loukidelis takes in his capacity as Privacy Commissioner and registrar pursuant to the Lobbyists Registration Act, we'll be happy to walk her through it.

I would have thought that she would have taken advantage of that very special legal resource that we've heard alluded to in the past. She has her own legal counsel that is advising her. Maybe she should ask it, if she doesn't want to accept the word of the members on this side of the House.

M. Karagianis: I would certainly suggest to that member that perhaps he walk the Attorney General through those roles first.

The Finance Minister and the Premier categorized the independent investigation into Mr. Taylor's activities as the result of an abundance of caution. Surely the issues arising out of Mr. Dobell's many intertwined roles in contracts call for an equal abundance of caution.

To the Attorney General: out of an abundance of caution, will he today call for an independent investigation into the activities of Mr. Dobell?

Hon. M. de Jong: I appreciate, again, that the hon. member seems to be having some difficulty coming to grips with the roles played by various officials — statutory officers of this House.

In the case of Mr. Taylor, the issue involved an e-mail produced by a third party. While it was deemed to have no merit, it was also deemed wise and, because of the issues raised, worthy of further review.

In the case involving Mr. Dobell, the individual responsible for reviewing the matter is the deputy to the Premier. In addition, we know that that individual consulted with the Deputy Attorney General, the deputy responsible for the Public Service Agency. And Mr. Dobell himself had the benefit of advice from a former chief justice of British Columbia.

Now, the member may take the view that none of that is satisfactory, and she may reject the benefit of all that advice. We do not. We believe that the people have acted responsibly and have conducted themselves in full accord.

C. Wyse: Vancouver has a paid lobbyist with a desk in the Premier's office to lobby government on its issues. Besides Vancouver, there are five other local governments that have registered lobbyists: Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, North Vancouver, Squamish and Whistler. None of these local governments has a desk for their lobbyists in the Premier's office.

My question: in the sense of fairness and equal opportunities for those local governments, will the Minister of Community Services ask the Premier whether there is enough space for five additional desks in his office?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. Look, the member may be offended by the notion that a longtime, respected public servant is continuing to provide service to the province, is continuing to render service to the Premier of British Columbia. That does not offend me. The fact that it is being done in full compliance with the guidelines and the requirements….

You know what else, Mr. Speaker? We're actually proud of the fact, on this side of the House, that we have a strong relationship with communities right across the province. When we made a pledge — a promise — to return to those communities 50 percent of their fine revenues, you know what we did? We didn't just keep the promise; we doubled it and returned all of the fine revenues.

C. Wyse: I do, Mr. Speaker. There are dozens of local governments in B.C. that do not have lobbyists — or a content consultant, if you prefer. Also in a sense of fairness and equal opportunity, how will the Minister of Community Services ensure that these local governments get their desk into the Premier's office to ensure that they have the Premier's attention?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's only because I know that it was inadvertent and that the member didn't mean to mislead the House. But actually, all of those communities he referred to…. They've got the best lobbyists in town. They're government B.C. Liberal MLAs. That's who they are.

L. Krog: Yesterday former Finance Minister Gary Collins asked the RCMP to release surveillance materials surrounding his meetings with Omnitrax officials. He wants the public to have all the information. The government still refuses to come clean on its part in the B.C. Rail deal. We know that the B.C. Liberal caucus and cabinet members were on a committee charged with overseeing negotiations. What we don't know is what role that group had in the Omnitrax deal.

To the Attorney General: will the government follow the advice of the former Finance Minister and release any and all reports or minutes from that committee so British Columbians can finally know what role the government had in that scandal?

Hon. W. Oppal: We know one thing. That member reads the morning Province and knows all about the trial that's going on in Vancouver. Good to rely on the Province to do your research for you. The fact is that this arises….

Hon. W. Oppal: I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, it would have been obvious to that member, who is a member of the bar, that it would be improper for us to comment on matters — that applications are made before the Supreme Court by Mr. Collins's counsel for release of that information. All of that arises out of the Supreme Court trial.

L. Krog: With the greatest respect to the Attorney General, might I suggest that instead of giving legal advice to us, he take political advice from the predecessor Minister of Finance in this issue. The simple fact is…

L. Krog: …that whether or not that trial continues or disappears tomorrow has no impact on the government's ability to release the information that's been asked for, which leads me to my next question. Why doesn't the government release the information? What does the government have to hide in this issue?

Hon. W. Oppal: Hon. Speaker, you know, when it comes to protecting the sanctity of the courts and understanding the role of the courts, I don't take anyone's advice.

B. Ralston: The Attorney General has used the doctrine of sub judice — that is, a matter before the courts

— to refrain from answering questions that have been raised in this House. But his standard, I would say, is more flexible than he's prepared to let on. On April 25, in response to a question from the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, he appeared to weigh the evidence and came up with the answer that the question was premised on what he called baseless allegations.

Now, that's a carefully considered pronouncement by the Attorney General of the province here in the Legislature. Perhaps he knows something more than he's been willing to share so far. Can the Attorney General explain how his review of the available evidence has led him to a conclusion that he so obviously has taken based on the evidence?

Hon. W. Oppal: At the time, I was giving some legal advice to the member. What I was saying was that…. I think that the member….

Hon. W. Oppal: I would have thought that the member, who has been in one or two courtrooms during his career, would know that often lawyers make allegations that are baseless until the trial judge makes them factual. I mean, that's the way the process works. I would have thought that he'd know that. I wasn't commenting on the evidence at all. I was commenting on the procedure that follows in our courtrooms.

B. Ralston: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney General dismissed the premise of the question based on his interpretation of the facts. He knows more about the facts than he's prepared to let on, apparently.

My question is to the Attorney General. Why is this interpretation of sub judice the one that he prefers, when in the British House of Commons the Speaker said that the presumption should be for discussion rather than against it?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think the member well knows that we do not comment on those matters that are presently before the courts. I'm not going to comment on the allegations that are made before the courts.

H. Lali: Will the Attorney General confirm today that there are no other present or former B.C. Liberal MLAs or present or former senior B.C. Liberal officials or former B.C. Liberal candidates who have been or are being investigated by the RCMP for giving or accepting bribes related to the Liberal government's B.C. Rail corruption scandal?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't know whether to laugh or take that question seriously. That is flawed in about 49 different ways.

We don't comment on investigations or potential investigations. We do not comment on investigations or potential investigations. That's fundamental rule number one.

C. Puchmayr: On March 15 the Labour Minister said that action will be taken fairly soon to address farmworker safety. That was six weeks ago. It's now been almost two months since the horrific accident on Highway 1 that killed three women farmworkers and injured 13 others.

Will the minister commit today to implement the measures proposed to her and do so expeditiously?

Hon. O. Ilich: You know, the members opposite ask about the investigations that are ongoing and are trying to characterize us as not caring, and that's simply not true. We acted immediately. We took immediate action to deal with the issue. We know that the issues are very serious. We continue to work very hard on the proposals that we're looking at. We want to make sure that whatever we do, we get it right.

C. Puchmayr: It was almost four years ago when a similar accident killed a woman farmworker on Highway 1 as well — four years. The coroner's inquest made recommendations to this government. They did not act on those recommendations — four years ago, and the government did not act on those recommendations.

Will the minister commit now to proceed with urgency on this matter before more farmworkers are killed going to and from work?

Hon. O. Ilich: I have stated that we are working on this — that we want to make sure that we get it right. We do take the issue very seriously, and we continue to look at all of the things that we can do to make workers safe in the province.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 20, School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, and in Committee A, for the information of members, Committee of Supply — the continued estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 20; S. Hammell in the chair.

D. Cubberley: I appreciate the indulgence to get my scattered paper rescattered around me so that I know what I have to deal with.

Prior to the break, we were dealing with a matter of the early learning programs and had considerable discussion about the setup of this opening of early learning to school districts and then the closure of it via the clause (b) under definition. This essentially restricts it to programs that would involve parental attendance.

We have, I believe, established through discussion — it wasn't contradicted by the minister — that the StrongStart program can be funded without language in the bill that would restrict early learning programs to parent-accompanied programs. In fact, our understanding is that without legislation, StrongStart is already in the field and is up and running at many schools. So this part of the bill, this part of the definition can't be claimed as a necessity in order to enable StrongStart programs, because they already exist.

In looking at it, we have tried to draw attention to the fact that this program, which is a valuable program…. No one on this side of the House would disagree with the fact that it is a valuable intervention. The language in definition needlessly restricts early learning programs to parent-accompanied or to programs that involve someone who is endorsed as a care provider to accompany a child in the stead of a parent.

We have also been concerned to make the point that this restricts early learning programs to programs which, by their very nature, can only address a very tiny minority of families. We are absolutely loath to believe that those families are the generators of the 11,000 kids who do not graduate from school or the unknown number of kids who are passed through with low literacy. Early learning programs are, in fact, a very valuable direction in trying to address that population.

We want to give the government a chance to reconsider on this matter, so I'm going to attempt again — I was unsuccessful in the past — to move an amendment to the bill that would strike clause (b) from the definition of early learning programs.

D. Cubberley: Just speaking to the amendment, I think we've laid out a case on this which is plausible for striking this section of the bill. I think what this is doing in actual fact is needlessly trying to fetter school districts — to send a message to them that they cannot be directly involved in other forms of pre-K, other than the one endorsed form. I think there are substantive reasons why you would not try to restrict and fetter school districts in that manner.

I simply want to make a plea for the minister to consider this. She can do everything that she intends to do. In fact, she could do it under the existing legislative framework.

She is doing it already. StrongStart is up and running. Other programs could be. The power of control essentially lies in the willingness of the ministry to fund. School districts don't have bags of money that they could simply invest in elaborating other program areas. I have not heard an argument from the government side as to why this needs to be as prescriptive as it is.

Hon. S. Bond: Speaking to the amendment, which we do not support…. In fact, the reason that we're actually carrying on with StrongStart programs at the moment is that we started with them as pilots. There were 16 to begin with. They are underway with an agreement with the minister. Those were for a limited period of time.

We think it's a program that has been embraced across the province. It does not preclude school boards from continuing with partnerships and offering a wide variety of options within their school district.

C. Trevena: I would like to support the amendment. We are talking about the amendment on removing section (b). I'd like to support that because many people are unable to take their children to child care. They're unable to spend those three hours with their children in a StrongStart position. They need to be out earning a living. They need to be working. Having that very fixed designation that early childhood education and these programs are linked to having parents in attendance for the three-hour drop-in is really a retrograde step that will exclude many parents and many children.

While some of the StrongStart elements are very good, this is a very damaging one. I would support the amendment that my colleague from Saanich South has put.

D. Cubberley: The next piece in the definition section that we want to ask a couple of questions about is the definition of literacy, which the bill says "means the ability to understand and employ printed information in daily activities, at home, at work and in the community."

We're interested in knowing why the minister settled upon this definition of literacy. This is a definition that appears typically in relation to assessment of literacy, and I would ask why this one was chosen as opposed to any of the other definitions of literacy that might be out there.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, there are probably dozens if not hundreds of definitions of literacy. What we believe on this side of the House is that being able to read is a fundamental principle of seeing improved student achievement. That's why we've focused on this.

Our goal is to see student achievement improve, and we think one of the key ways of doing that is making sure that students can actually read well.

D. Cubberley: Typically, in using a definition of literacy of this kind — as we heard in the Education Committee — this form of definition of literacy is usually evaluated against four domains, one of which is problem-solving. In fact, the people who do this kind of assessment — and who spoke to us on the Education Committee about adult literacy — never put forward the definition without putting a comma at the end of it and saying "assessed in four domains," one of which is problem-solving.

The reason I raise this is because I believe it's important to retain some connection to cognitive activity that is not simply based on facts and that involves an ability, shall we say, to comprehend and to think. So the lack of a connection to that is something which…. I'm interested in hearing why that choice was made. It's been decoupled from the four domains.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, that's not accurate. When you read the definition, it says "means the ability to understand and employ printed information in daily activities…."

D. Cubberley: Well, thank you for that. It still suggests to me that it is a technical definition, as opposed to a definition that would relate, say, more directly to the preamble's commitment to the whole person. It's not simply because it has no poetry to it, which it doesn't have. It isn't simply that.

The commitment in the preamble is to enable people "to become personally fulfilled and publicly useful" and "to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy, democratic and pluralistic society and a prosperous and sustainable economy" — very, very good language. Why would we not have chosen something a little bit more along these lines, just out of interest: "Literacy is the ability to read, write, communicate and comprehend"?

Hon. S. Bond: As I indicated to the member opposite — the member opposite has read out another definition of literacy — there are multiple definitions of literacy. What we wanted to do was clearly articulate the fact that the ability to read and understand is foundational for student success. That's why the definition is described the way it is.

D. Cubberley: I will pass on to others who will have their perspective on this, but I do want to reiterate that literacy, as it's defined in the bill, doesn't adequately capture the terms "communicate" or "problem-solve."

I believe that "problem-solve" is explicitly mentioned in the domains that are used to assess technical literacy. I have some concerns about that not being in there, because you could be evaluating people for literacy based on a technical definition and be missing these important domains in the way that they're evaluated.

Problem-solving is a more complex skill and a little less amenable to FSA-style testing than verbal ability or mathematical ability might be. I ask for a response on that.

Hon. S. Bond: We believe that learning to read, to understand, and then using that skills set and employing it through "printed information in daily activities" can absolutely encompass what the member opposite has stood up and asked about. But learning to read well and learning to understand is foundational and fundamental.

G. Coons: Thank you for the opportunity to look at this definition. In the debate the other day, a lot of members had concerns that literacy is not just a functional ability to read and write. It's fundamentally about participation and being able to take an active part in society, and it's important.

I understand that this government is the lead province in the pan-Canadian literacy strategy that's being developed by the Council of Ministers of Education. Is this definition that you have in this legislation the definition that the pan-Canadian literacy strategy adopted?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we are the lead province in terms of literacy in this country, and it's a record we're very proud of. We actually worked hard to bring this to the table, the federal-provincial-territorial table, and said that if there's one thing that ministers — no matter what political stripe they represent — should be able to agree on is that literacy is critical to the success of this country. We're very proud of our record at the federal-provincial-territorial table.

We have had two sessions working on adult literacy and on early literacy. To my knowledge we have not endorsed a particular definition, as provinces across this country are still grappling with that. Certainly, if that information is something that the member opposite has or would like to share, we're happy to

look at that. We've done a lot of work as the lead province. It's a record, as I've said, that we're very proud of.

G. Coons: This is information the deputy minister brought out in some of his reports, which I get copies of, about being part of the pan-Canadian literacy strategy. I believe it was in some reports that went out. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

I believe that at this point in time the pan-Canadian literacy strategy encourages politicians to look at decisions though a literacy lens — that's a quote — and look at being an advocate for literacy. I think this definition falls short of this government's role in advocating for literacy throughout the province and ensuring that our public education system is on the right track.

I'm wondering: in this definition, did you do any first nations consultation as far as developing this definition of literacy?

Hon. S. Bond: We haven't had any specific discussion with our aboriginal partners on the definition of literacy.

For the member opposite to be asking what this government's role has been, this is the first government that has actually created a cross-ministry literacy strategy that has provided leadership nationally on this topic. Premiers, led by our Premier, actually created a literacy award that is given across the country, province by province by province. We've invested over $100 million in literacy initiatives in this government, and we intend to continue to work on that and continue to move that forward.

The bottom line is that this definition simply says this. Learning to read and being able to understand what you read is essential to being successful as a student.

G. Coons: As far as looking at learners throughout this province and looking at graduation rates and at the concerns with first nations aboriginal graduation rates, I would have thought that the minister or staff would have consulted and brought in and encompassed the communications with first nations. Again, we look at the importance of oral history, of storytelling; of traditional knowledge — whether it's historical, ecological, cultural, spiritual — and the holistic approach.

It was brought to the minister's attention, I think last week, about a definition of literacy in Quebec where: "Literacy is a complex set of abilities needed to understand and use the dominant symbol systems of a culture…. However a culture defines it, literacy touches every aspect of individual and community life."

I'm just wondering: with this definition, is the minister prepared to go out and — I guess, after the fact — communicate with first nations and try to get some input into the importance of their cultural, historical and oral traditions as far as our definition of literacy?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, this is a government that has been working with first nations leaders across this province and country to actually try as desperately as we can to close the gap that's unacceptable for aboriginal students in this province.

The bill that we're debating today, where apparently learning to read and understand may not be foundational enough for the members opposite…. Let's be clear. The intent of trying to improve student achievement is to actually stand up and admit that 47 percent in terms of a completion rate for aboriginal students is not acceptable. We are saying in this House today that we need to look at change in the system, and that's what this bill incorporates.

D. Chudnovsky: I note that the minister has described the ability to read and write in the debate so far as foundational, essential and fundamental. She's also suggested that those on this side don't think that learning to read and write is fundamental, essential or foundational. That couldn't be further from the truth, and I don't know how the minister could have drawn that conclusion.

My question to the minister is: does the absence of arithmetic or mathematical computation in the definition of literacy indicate that it is the minister's view that arithmetic and mathematical calculation is somehow not foundational, essential or fundamental?

D. Chudnovsky: What reasoning was used by the minister and the ministry in excluding mathematical or arithmetic computation from the definition of literacy?

Hon. S. Bond: What we're attempting to do with Bill 20 is actually make sure that we improve student results in British Columbia. In the discussions that we've had across this province, we recognize that preliteracy skills are essential to success. We also know that there are 40 percent of British Columbians who have the inability to read a prescription or a bus schedule.

From our perspective, it's not about not doing other things. It's about articulating a specific course and strategy that says that one of the things that's essential to success for our students and, in fact, for our adults — for all British Columbians — is the ability to read and to understand. That's why we've chosen to focus this strategy.

It certainly does not mean that numeracy is not important, that communication skills are not important, that looking at technology and how we utilize that is not important. We're simply saying that we believe British Columbia's children need to be able to read well to understand and to employ printed information in every aspect of their lives.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister would agree with me, would she not, that in an act promulgated in a province that has a responsibility for public education, the definition of literacy that's included in that act is foundational, essential and fundamental?

Hon. S. Bond: I've answered the question, but I will answer it one more time. We believe that learning to

read — and learning to read and understand — is foundational as are numerous other skills that children in this province learn every day. One of the fundamental building blocks is learning to read and learning to understand, and that's why we've chosen to use that definition in this bill.

D. Chudnovsky: Would the minister say that numeracy — or arithmetic and mathematical computation — is not one of the fundamental building blocks of literacy?

Hon. S. Bond: Of course there are numerous fundamental skills. The point of using the word "literacy" here is recognizing that preliteracy skills, in particular, make a significant difference in a child's readiness when they arrive at the kindergarten door. We have simply articulated that, in terms of our strategy and the expectations around school districts to improve student achievement, a primary focus will be on learning to read.

D. Chudnovsky: Like I said in the debate, who thinks up this stuff? What about speaking and listening skills? Are they less foundational or fundamental than reading and writing skills?

Hon. S. Bond: Learning to read and understand is essential, as are numerous other skills that take place when our children are taught in classrooms throughout our province. That will continue. We're simply saying that as we move forward to improve achievement results in British Columbia, learning to read and to understand is essential, along with numerous other skills that will take place as our teachers work in classrooms every day.

D. Chudnovsky: What about visual and media literacy skills? Are they less foundational and fundamental than reading and writing skills?

D. Chudnovsky: What about critical thinking skills and problem-solving skills? Are they less fundamental and foundational than reading and writing skills?

D. Cubberley: Just a couple of remarks in conclusion on this. I think the point we're trying to make is that it's a little thin as a definition. It doesn't link well to the commitments in the preamble around public education. It probably lends itself relatively well to rolling over into testing of one kind or another. We would be happier if there was more emphasis both on communication and on either comprehension or problem-solving, given the importance of those in the working world and the fact that literacy skills are ultimately going to be assessed against those domains.

Part of the reason for this is that the commitment in the preamble we take seriously, in that it is to the whole person and freeing the capacities that are within every individual to flourish, both within a democratic society and within the economy as an employable person who can become a self-responsible person. All of those are important, and it's important to keep our definitions lined up with that commitment.

But there's another practical aspect, if I think about the questions asked about numeracy. British Columbia has somewhere in the order of a million adults who are low literate, but interestingly, if we look at the scale of rating for averages in terms of literacy and numeracy, we are actually more challenged in terms of numeracy. That is, we are further off the mark in our low-numeracy adults than we are even in our low-literacy adults. So there is some importance to trying to make visible things other than reading printed information.

I think we've canvassed that, and we may have to agree to differ on that section, but we'll move on from there.

D. Cubberley: This section begins the introduction of the substantive powers that are being granted to a superintendent of achievement, and this one has to do with the introduction of an appeal process which doesn't currently exist. This is one of the larger departures in the legislation from the existing system, so we're interested to hear what led to the decision to create an additional court of appeal from school district decisions.

Hon. S. Bond: I think what led to it was ongoing discussions with parents who have said…. They frequently contact the ministry and speak to me personally about extraordinary circumstances — not day-to-day decision-making, not about where a student is in a classroom or those kinds of decisions, although those are challenging as well. But certainly from time to time, there are parents who feel as if they have not had due process.

There may not have been the opportunity that they would have preferred to have, and when it impacts the life of their child, it's a pretty important circumstance. In my visits around the province to almost 50 school districts, visiting at parent meetings…. From that perspective, this respects a parent's right to make sure that they have due process.

D. Cubberley: So the minister's suggestion is that parents don't have due process with the existing section 11 decision and appeal process.

Hon. S. Bond: No, I didn't say that. What I said was this. From time to time during the process that sees a significant result for a student in this province, there may be a situation where due process was not followed. It's not unthinkable or unreasonable to expect that despite the most perfect circumstances and perfect processes, occasionally there might be a circumstance worthy of just making sure that the parent — and more importantly, the student — has had due process. That's what this recognizes.

D. Cubberley: Given the nature of the types of decisions that locally elected school districts have to make from time to time, we know that many of those are agonizing decisions. They're difficult choices, and we sometimes read about those in the newspaper — very difficult choices for boards to make.

There is, as I understand it, an appeal process from a decision made by the board. My question would be: is there some pattern of appeals that are faulty or flawed in the way that they're being handled in the current setup that provides a rationale — something more than what a parent may have said to you at a meeting that they would like to see?

For example, did trustees come forward and tell you that they see something wrong with the process and that they would prefer to have this opportunity created for someone who is unelected to decide to hear an appeal?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the concern we hear is expressed directly from parents to suggest that there are times that they believe they have not had every opportunity for due process in their child's circumstances.

Let's look at the parameters of this before we spend hours debating what this looks like. This is not about day-to-day decision-making, and it's not about every decision. It isn't even about overturning agonizing decisions that school boards have made. It's about when, occasionally, there may be an instance where a parent or a student feels that they haven't had due process.

This process will be set up so that a superintendent of achievement can sit down and listen to those concerns. In fact, if the parent has not gone through the appeal process created by the board of trustees, they would be advised to go back and follow the process that's in place. It gives us the opportunity to reaffirm processes that are in place and make sure that those processes have been followed.

There may well be an extraordinary circumstance in this province where a parent has not had the opportunity or has not had — in their view and certainly after a review — due process. We're simply saying this is an avenue that would allow that to be considered.

D. Cubberley: I'm not the person most conversant with the School Act in the province. I'll readily admit that. But if the minister understood that somebody had been denied due process through an appeal process, probably the minister has an ability to intervene.

I mean, being denied due process is pretty strong. Not getting the decision that you hoped for might be a much more frequent occurrence because in every situation where a choice has to be made, there's going to be someone who is relatively satisfied with the choice and someone who is not. That's the nature of local decision-making. It's built into the situation.

I want to ask a couple of questions here. The minister said this is for use in very, very restricted circumstances, but nothing that I see in the legislation gives me any comfort that it would be used in restricted circumstances. What would restrict the circumstances, as this bill is written?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in the bill it actually says that appeals to the superintendent are subject to the regulations, so the member opposite is correct. In fact, the scope of the appeal process will be determined by regulation. That is exactly what we met with boards and superintendents about yesterday — to work through this process, to say: "Tell us the issues that concern you. Tell us where you think this may or may not be appropriate."

We have made a commitment to the B.C. School Trustees Association. I think one of the members opposite certainly was there when I spoke to the entire gathering of trustees to say exactly that. Before this moves forward, we will discuss the regulatory process and what the scope looks like. That's exactly what we've committed to discuss with trustees.

D. Cubberley: Well, I had the opportunity to attend sometime after the minister had spoken, so I did have an opportunity to speak with those trustees who cared to come up to me and talk about the issue. My leader happened to be there doing a presentation on the same day, and she referenced some of the aspects of the legislation that we are less comfortable with than the government side is.

I didn't get any sense at all from the trustees that they were particularly assuaged by anything that was said at that meeting. I also believe it's correct to say that a motion was passed requesting that the bill be withdrawn, after the minister had spoken to the audience. I know the minister is trying to reassure, but I fail to see that people are being reassured. I think they have very deep concern about this.

Once again, it's all well and good to say: "There will be regulations, and the regulations will hem things in." Essentially, to translate that out of bill language, that's to say: "Trust us. We'll put a fence around it."

The problem is that it's not the job of the House — I do not believe — to afford any minister at any time broad-ranging powers where someone is suggesting that later on we'll try and rein those in so they can't run amok. That's not a good argument. In fact, it's not a good process, and it's not something that I think we should be endorsing.

If there's to be a regulatory framework that's to constrain what superintendents of achievement are going to do — and these are not elected people, so there is really no way for anybody to get at them — that should either be embedded in some sense here or be running in tandem with the bill so that there's a clear message to people about what it will be. Even so, I think putting it in regulation doesn't mean that it can't be changed by the next person or later.

I have serious concerns with that, and I do not believe that the broad-ranging concern on the part of trustees…. These are trustees of every stamp. These are not in anybody's camp; they're in everybody's camp. They share a concern about establishing a new power without a rationale that stands up to anything they were aware of by way of a problem.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, just to clarify, I saw one of the members opposite protesting about what I actually said. What I said when I was at the B.C. School Trustees Association was in fact not: "Trust us." I said: "Work with us." In fact, that's what took place yesterday.

The meeting that we held yesterday had been committed to prior to meeting with the B.C. School Trustees Association in a historic meeting, according to the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association — which means the first time ever, not simply with this government. We brought trustees and superintendents together and walked through every line of this bill and other legislation that's before the House and said: "Let's talk about how, together, we shape the regulations."

So we didn't say: "Trust me." We said: "Work with us." We on this side of the House are going to stand up every time and make sure that a student is protected in this province, to ensure that in that rare and perhaps significant occasion that does not have the opportunity for due process…. This simply allows for us to make sure that comes first.

D. Chudnovsky: I wonder if the minister could tell us how many section 11 appeals are done now in a typical year by school boards.

D. Chudnovsky: That's perplexing, because it seems to me that that would drive one's expectation of the potential duties of the superintendents of achievement. That is to say, there are X number…. Let's say for the sake of argument that there are 100 School Act appeals under section 11 in a typical school year. So one would expect that some number up to 100 would be the number of potential appeals that would go to the superintendents of achievement.

It strikes me that somebody in the ministry must have thought this through as they were proposing the creation of these positions. Somebody must have said to themselves: "Well, there are a hundred" — or whatever the number is — "School Act appeals that go to the school boards in a year."

Some of them, when and if this provision passes, will come forward to the superintendents of achievement. It will take them — I don't know — ten, 12 or 20 hours to deal with each one of those. That will be part of their duties.

Somebody must have estimated all of that so that the minister was able to, in a responsible way, put forward a position in the bill. So did that calculation take place? What was it based on? What expectation does the minister have of the time that the superintendents of achievement will spend dealing with this issue?

Hon. S. Bond: We didn't use a mathematical formula. What we actually did was say that the most important people in the system in the province are students. If there is one student that does not receive fair or due process for whatever extraordinary circumstances, we care about that one student.

It's not about formulas. It's not about math. It's about students. They're going to stay at the centre of our agenda. While there may be some discomfort with how we manage that, at the end of the day they are our priority.

D. Chudnovsky: Perhaps the minister didn't understand my question, and I'm sorry if it wasn't clear enough. We'll get to the issue of due process in a second.

Clearly, the minister believes that there is reason to create these new positions, superintendents of achievement. One would have to not have visual and auditory literacy to lack the understanding that the minister believes that one of the tasks of these superintendents of achievement will be to deal with these next-step-from-section-11 appeals.

Clearly, the minister believes that, and she's entitled to her belief. My question has to do with her expectation as to the duties of these newly created positions. It's a completely reasonable question. The minister, in the legislation, creates a new position. I'm asking what her expectation is of what those people will do.

In the area, we have a lot of other duties that are laid out in the act, and we will get to them. I look forward to that. This question, which perhaps I didn't explain well enough, is: what's the expectation of the minister and the ministry as to how much time these superintendents of achievement might spend doing this part of their job?

I can't imagine that that's not a reasonable question, and I certainly can't imagine that somebody didn't talk about it at the ministry when they were creating the position.

Hon. S. Bond: I think the member opposite would know that we have an extraordinary staff in the Ministry of Education. I can only assume that the hard work they've done in contemplating this would have included all those kinds of things. But let's be clear. We are in the process of working with school boards to shape the process and determine the scope. I expect that the amount of time that superintendents of achievement would spend on this process would be minimal because for the vast, vast majority of decisions, they are appropriate. We have gone through that with school boards.

You know, from our perspective, we actually listen to parents when they come and say to us: "There is a concern…."

Hon. S. Bond: There is a concern that from time to time parents feel, first of all, intimidated by a system that is difficult for them to understand and work through. We hear that from the majority of parents. While the members opposite would like to suggest that maybe it's just a couple of people who have said that,

I'm absolutely certain they would agree that the system is intimidating for parents no matter how carefully we design that process.

Occasionally, parent feels they need some place to go, someone to listen to them to make sure they've been treated fairly, and that is the point of this process.

D. Chudnovsky: It's interesting that the minister would suggest to us that parents are often intimidated by the system. That's true, absolutely true. We need to, all of us, look to finding ways to help parents not be intimidated by the system.

It's interesting, though, that the minister would suggest that creating a new level of bureaucracy at the ministry level is going to make people less intimidated by the system. That's an interesting notion.

On the issue of due process, does the minister have any other examples? The use of the phrase "due process" is an interesting one. Can the minister give us other examples where due process is furthered by moving at the level of appeal from an elected and accountable arbiter to an unelected, unaccountable arbiter? Are there other examples she can point to?

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps the member opposite misses the point. The point is that parents face unbelievable, at times, intimidation and a feeling of: "Where do I go to have someone help me walk through this process to ensure that I've had every single possible opportunity to make sure that my child is served well and fairly?" That's what this allows.

D. Cubberley: Certainly, I think parents often do feel a significant sense of disappointment. One has only to think about the parents of special needs kids who wait far too long to have their children assessed or who find that they can't get the resources within the school system to support their children.

It's interesting that in all we hear in this House, we rarely hear any reference to that at all. In the view of this from the government side, there are more than enough resources in the system, so any problems in the system are the result of the failings of school districts in the appropriate allocation of those resources.

I have to say, candidly, I've only been doing this as critic for a while, for sure. But in the nine months since I've been the critic, I haven't had anybody approach me expressing concern about school district decisions and appeals. But I've had hundreds and hundreds of parents approach me about inadequate resources for their children in the classroom.

It's interesting to me where the sense of priority lies. I would have to say that the sense of priority seems to be largely misplaced. The faith in unelected people to perform better than elected people seems to me entirely misplaced in a ministry with a mandate that references the importance of democracy and educating citizens for effective participation in democracy.

I'd like to ask the minister. She mentioned that ex post facto she is beginning to engage in a dialogue with people about a regulatory framework that would put a fence around what the über-superintendents could do in this process. What would those regulations look like? How would you fashion a regulation that would begin to place a fence around them? What kinds of things would you say that you can look at or you can't look at?

Hon. S. Bond: What it means is that we would look at the scope and when that appeal process might actually be utilized. For example, would it be in serious disciplinary cases? That's exactly the discussion we would want to have and are having.

You know, hon. Chairperson, while I appreciate that there may be something with a catchphrase and using the word "über-superintendent," the fact of the matter is that the individuals we hope to have in those positions will be highly respected individuals who have years and years of experience in public education, who will work alongside school districts in this province. From my perspective these are people, we hope, that will have a great deal of credibility. It's unfortunate that it's characterized in that way.

As we've said, we are discussing with school boards the scope. In other words, when might this appeal process be applicable? We received some feedback yesterday. These are discussions that we have had in general conversations about making transformational change to education for over a year in this province. In every single school district that I have visited, we have talked about some of the changes that may be necessary in order to see student improvement. We certainly have been in discussion across the province.

D. Cubberley: Indeed, it is to be hoped that the superintendents of achievement, if and when they come into being, will work collaboratively with the school districts on the model that school districts themselves have established for how they work internally. That's to be hoped for.

The problems we have with it aren't so much with the existence of the position but with the number of things within the bill that elevate these superintendents of achievement above the elected level, the co-governors of the system. The section that we're looking at right now is merely one of them.

I cast an eye over it. What kinds of things can they do? They can summarily dismiss or accept. They can establish practices and procedures. They have the power to suspend a board decision for the period and on the conditions they consider appropriate. The adjudicators they may refer things to are given broad powers to confirm, revoke or vary decisions; refer back to boards for reconsideration, with or without directions; or dismiss. They can mandate the time lines that boards will reconsider things on. The decision of the superintendent of achievement is final and binding.

There is a whole array of powers being provided to them, in addition to another power which we have yet

to come to about the administrative directive, that significantly elevate these — not just in terms of what they will do inside the system to try to secure better achievement for students but by giving them abilities to direct things that school districts would normally be enabled to decide within the policy framework established by the minister, which is the current system, which is an appropriate system.

When we use that term "über-superintendent," we're not demeaning individuals who may wish to take on the role. We're querying the design of the role, if the stated purpose is to achieve outcomes collaboratively. This appears to be arming them to involve themselves in many ways.

When we look at that, we can only see that we are, in effect, engaged in a process of elevating the unelected above the elected. The minister may care to comment on that. If not, I will move on to the next.

Hon. S. Bond: The primary focus of superintendents of achievement will be to work with school districts to create achievement contracts, which will set out strategies for student improvement. That will include looking at how we can perhaps link districts together who are seeing more success in particular areas. It will also look at how we can share best practices. Their focus is going to be on assisting school boards to make sure that students in British Columbia see improved results.

N. Simons: I believe it would probably be appropriate to have the tumult that seems to follow the vote settle down before we go on with these further sections. I think we've probably roller-coasted past a few.

D. Cubberley: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the assistance. I just want to clarify that we're outlining the components of an achievement contract. We canvassed a little bit of this before. There are some elements in here that are existing elements of things that boards do. Then there are things that boards are not currently involved in, or at least they're not spelled out in legislation that they will be, and they are moving into relatively uncharted waters.

Also, I would include literacy and early learning programs in that. There's also a section (e) which allows the minister to order other matters to be included in achievement contracts. I'm interested just to hear from the minister — in the areas of literacy, early learning programs and these other matters that may be ordered — what the process will be vis-à-vis the minister's staff and school districts for working through what will be in the first contracts. My assumption would be that if the bill takes effect, this will be a requirement on time lines for this coming September.

I want to get a sense of what's intended. Is it for September 2007? What are the time lines for contracts? And given the number of school districts and the fact that the minister had suggested this would be tailored to some extent to the composition of the school districts, how is that going to unfold?

Hon. S. Bond: The intent would be to have achievement contracts in place in July, which is the date noted here. Having said that, the school trustees did note in their meeting with us yesterday that that was a concern for them, and we've agreed to talk about how we might accommodate that, with the circumstances of this bill only being in the House in May. We have been made aware of the concerns, we respect that, and we want to work through that with school boards.

The member opposite, I think, also asked about how we will look after the context pieces of achievement contracts. Our superintendents of achievement

will meet individually with boards across the province and sit down to better understand those districts and to work with them. What's interesting to note is that we've already had some school districts indicate how much they're looking forward to having an additional resource as part of their thinking, to help them with some of the plans that they might make.

D. Cubberley: I'd just like to ask whether the superintendents of achievement…. Are any of them are in place currently? Has anybody been retained?

Hon. S. Bond: We are not adding new positions to the ministry. We're in the process of transitioning people, so there are certainly people that will be in place once legislation permits that.

One of the questions that has been asked in estimates was: is this going to cost more money? In fact, it's not, because what we're doing is reorganizing our ministry, which is the right thing to do. If we expect school districts to change their process, we should also be doing that. So they are not additional positions. We are realigning our staff and having those positions as part of the team that we already have.

D. Cubberley: I take the point about cost to the ministry for doing this, but there is also potential — and I've heard from trustees about this — for costs to multiply in school districts as well. It's interesting. We've got a number of bills in front of the House that are going to affect in some fashion the way that school districts operate.

In relation to two of those bills to this point, I've heard from people about the potential for increased costs, not least of which would be that in creating an appeal process from decisions made at the board level, there may be — as there may be in the disciplinary process for infractions of one kind or another to conduct at schools — the introduction of more and more legal fees into the process, both on the part of individuals being represented and on the part of employers or boards with responsibilities — not to mention a great deal of increased time. There are some costs, I would say, even with efficiencies of the kind that the minister is mentioning.

I just want to ask that question again, though. None of these superintendents are in position currently. What kinds of qualifications would you see these individuals needing to have, especially given things like the appeal process that they're going to be involved in?

Hon. S. Bond: That's not what I said to the member opposite. What I said was that we have staff within our ministry. We also second superintendents regularly to our staff. That is ongoing. We have seconded individuals, and we have staff members in place as we speak.

At the present time we are realigning their responsibilities with the statutory requirements that would put those positions in place with those requirements. But there are people that are on our staff, part of our team.

Yes, there are people in place. We're in the process of transitioning their responsibilities from their current liaison roles to those that would become superintendents of achievement.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister is right, it was the member for Vancouver-Kensington who asked in estimates what the additional costs would be, and the minister answered as she has today. I thank her for that.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what functions of the ministry won't be done when this transition takes place. When the new superintendents of achievement take up their new responsibilities, what will they not be doing?

Hon. S. Bond: It's hard to articulate because, as I have said to the House, we are realigning the work that individuals do in order to do this particular task. It probably requires reprioritization of their time more than it includes that we're not going to be doing these things.

There are some things that have come to a completion — things like the community consultation piece which our seconded liaison staff members participated in for months on end and which was with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. That, for example, was time-sensitive and will no longer be necessary.

It is the case that our ministry will realign our priorities. The focus will be on moving our staff out of the buildings into districts on a more regular basis to build up that relationship. In essence, it's not a significant dropping of responsibilities but just, I think, a different approach and some additional requirements in terms of setting up the achievement contracts with school districts.

D. Chudnovsky: Typically in organizations that I've worked with, together with the job description there's often a percentage breakout of the time that's spent by employees on individual tasks or bundles of tasks — not so much individual tasks.

Perhaps the minister could tell us what percentage…. If I understand what she's saying correctly, there won't be an increase in the number of employees; there's a reorganization taking place; and as a result of that reorganization, the new superintendents of achievement will be doing some new tasks.

I wonder if the minister has a projection of how much of the job that the superintendents of achievement are going to be doing is new stuff that relates to the amendments that are before us in Bill 20 and how much is responsibilities that they have had up till now before the introduction of Bill 20?

Hon. S. Bond: What the individuals did previously and what they'll do now is spend 100 percent of their time on student achievement. That's what they did, and that's what they will do.

Having said that, we don't assign tasks in our ministry by percentage, or we don't articulate the jobs of our staff in that way. The complexity that's added to this position is that they are all potentially going to have different roles with school boards.

For example, one of the things that I've discussed with school boards as I have visited across the province is around some of the unique challenges that very small rural and remote school districts are facing. We are doing some great things with the rural education network and a variety of things. But it may be that we would have a superintendent of achievement where a significant percentage of their work would be working with those small, rural and remote school districts to find things that they can do together, things they can help work on, best practice and those kinds of things.

There isn't a template. The job positions will not be the same. In fact, we think that it's really important that there be some flexibility, that there be the opportunity to work individually with groups of districts or with specific school districts. So we haven't allocated percentages.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister for that, but I do want to press it a little bit because it seems to me that it's a little on the vague side. There is a Bill 20. There are new positions. There are new responsibilities. So maybe the minister can give us a ballpark — a range, perhaps — of her best guess as to what percentage of these new jobs will be on the new stuff — on the new responsibilities arising from Bill 20 — and which from the elements of the old School Act.

I hasten to add that we're not asking the minister to sign a contract here. We're asking her for her best guess. What does she think the ratio of responsibilities will be?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said to the member previously, we haven't and don't want to assign percentages of time to specific superintendents of achievement. What we expect the majority of their time to be spent on…. We think it's pretty important.

They're actually going to help, to work alongside, school boards as they create their achievement contracts, to make sure that they're reasonable and that they have the appropriate context. That's been something the members opposite have brought up today. We want that to take up the majority of the time.

In addition to that, we want our superintendents of achievement to help build capacity in school districts to enable them to carry out the plans that they put in place.

D. Chudnovsky: I'll have to read that one again in Hansard and see if I can unpack it and parse it and figure out what it might mean. But I thank the minister nonetheless for the answer.

She points to a question that I've been hoping to ask her since I heard the minister speak at the BCSTA convention a couple of weeks ago. In the context of answering a question from a skeptical school trustee…. The content of the question was similar to some of what's been asked here today.

The minister said — and I wrote it down; I was interested in the comment she made — that superintendents of achievement would have available to them resources to help school districts in the tasks that they had to carry out. I'm wondering what resources she was talking about.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I enjoyed having the opportunity to speak to the school trustees, despite how challenging that was, and I heard their concerns.

"Resources" doesn't only mean money, and I think that's probably what the member opposite would like to ascertain. We know that superintendents of achievement, first of all, will have vast experience and credibility in the system. They bring expertise. We also have the ability to realign some of the resources that we have within the ministry in terms of supporting capacity-building.

They're going to bring a ton of information as well. They have the ability to connect districts to one another. They have the ability of having understood and of understanding the differences in districts.

When I use the word "resources," I think that people are resources as well. Perhaps that's how I should have articulated the answer to that question. I think having a superintendent of achievement that's willing to and enabled by this legislation to come to a district — to work with them and provide additional advice and resource and perhaps look at something from a different perspective — is in and of itself a resource.

D. Chudnovsky: I couldn't agree more with that comment that the minister made that there are, for sure, human resources which are tremendously valuable to us in the system, but surely….

D. Chudnovsky: Human resources are obviously tremendously important, but surely the people who are now in the positions in the ministry — some of whom, as the minister told us a few minutes ago, will be the very same people who will take up the position of superintendent of achievement….

Surely they have the human resources that they have, so what's new? What's different? What resources will be brought to bear — human resources? I understand the minister to be talking about human resources. What human resources will be brought to bear and will be available to school districts that aren't available to them now?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, we intend to bring life to superintendents of achievement within the resource envelope that we have in the ministry. We're not adding anything, and we're not taking away from anything. I think what we're trying to do is reposition how we actually serve school districts. We want to be in a position to provide advice and commentary and support — physical support.

One of the things that's very remarkable to me, as a minister who has only been here a fairly short period of time, is that this is a ministry that's very fluid. We really have to have the ability to respond quickly to changes to direction, so we still will.

As these positions evolve, we will look forward to the opportunity for realigning other support staff that may be necessary. We're committed to providing additional support to school districts.

That really is the intention of superintendents of achievement. It's to say: "We know that you work hard. We know that you have some big challenges. We know that together we need to make sure that we're helping students be supported in this province."

Really, it is evolutionary, and we don't have a template that says: "Here's where you're going to be, and here's how you're going to spend the time." We want to see that evolve as we work with school boards and have them say, as well: "Is there a way to utilize the expertise that's being provided in very innovative ways?"

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister for the answer, although I must say with the greatest of respect that I'm really having trouble following the answer. It appears to me, at least, that what the minister is saying….

A part of what the minister is saying, the part that I understand, is that there's going to be more of a field-service model than a centralized model in terms of these folks, that they're going to be in the districts more than the current people in the positions are now. I think I hear her saying that, and I think I understand that, but frankly, the rest of what she's saying seems to me to not differ so much from what is at least the possibility now.

In what the minister said in her last answer, what isn't available to school districts today? There are innovative people in the ministry; that's for sure. They are trying to help develop and improve student achievement; that's for sure. They're available to school districts; that's for sure. So beyond the….

D. Chudnovsky: As always, I am thrilled and flattered when those opposite express their support for what I'm saying. It does nothing but help my frame of mind, so I invite them to continue the response.

Beyond the fact that there may be an increase in what I call field service, what else is different in the new dispensation with respect to superintendents of achievement and when it comes to resources?

Hon. S. Bond: We've canvassed the issue of resources. We think that, first of all, there are human resources, which boards are actually welcoming. And despite their concern about some sections of Bill 20 — I have heard those, and we are working on those — there are many boards, as I have suggested, who are looking forward to having extra expertise to come and help them with the creation of an achievement contract.

What's new? These superintendents of achievement will help boards create achievement contracts. That wasn't the case previously. Accountability contracts were created in school districts, and there was less of a field-service model. I'm not sure that I like what that says, but that is in essence what will happen here. We absolutely want to move expertise out into the field to be supportive of school districts.

In terms of what else is new, obviously there are literacy plans that boards need to work on, and there are a variety of new expectations of school boards. The general principle for superintendents of achievement is that they will work alongside school districts. They will help them monitor the results that school districts need to be looking at — whether or not they're making progress — and that's a fairly significant change.

Then again, if the member opposite sees this as not that significant a change, I'm not certain why the concern about passing this section of the legislation.

D. Cubberley: On the matter of administrative directives, we had canvassed this under the definitions fairly extensively and registered our concern with the direction being proposed here. I don't want to dwell on it, but we are very concerned, once again, that these superintendents of achievement are, through this mechanism, being given another tool….

It relates to the achievement contract more directly. This is a power of intervention that the minister would have around the failure to meet obligations under an achievement contract.

I think that almost all of what the minister has said in response to questions on this side has been by way of attempting to assuage people and assure them that it isn't the intent of this bill, the minister or the government to use a heavy hand in this regard. Moments ago the minister was characterizing the direction of the superintendents of achievement as being to provide advice, commentary and support; to share best practices; and to attempt to evolve and bring along, using the traditional tools of persuasion rather than using cudgels of any kind.

We have heard the same thing, and I appreciate it and wish to believe that it is in fact the intent that this would be a collaborative process and that there would not be a one-size-fits-all in terms of expectations or obligations flowing from achievement contracts. Indeed, the minister has indicated some willingness to be flexible around the implementation time lines, having heard from school trustees that it may not be possible to get this up and running quite as quickly as the legislation envisages.

All of that is good, but when one looks at this section, "Administrative directives," it is, in fact, the provision of a new cudgel to the minister to be used to help enforce obligations around an achievement contract.

I would have to say that we on this side do not see the need for this instrument. The minister has very broad powers to intervene. She has an ability to dispatch an emissary who can be used to try to persuade.

If the tool of persuasion doesn't work, she has a hammer in her existing arsenal that can be used to ensure that her will is met.

We do not see the need for this. We do not support this. We think that it unnecessarily contributes to that sense of skepticism and concern that school trustees have that this legislation will be heavy-handed.

We would urge the minister simply to remove this from the bill. It isn't necessary to the positive intent that she has characterized the bill as having, and it can only be deemed, at one level or another, to be a threat to the authority of a school district duly elected.

I would urge looking beyond the discussion that we're having here and the intentions that the government side may have at this moment and that they ask themselves whether this doesn't arm a future minister — who may not have this minister's commitment or be as certain about her intention to be able to work collaboratively — with an ability to intervene in ways that could destabilize a system that works quite well and that I think the minister in most circumstances would characterize as being progressive and with a proud history.

Hon. S. Bond: Hon. Chair, I am going to say it again, because it's this important. If after consultation, collaboration, achievement plans, extra effort, extra resources, aboriginal achievement rates that remain at 20 percent…. It's time, then, for there to be some direction.

I fully expect that we will, hopefully, not have to use this piece of the legislation, but at the end of the day, students come first. We need to make sure that we have in this province a strategy which ensures that we're going to see that equal opportunity for success for those students.

Twenty percent is not acceptable; 40 percent is not acceptable. We're going to do what it takes. I know this: the plan laid out in Bill 20 allows for an incredible strategy and plan before we get to this place, but at the end of the day, we're going to put student success at the top of our agenda.

D. Cubberley: Mr. Chair, I thought I was finished, but I have to respond to that. It's preposterous to hear her suggest in here that at some level the failing, in terms of aboriginal achievement, is the lack of an ability on the part of a minister to have a power of intervention to compel a particular change in a school district where aboriginal kids are not achieving. It's just preposterous. The minister already has powers to intervene if she believes that school districts are not doing an appropriate job. She has tools available to her to intervene.

To suggest that this is required in order to improve achievement for aboriginal students…. It astounds me that that would be claimed, that this power would be claimed as being needed. I think in many cases it is a matter of directing that resources be used more effectively, that additional resources and skills be applied to the equation and, in particular, that aboriginal people be given greater measures of say over the ways in which they're schooled.

The last thing that is required is an additional cudgel that can be used to direct school districts arbitrarily to do this or that. In any case, we're going to have to agree to differ.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I move the committee rise, report progress on Bill 20 and seek leave to sit again.

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

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 21, Teaching Profession (Teacher Registration) Amendment Act.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise and take my place in debate on Bill 21.

It's an important piece of legislation that deals with the protection of our children in schools — on how disciplinary action is reported, in terms of the college and in terms of giving more information to parents about the types of activity that take place within our school system.

One of the challenges we face in today's world is that we are increasingly living in a world that has more and more restrictions and problems based on it in terms of how parents and individuals feel about the safety of children.

For example, ten to 15 years ago no one would have seen the role that the Internet plays in terms of society and its ability to influence and to provide opportunity for things that take place in our community. Issues such as child pornography, for example, were literally never heard of, or were only talked about in stories in newspapers but didn't receive high-profile attention. Now they do, because of the access of technology.

People with issues around that are caught more these days. We've seen some high-profile cases in the media around issues concerning those who work with children — educators. They're few and far between, but they do occur. They generate a lot of media sensation. The question has become: how do we deal with them?

The College of Teachers does an excellent job in disciplining, but parents and parental groups are always asking: "Is there more that we can do?" This issue is one that has been raised and discussed at PACs. It has been raised and discussed at school board meetings and school trustee conventions, and it's something that is top of mind for many parents. They've been asking for governments to deal with these particular issues.

We've done that in a number of ways. Bill 21, also, is one of those pieces of legislation. The question becomes: is it a good piece of legislation, or is it one that's going too far? We have this piece of legislation, and we're supportive of making our children safer in schools. We're in favour of ensuring that parents know what has taken place in terms of disciplinary action and issues such as that.

But one of the questions that we have on this piece of legislation is: how is it going to work? How does it work as regards the classroom, the principal and the college? We want to ensure the maximum amount of information is getting through. At the same time we want to ensure a minimum amount of disruption.

We want to ensure that this does not become a legal dispute where, for example, if a principal is sitting down with a teacher, both sides have to have a lawyer present. We want to make sure that that doesn't happen. What we want to ensure is that information that is necessary for people and parents to know is available to them.

This is an important piece of legislation, one which we will be supportive of, but it's also one on which, at committee stage, there will have to be a number of questions asked. I know that some of my colleagues such as the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows have questions and will be speaking on this particular piece of legislation in a few minutes, as will the member for Surrey-Whalley and other members of this House.

I think it's important for us to get on the record that this is an important piece of legislation and one that we think we will be supporting. At the same time, there are some important questions that need to be asked in terms of how and in what format the bill will be implemented, how it will impact on the classroom and on individual teachers, how it will impact on the ability of principals in terms of them doing their job, and also how it will impact on the College of Teachers itself.

We want to make sure that we're not bringing in unnecessary duplication or overregulation, and that we're not bringing in significant increases in costs that have not been anticipated.

Anyway, those are some of the important issues that are in this particular bill. I just wanted to get up and have a few comments on the record. With that, I will take my place and allow colleagues from this side of the House to continue with remarks.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 21. It's an important piece of legislation in that it addresses an issue of paramount concern to parents and to all members of society, but parents in particular: the safety of children, and the safety of their children in particular. We certainly want to ensure that children are safe in school. Uncommon as it may be, if a teacher is abusing a child, we want to ensure that the child is safe and that we minimize the likelihood and the actuality of abusive situations happening. That's the intent, at least. Being charitable about it, I'm sure that that actually is the intent of this legislation.

The question comes around balance. Is the legislation well balanced against other needs in the education system — not necessarily needs that are competing in any respect but needs that are complementary to the protection of children? That's the proper and sound functioning of the relationship between teachers, parents, children, administrators and the College of Teachers.

The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke mentioned yesterday that when he became a school principal he got some good advice: his role and job was to look after the teachers, and the teachers would look after the children. That's the line of command, if you will, Madam Speaker, that is essential to the good functioning of any classroom. There has to be a level of trust, a level of respect among the students, the teachers and the parents, of course.

We need to ensure that this legislation is going to maintain or, hopefully, increase safety for children at school but at the same time ensure that it doesn't disrupt or even move in a reverse direction in terms of the proper functioning and the proper relationships in the classroom. There are, in the school system now, a number of checks and balances. If a teacher is out of line in a serious way, the discipline administered at the board level, the superintendent's level and the college level is quite comprehensive.

I think some of the problems that have arisen…. When there are problems, we hear of some of the most serious ones that happen, such as a teacher that was abusing students sexually who was not caught by the checks and balances. All of us know, I'm sure, of some high-profile cases over the last number of years that have happened in that regard. What happened in that case, unfortunately, was that the reporting mechanisms weren't followed.

I think when parents see this legislation, they need to be careful not to think that this legislation is going to be a cure-all and end-all for concerns about safety of children. When it comes down to it, parents must be — and certainly most parents, good parents are — watchful of their children. They have to ask the children when they go on a field trip: "What are the arrangements? What are the sleeping arrangements? What happens when you're on a field trip? What happens in the classroom?"

Unfortunately…. Well, actually, in fact, in some respects it is fortunate that a lot of the most serious offences are caught quite quickly, so justice is meted out, if you will. But it can go on. Children are, thankfully, more educated and informed about, you know, proper touching for elementary children and the like so they know more about what is proper and what isn't. But nothing will change the need for parents — as well as for educators and administrators, of course — to be vigilant and to ensure that the proper mechanisms are there to ensure the safety of children.

The other thing, however, that we have to be very careful about is that we must ensure the relationship between students and teachers is, as I said before, respectful but healthy. The members in the House that have been in the classroom — and as a teacher I spent a short time in the classroom myself — you know that that's true. You can't function without that kind of relationship.

The minister mentioned that this legislation is great, that parents can now go on line and check out and see what they can find out about their teacher, and then they'll know whether or not to agree to their child being in that classroom. But that's far too late, in effect. If that's what's happening…. That is where I have some concerns. We have to hope that as the legislation says, the disciplinary actions by the college will be for sexual, physical and emotional abuse, or for conduct or competence in breach of college standards.

So we have to ensure that if there is going to be an on-line registry…. According to this, there is going to be an on-line registry. When parents or anybody else…. And people will go on that registry, you know, that are not necessarily just parents. People will go on because they're curious. They know someone that's a teacher or have an acquaintance that's a teacher, and they'll go check it out and see what they can find. We have to be sure that what they do find are serious offences, because if there is material on there, if it results in less-than-serious offences being on there, you can be sure that that teacher is pretty much finished. They cannot maintain the relationship with the parents and with the children when their name is on an on-line registry saying, essentially, that they're a bad teacher.

That's where my biggest concern comes in about this legislation. I am not convinced yet that the material that will make it onto that on-line registry will be of a significant and severe nature, and that harm might not be inadvertently caused by that. So we're going to be looking carefully at that.

On this side, as I understand, we're going to be looking at ensuring that this legislation is in keeping with freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy concerns. The commissioner has been told, apparently, by the minister — and it may have been a previous minister; I'm not sure if it was the current minister — that in the ongoing development of this legislation and the subsequent carrying out of it, he will be fully informed of the process, because it's his job to make sure that privacy is protected. That's in the interest of all of us.

Teachers that I've talked to are the last people that want to have anyone that's abusing their privilege to be in the classroom. But they're fearful — some of them certainly are fearful — of what might happen with this registry, of what kind of material may end up on there, how careers may be snuffed unnecessarily. Let's face it. This is a registry that other professional bodies don't necessarily face at all. Lawyers don't face the same in their college.

The sad part of it is that this legislation…. There's a background to this legislation, and as I've said to the minister before, it does have to do with the relationship between this government and public teachers in this province, in the public school system. They feel that this government has vilified them in many respects. They feel that this government has disrespected them in many respects. Certainly, it started with the assault…. Well, it didn't start with it, perhaps, but one of the things certainly was the assault on their college, to begin with, where control of the college was taken away from them. You can't blame them for having concern about what is going to happen to them as a result of this legislation, this bill.

There are no provisions in the bill for the removal of suspensions or cancellations. So if you're on there, you're on there for good. That, again, is potentially problematic. If you look at the system now, if a teacher is called on the carpet for improper behaviour, they of course will go to their union, as any worker will. The union, if they feel that the case is there — and normally they will take up the case of a teacher…. They will defend them. So there's a process that's gone through there. In the end, that grievance the teacher has will be resolved one way or the other.

But if it's going to be the case that the complaint, the discipline, is put on the on-line registry before the grievance is heard, what happens then if, in the course of the grievance, the teacher is exonerated? It'd be too late. Like you say, once you're on line, once you're in cyberspace, you're there forever. So that's the kind of concern that teachers have expressed, and they are some of the concerns that I have too.

As our critic the member for Saanich South…. He brought up a case yesterday about a teacher who had done something that most of us would consider inappropriate, but it had nothing to do with schools or children or the protection of children, unless one were to interpret personal behaviour in the widest possible realm as having to do with children. Yet that could be on this system and result in that teacher losing their job and their profession.

The climate out there that I experienced is of teachers being pretty depressed. My wife is a retired teacher. She retired about five years ago, and she said she is so glad that she is out of the system now. She still has friends that are teachers, and the stories they tell her and the morale they experience…. She tells me that she wouldn't want to be in the system now.

That doesn't make for good education. We need a partnership. Again, this is being seen by many teachers as another attack on them. Rightly or wrongly, that's something that the government should take into account. One of my colleagues tells me that notwithstanding what might be done at the political level, the people in the system, from the colleges on down to the individual classroom teacher, do work together pretty well to make the system work as well as possible. I hope that that continues, because we need them. We need all of the members of the education community to be working together to ensure the best possible education for our children.

Under the reporting provisions, it says that superintendents must enforce the college's code of professional conduct and must report perceived breeches to the college if it's in the public interest to do so. I know when I talked to my school board, the issue of the public interest is one that they flagged for me. They said: "Who will determine what is in the public interest?" Will they have input into that? Will they be able to determine that or is that going to be passed down from on high?

The concern there is that they are being put out of the loop, as we saw with Bill 20. Again, it's that top-down kind of approach to education that not only teachers but also school trustees are concerned about. They worry about the lack of cooperatives, because they build relationships and trust with teachers. They know they have to have that, and they know how important it is that they can't diss their teachers and expect to have a successful system. They have to work with their teachers. They are hoping at the political level, at the level of this government, that they too are working on the side of teachers, education, parents and students so that all the people in the system are being supported. It is necessary for that to happen.

As our House Leader said, we will be supporting this legislation. But we want to ensure that it is the best possible tool, that it's going to be really effective — and that's important. We want to ensure that there is benefit to the classroom teachers, that there is benefit to the children in the classroom.

Again, under this legislation, as under Bill 20, there are provisions for overruling of superintendents. That's the concern about the top-down approach that we're seeing more and more of. It's kind of ironic, in a way, because the government talks on the one hand about having less regulation, which makes it sound like things are a little more relaxed. But with the building of these silos with the-top down approach, in fact, it's a system that's tightening — and not, in many cases, to the benefit of the system itself or the people in it.

I mentioned how for the teachers, the college, the rules that they have to operate under are different than others, such as the Law Society, where they can consider issues like harm to the member or any other person in determining whether to withhold the name of the person. The Privacy Commissioner has concerns, and we certainly hope that that is addressed.

We know, as I say, that unfortunately sometimes teachers do abuse children, whether it's physically, sexually or emotionally. We know that that happens more commonly, unfortunately, at home. Nonetheless, we have to be sure. I know, as a psychologist myself, that determining what emotional abuse is, for example, can be open to some interpretation, and that gives rise to concerns. If a teacher unadvisedly and inappropriately yells at a student and it's a first-time occurrence, does that mean that they could end up on the on-line registry? By most accounts, probably a suspension of a period of time for the teacher would be far more appropriate and far more beneficial to the system at large.

We're going to be looking carefully at the legislation as it comes through and as we get into the committee stage, and the like. With that, I want to pass over to one of my colleagues who has some words to say about it.

B. Ralston: I want to add a couple of comments to the bill. The member for Saanich South has covered the bill in some detail, and I want to add to his perceptive and thorough remarks on the bill.

I suppose there are a couple of areas that I have some concern. Understandably, the public wishes, whether their students or children are in the public system or the private system, the best for their children. Obviously, that includes an assurance and the comfort that when their children are at school or involved in school activities, they are not going to be subject to the kind of unfortunate incidents and kind of predation that sometimes occurs but is very tragic whenever it does occur. They have that right, and that's an understandable concern on the part of any parent.

On the other hand, the minister and the public generally have an expectation that the standards in schools

that the teachers embody and the kind of leadership that they exhibit in the classroom will be of the highest, and people will perform as capably as they can. There is a balance to be struck between satisfying the public's concern about individual teachers and what kind of conduct they might want to be protected against, and encouraging people to join the teaching profession.

I think everyone recognizes…. Certainly in my family, I know my sister is a teacher in a public school in Surrey. We recognize just how demanding a job teaching is, how emotionally draining it can be and, sometimes, how frequently the role of a teacher in society doesn't always engender the kind of respect that one would wish for. There is that obligation or there is that weighing that's necessary. How do we encourage people to enter the teaching profession, and on the other hand, how do we protect our children in the classroom and during school activities?

This bill purports to strike that balance. I think on the most part it's on balance; it is successful. But I do have some concerns about some of the details of the legislation.

Firstly, the bill applies not only to public schools but also to independent schools or private schools, and those are governed under the Independent School Act. In the case of certified teachers who are teaching in independent schools, the discipline process would appear to follow the same course that it would take in the case of teachers in public schools. I suppose the concern that will need to be clarified in clause-by-clause debate of the bill will be: what is the path of discipline for what are called authorized teachers?

Authorized teachers are teachers who are not certified under the college but are given a certificate of qualification or a letter of permission by an inspector under the School Act, which is to say the Ministry of Education, that enables and regulates the private school sector in British Columbia.

It's not clear to me — I'm also taking my lead from the critic in this area, the member for Saanich South — just how that discipline process works. If an inspector receives a report of a matter of discipline in the case of an authorized teacher, since they are not a member of the college, what is the continuing and ongoing recordkeeping of that discipline? How does this match the objectives of the bill in the sense that parents would have the right to inquire of that if they were interested and find out about individual teachers that their children may be interacting with? That issue doesn't appear to be clear, and I expect that the minister will have an answer for that. I think it's worth raising at this stage.

Secondly, the bill also creates an employers registry, which will be a record of teachers as they make applications and enter the employment relationship. That will be provincewide, and it will be kept for a number of years. There doesn't appear to be in the bill any obligation on employers to actually use the registry. Now, that may be something that the legislative drafters had intended and have overlooked. They may wish to correct, certainly, that impression when we come to a more detailed consideration of the bill.

If the legislative effort is being made, if the costs to mount this kind of registry are being undertaken and if there is deemed to be a benefit from taking a step in that direction — and one would presume that's the very purpose of the legislation — it would seem that it would be a wise thing to do to oblige employers to consult the registry. I would suggest that that process ought to take place.

I wish to address a couple of other areas. The discipline registry will now legislatively remove the discretion from the college to not publish the name of the teacher being disciplined. I've had some — nothing personal, I'd hasten to add — with the discipline process in the Law Society — that is, members of the legal profession. There is a residual discretion, in certain cases, to not publish the name of the lawyer who is being disciplined. That's increasingly less used, and obviously there is public resistance to that.

I don't think you can foresee all the circumstances that might arise where it would be appropriate and just to not publish the name of a member or, in this case, of a teacher in the registry. To remove that discretion from the college, I think, is overly prescriptive, and it doesn't express the requisite confidence that one would hope one would have in the governing body of a profession like the College of Teachers.

I think that they could certainly be trusted to exercise that discretion wisely. In my view, taking away that discretion is something that the minister may wish to consider restoring to the college in a very limited way. I wouldn't expect it to be used other than very rarely, but I think that that ought to be considered.

The other issue that's not clear to me, and this may be my understanding of the bill…. Certainly, the discipline registry seeks to capture a major incidence of discipline. There's always, I suppose, a matter of opinion as to what constitutes major discipline and what constitutes minor discipline. This legislation attempts to define that, but there are other instances of discipline that are minor at the school level. It's not clear how the recordkeeping at the district level or even indeed at the school level would mesh with the discipline registry that's being set up here.

In labour law there's a doctrine called progressive discipline, where an accumulation of what one might initially describe as relatively minor disciplinary violations or infractions would cumulatively over time result in discipline — for example, arriving late or failing to complete assignments on time, I suppose, or not submitting your report cards when they are due. If that developed into a pattern, that might result in more major discipline, perhaps a suspension.

In that case, then, what's the obligation of recordkeeping at the school level in order to explain the basis for the other decision, and who's going to pay for that? There are a number of unanswered questions about how that disciplinary system is going to work, and whether it will be fair to parents and whether it will be fair to teachers as well. I have those concerns about that particular process.

The publication of names does, I think, meet with certain resistance in certain quarters. The minister has some obligation…. If cumulative discipline is going to result in publicity, the publication of a name with no discretion to keep the name off the discipline register, that process has to be fairly well defined.

The other comment I would have in terms of a disciplinary record is similar. My original comments, just momentarily, were about public schools. It isn't clear at this point that private schools employing non-certified teachers would have the same obligations in the sense of recording school level discipline, and how those records would be kept in order that there be an appropriate record kept if, in the event of cumulative discipline, that would result in the matter going forward to the inspector. I've already made the point about the link from there to the act itself and that not being entirely clear.

Those are the comments that I have on the bill, and I look forward to the next stage of debate on this bill.

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Chair. That diet must be working. I've become invisible in the chamber.

Deputy Speaker: Could you hold on one moment, please. Could you take a seat.

Would the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast please take his seat in the House, and do not make remarks when you're not in your own assigned chair. Thank you very kindly.

L. Krog: I'm the husband of a former teacher, the son of a retired teacher, the great-grandson of another teacher and the brother-in-law to a teacher who still works in the profession. Obviously, I come to this debate with a certain bias in favour of the teaching profession.

Having attended two very small rural schools and a very small high school where my graduating class consisted of fewer than 100 students, which may seem quite remarkable to some of the members who attended the big-city schools in Vancouver or Victoria, I again bring certain biases about public education.

I'm also concerned that, inasmuch as no one could possibly oppose any legislation that seeks to ensure that our children are safe in their schools from teachers who might not meet what would be generally held to be reasonable public standards of behaviour and professionalism, I am concerned that this, in fact, will not create the kind of safe environments that we would want or should want all of our schools to be.

The reality is that bullying in our schools is probably far more likely to occur and to victimize students. That bullying will not come from teachers; that bullying will come from fellow students. That is far more likely to occur than anything untoward happening on the part of a teacher or their behaviour in class.

I would suggest that students, indeed, are often quite resilient when it comes to teachers who may have a bad morning, be a bit cranky or be somewhat prejudiced in terms of certain things. In the sense of any classroom, with the common sense of the students there, they recognize when something untoward is happening. They recognize when a teacher's having a bad day, if you will. They recognize when teachers may have some prejudice or may lose their temper.

Indeed, some of my teachers certainly lost their temper on occasion. I remember being quite shocked by one teacher who threw a map — you know, in one of those metal frames — right across the classroom. Quite candidly, in 2007, I suspect that teacher might have been suspended, but I must tell you that all of us in the class loved that teacher. He was an excellent teacher. He got knowledge into the some of the thickest skulls in that classroom.

L. Krog: I certainly would never disagree with the Minister of Agriculture, but I doubt in this instance that he has any ability to see what's in my mind. If he did, he might know what I'm thinking about him, and I'd be called out of order by the Speaker. So we know that's not the case.

All humour aside, however, the BCTF takes a strong position on this bill, and they take it on behalf of their membership — which is not only their right; it is the obligation of the BCTF to defend teachers in the profession. I've heard the Minister of Education, on many occasions in this House and outside of this chamber, supporting the work of teachers in the province and supporting the work of school districts.

I come back to my point: I'm not sure that this bill will, in fact, make the classroom a much safer place. I'm not sure that it won't be used in some cases to threaten or even harass teachers who are, after all, only human and who otherwise wouldn't necessarily face that harassment or pressure.

I am concerned that for a teacher to maintain some level of control in a classroom, they have to be satisfied, within the range of reasonable human behaviour, that they have an opportunity to teach to the best of their abilities, based on their own experience and knowledge and having regard to the nature of the classroom in which they're teaching — the types of students, the linguistic backgrounds, the abilities, the levels of intelligence, the numbers of students who have learning disabilities, and all of those factors.

I've never been entirely convinced that we can ensure, in the classroom, some sort of uniformity. Most of the members of this chamber have had the benefit of not just 12 years of public education; a significant

portion of us have had the benefit of several years of university education and professional schools.

We have seen a wide range of abilities in classrooms and study halls. Each one of those teachers contributed something — some of them better than others. Overall, I can say with some confidence that there were teachers in my school who were alcoholics, who were impaired for parts of the teaching day yet were first-class teachers. Teachers whose language I can still remember. Teachers who taught me to remember bits of Shakespeare that nobody else was able to drive into my thick skull, as the Minister of Agriculture might think of it.

There were teachers who taught me about prejudice. There were teachers who were stern disciplinarians and others who were completely lax. There were teachers who were inspirational and some who could, as my brother-in-law says, talk the life out of a glass eye. But they all contributed to rounding out every one of us, and we all had similar experiences.

Inasmuch as the BCTF may see this as an attack on teachers, I trust that they will see the support, which I expect will come from both sides of the House around this bill generally, as not being an attack on teachers. I think the vast majority of the members in this chamber have a profound respect for those who engage in what I would say is arguably the most important profession in society, and that is the stimulation of, the education of and the upbringing of our young people.

It would be far better, I think, if we were talking about this from a fiscal perspective…. If we had some very well managed and carefully constructed system of reporting the actions of teachers that might lead to discipline, we would do far better to spend more of our money and our resources on ensuring that every child in this province felt comfortable in reporting what happens to them outside of the classroom as well as inside the classroom. Whether it's bullying on the school ground or in the hallway, whether it's the untoward advances of family members or whether it's abuse at home, that might be a far better expenditure of public resources.

I would have to say that the teaching profession in this province, generally speaking, serves the public well and certainly deserves the pay they receive. I have never, in my view, seen a teacher who could survive in the system who didn't deserve the pay they receive.

We know statistically — and this may have changed in the last couple of years — that of new teachers, 40 percent of them quit within the first five years of teaching. That is a remarkable attrition rate for a profession that we all hope would attract some of the brightest and the best amongst us, because as I said earlier, is there a more important profession? Is there a more important calling, if you will?

Teachers shape, or certainly help shape, the societies in which we live. They shape the communities in which we live. They influence us and hopefully inspire us, in the title of that wonderful book about black history in this province, to go do some great thing. I suspect that some of the members in this chamber today wouldn't be here if they hadn't had some teacher inspire them along the way, or a whole series of teachers.

I would hope that when and if this bill passes this House, the teachers of this province will not take it as a slight on them. If we are to ensure that teachers meet a high standard, then we should also look at other professions and others who come in contact with children on a regular basis to ensure equally.

I'm not convinced that as a parent I might pass all the onerous tests that this bill might suggest for the teaching profession. I think it's interesting to note that the recommendations of the committee today around MLA compensation talked about the great public ignorance around what it is we do here in this chamber and how many hours all of us give to this calling, if you will, being the elected members of this assembly. It's tough to be a good parent when you're not home. It's very tough to be a good parent when you're constantly going away. It's tough for all of us to do this job, but surely it's worth it.

I would like to think that if teachers are going to continue to go into that demanding profession and that if we as legislators continually insist on putting further burdens, if you will, on their job — whether without resources to support them, whether it is the education of students around some new issue of concern, whether that ranged from dealing with the crisis of obesity in our society to ensuring that they stay away from drugs or not engage in sexual activity at ages that are inappropriate, that they work hard, that they pass exams and that they do all those wonderful things…. If we are going to insist on doing all of that, I only hope we have the decency to ensure that they're paid well for this and that we respect it and express repeatedly our respect for what it is they do.

In closing, I will support this bill generally. I will follow the lead of the member for Saanich South, who spoke so eloquently earlier today about this. And I would hope that all members will ensure that the teachers in their communities receive the respect that they deserve and that this bill not be seen as an attack on what is such an important part of our community, the teaching profession.

Hon. S. Bond: I want to close the debate on second reading by just making a couple of comments. I have appreciated the members opposite and the comments they have made about this particular bill.

We don't bring this piece of legislation to the House lightly, because it absolutely must not be seen as an attack on teachers in British Columbia. I appreciated the member opposite who spoke most recently — his comment that the BCTF takes a very strong view of this piece of legislation. We do too. We do that because, as the member pointed out, the teaching profession in this province generally serves our students extraordinarily well. That's absolutely true.

I have been privileged to witness firsthand in classrooms across this province the amazing relationships that the vast majority of teachers have with our children. I think I've said this, and I have heard it sort of echoed in somewhat humorous settings, but I mean this sincerely: it is magic when you have a great teacher in a classroom with children, and you see children learn and experience things, and they light up. It's amazing. That's what's absolutely great about the teaching profession.

The very difficult part we have to face is that there are teachers for whom that is not the case, and I think we do have to find the appropriate balance between the protection of privacy for individuals and the provision of safety for the children of British Columbia. I do think that we need to be thoughtful about how we do that. I hope that as we go to committee stage we will be able to work through some of those questions, because this is not about attacking teachers. This is about protecting the integrity of their profession as well. I know that the teachers that we have in British Columbia don't want teachers who abuse children either.

I think it's important that…. I hope that both sides of the House will be able to find a way to communicate the importance of having children feel safe.

Again, I agree with the member opposite that we also have a lot more work to do so that children actually feel that level of comfort and are able to experience that safety where, when they are being harmed, wherever that is, they can find a trusted adult whom they can confide in. That is so essential, and we have more work to do there as well.

This bill is about providing for a safe place for children to be in school. I have been very appreciative of the thoughtful comments that I've heard. Our view is that we must take a strong and clear stand about people in the teaching profession who behave unacceptably. We are honouring a commitment that we made as a government to enact this legislation, and we also listened to many, many partner groups. We spent hours and weeks consulting about this particular initiative. This is, in many people's view, long overdue. People would have believed we should have done this more quickly.

Again, I want to end this debate at second reading by simply reiterating the fact that we take very seriously the trust that is placed in teachers across this province. I know that the vast majority of them take it seriously as well. I look forward to actually continuing to discuss the technical elements of the bill. There have been some questions raised by the members opposite, and I look forward to answering those and working through that in committee stage.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 21, the Teaching Profession (Teacher Registration) Amendment Act, 2007, be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 21, Teaching Profession (Teacher Registration) Amendment Act, 2007, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call second reading of Bill 22, intituled Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 22, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, be read for a second time.

This act supports government's commitment to school safety as well as to an education system that is transparent and accountable to parents, students and communities throughout our province. Today's legislation will help make British Columbia's schools safer for our students.

In March of 2004 the government introduced the safe schools strategy, which provided school boards with the new provincial standards for school codes of conduct. Schools were asked to review their codes of conduct to ensure that they meet the new standards. However, a recent survey of British Columbia's school districts shows that codes of conduct in hundreds of schools do not meet provincial standards. The survey showed that while all 60 districts have safe school policies in place, one-third of British Columbia schools, or more than 500 schools, say they do not have codes of conduct that meet provincial standards. That is simply unacceptable.

Safe schools policies that do not meet standards or are not enforced are policies that do not meet the needs of our students. Under this legislation it is mandatory for school boards to establish codes of conduct for their districts to help prevent bullying and harassment at their schools. Just as importantly, the codes of conduct must meet provincial standards, as set out in the safe schools strategy introduced in March of 2004.

We all know that students learn better when they feel safe at school, yet many B.C. students may be afraid to go to school and even more afraid to tell anyone that they're being bullied or harassed by their peers. Parents also need to know that their children will be treated well and protected while they're at school and under the care of their teachers and administrators. This legislation will help ensure that school boards create standards for appropriate school behaviour throughout British Columbia so that schools will be safer places for students to learn and grow.

The legislation will also make school district business companies more accountable and transparent. Parents and school boards have raised concerns about the activities of school district business companies.

There are currently 12 districts with companies that engage in a variety of entrepreneurial activities. There was public concern that the companies needed to be more accountable for their activities and have been unresponsive to requests for information from citizens.

In April of 2006 our government commissioned an independent review of the policies and procedures of all school district business companies. The review examined how business companies have been operating and considered the concerns raised by parents and school boards themselves to determine if there were areas that needed improvement. The review also considered the relationship between school boards and their business companies, as well as how the activities of the company served the public interest.

In October of 2006 the province published the results of the review and, at that time, announced that school district business companies would be required to comply with stronger new rules that would improve accountability and transparency. The following legislative amendments to the School Act bring the recommendations regarding school district business companies into law.

Firstly, the legislation dictates that the majority of directors must be at arm's length from the school board. The changes will ensure a greater separation between the affairs and interests of the school district and those of school district business companies.

Secondly, the legislation prescribes June 30 as fiscal year-end. This is a logical shift, as the school board's fiscal year also runs from July 1 to June 30.

Thirdly, the legislation clarifies that school district business companies must appoint auditors and prepare financial statements. This will ensure that the business companies report effectively and transparently to their stakeholders and to the public.

Fourthly, the legislation requires that school district business companies include a schedule of transactions between the business company and the school board in audited financial statements. Again, this measure will ensure that the business companies are accountable for their spending and build transparency into the relationship between the companies and their school boards.

Also, the legislation requires school district business companies to issue annual reports. This measure adds transparency and accountability to the school district business companies and will allow them to effectively communicate financial information to stakeholders and the public.

Lastly, the legislation requires school district business companies to hold annual general meetings that are open to the public. This will give the public opportunities for insight into how the school district business companies are being run, how they are spending the dollars and what are their plans for future operation. The new legislation will help make school district business companies more accountable and transparent and will better serve the public interest.

In addition, this bill concentrates on communication with teachers. Teachers are one of our main education partners, and we want to foster direct two-way communication to meet the dynamic needs of our educational system. This initiative builds on the first Annual Teachers Congress, held in November 2006, where teachers were able to share their classroom insights and experiences directly with the province. It also builds on our ongoing Learning Roundtable, where the B.C. Teachers Federation represents teachers and we have the opportunity to address issues that concern them.

In addition, I have met with hundreds of teachers during my visits to school districts across the province. As I've said on numerous occasions in this House and outside, I am very impressed with their hard work, professionalism and dedication that they show toward our students every day. We want this communication to continue, and that's why we're introducing legislation that will allow us to directly communicate with members of the B.C. College of Teachers.

The amendment fulfils our election campaign and throne speech commitments to give us that opportunity to continue and enhance discussion with our teaching profession.

There are also a number of miscellaneous amendments to the School Act that set out a number of things. First of all, we want to more accurately describe the role of the board of examiners. We will also want to prevent a conflict that may arise when the school funding announcement date specified in the School Act precedes the provincial budget announcement.

This legislation also corrects and reflects the titles currently being used by the Francophone Education Authority, the Conseil scolaire francophone.

In addition, we know from discussions with parents that they want their children to have access to the best possible education. School boards and teachers also want to offer educational programs that include choice and flexibility to fit students' schedules and areas of interest. When students are engaged in the learning process, they will achieve higher outcomes and feel much happier, more successful and certainly more focused at school.

This legislation will offer more choice and flexibility for students who are studying things like a second language, athletics or music outside of what their regular school curriculum offers. For example, there is currently a large demand for Asian languages such as Japanese, Mandarin, Punjabi and Korean. However, often school districts have difficulty delivering these courses due to the lack of qualified teachers or program restraints.

Under this legislation, students who take accredited lessons outside of school could be among those who receive partial funding and, certainly, continued credit for their lessons.

We intend to deliver on government's commitment to ensure that B.C. students are safe and that the education system in our province is transparent, accountable and runs as efficiently as possible. These legislative changes support that goal.

I am pleased to speak to this bill that will add significant new areas to British Columbia's growing system of parks and conservancies. The amendments in this bill also continue the ongoing process of designing and implementing a protected area system that provides for improved management and balanced use of the province's national heritage to both protect environmental values and provide economic opportunities to local communities.

The amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act will add more than 165,000 hectares to British Columbia's protected area system by establishing 41 new conservancies and three new class-A parks and by making additions to 16 existing parks and three existing conservancies.

As noted in my initial remarks at first reading, the ongoing establishment of conservancies follows through on this government's commitment to implementing the outcome of the central coast and north coast land use decisions that were announced in February 2006 by the Premier.

Those land use decisions were the result of years of work, involving the input of local first nations, industry, environmentalists, local governments and other stakeholders. The resulting agreements concerning the establishment of conservancies and other protected areas will help protect large portions of an ecologically diverse landscape of global significance.

Our government is proud to introduce legislation that will protect those ecological values forever. The government of which I am a part is equally proud to be implementing a newly developed model for protecting natural values that recognizes the historic and ongoing presence and economic activity of many first nations on the lands and coastal waters of the central coast and north coast.

The establishment of conservancies is taking place in the broader context of a land and resource management plan that is designed to provide economic opportunities for those first nations communities and all coastal communities.

At this point I would like to speak briefly about the nature of the conservancy designation, recapping comments that this House may recall from me last year, when I introduced legislation about this time a year ago to create the initial 24 conservancies.

The term conservancy is a category of protected area specifically developed to allow the spirit of land use decisions and the emerging new relationship with first nations to be realized, setting aside protected areas, but also ensuring that the people living on the north coast and the central coast are given the ability to continue to live and prosper in their communities.

First nations have been involved in the development of this concept from the beginning as part of the building of a new relationship between the B.C. government and first nations, based on the principles of mutual respect, reconciliation and recognition of aboriginal rights and a shared vision of economic prosperity for all British Columbians.

The conservancy designation protects amazing coastal landscapes, areas of importance to first nations and areas that will provide wonderful opportunities for the public to enjoy coastal and marine environments on the north and central coast of this province.

More specifically, the purposes of establishing conservancies are to (1) protect and maintain biological diversity and natural environments; (2) preserve and maintain social, ceremonial and cultural uses of first nations; (3) protect and maintain recreational values; and (4) ensure that the development and use of natural resources occurs in a sustainable manner consistent with the other purposes for which a conservancy may be established. These purposes are intended to work together to ensure that the conservancies offer a range of uses and benefits for all British Columbians.

Consistent with the wishes of first nations and coastal communities, a number of the conservancies will be managed to enhance tourism opportunities. Conservancies may also allow for a range of low-impact and compatible economic activities that are consistent with the purposes of conservancies, negotiated collaborative management arrangements and approved management plans for conservancies.

In support of the conservancy designation, the B.C. government has committed to work with first nations to establish collaborative management arrangements, respecting the conservancies and other protected areas. These arrangements may take the form of negotiated management agreements or less structured protocols where appropriate and requested by first nations. Further, the B.C. government is committed to working with first nations and others to prepare management plans to guide the protection, management and operation of these conservancies and other protected areas.

In addition, our government intends to have management plans in place for conservancy before park use permits will be issued for activities that are not currently being conducted in that area. These management plans will be developed cooperatively with respect to first nations in accordance with negotiated, collaborative management arrangements. The preparation of management plans will provide appropriate opportunities for other British Columbians to provide input into the management of these significant areas.

I would like to note what activities can and cannot take place in conservancies. This is something we canvassed at some length last year when we introduced this legislation initially. Commercial logging, mining and large-scale hydroelectric power generation are prohibited in conservancies.

There is provision to permit local run-of-the-river hydro projects. There are a number of communities that do not have access to the main B.C. Hydro power grid and are currently generating electricity through such means as diesel-powered generators. Most British Columbians, I think, would agree that switching to this greener power source would result in a net benefit for the environment, and the local communities would certainly see a vast improvement in the air quality in their pristine valleys.

Roads may also be allowed through a limited number of conservancies for the purpose of providing access to natural resources lying beyond the conservancy. This issue of access was discussed during the land use planning processes and during the subsequent government-to-government negotiations for finalizing the land use decisions and developing proposals for individual conservancies.

Having recapped the purposes of the conservancy designation, I will now provide some more detail on a few specific contents of the bill. The amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act that are set out in this bill will establish 41 new conservancies in addition to the 24 conservancies that were established last year in accordance with the central coast and north coast land use decisions.

To emphasize the ecological value and uniqueness of the new areas, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a few. Now, I apologize in advance for what may amount to some mispronunciation of what, at least to me, are some difficult names. Against my better judgment, I'll give it a try.

The Owikeno Conservancy, at 70,569 hectares, protects several tributaries of the largest fjord lake in coastal British Columbia, which is known for its high sockeye salmon values and its seasonal habitat values for grizzly bears. The conservancy also protects extensive cultural heritage values of significance to the Oweekeno First Nation. The Owikeno is located approximately 65 kilometres south of Bella Coola and 20 kilometres east of the Oweekeno village.

The Alty Conservancy, at 8,463 hectares, protects an area of high value for grizzly bear and bird habitat. The conservancy is in the asserted territories of the Gitga'at and the Gitxaala first nations.

The Alty Conservancy is accessible by boat and is located ten kilometres north of Hartley Bay and 70 kilometres south of my birthplace of Kitimat.

The K'waal Conservancy of 3,300 hectares protects an estuary that is one of the top-ranking wetlands on the north coast. Large numbers of waterfowl use these diverse wetlands, which extend from the intertidal zone up the Quaal River valley. Large numbers of salmon and steelhead also spawn in the river. The conservancy also contains yellow cedar, hemlock and amabilis fir stands.

This conservancy is in the asserted territories of the Gitxaala and Gitga'at first nations. The K'waal Conservancy is accessible by boat and is located 30 kilometres north of Hartley Bay and 60 kilometres southwest of Kitimat.

The Lady Douglas–Don Peninsula Conservancy, at 11,190 hectares, consists of several outer coastal islands and an intricate mainland shoreline with numerous small bays, coves, passages and shoals. This conservancy protects important marbled murrelet habitat. The conservancy is within the asserted traditional territory of the Heiltsuk and Kitasoo first nations. Lady Douglas Island and Don Peninsula are located approximately 30 kilometres northwest of Bella Coola and 40 kilometres southeast of Klemtu.

The Lockhart-Gordon Conservancy, at just over 24,500 hectares, protects intact and undeveloped old-growth watersheds and important grizzly bear and salmon interactions and habitats. The conservancy is within the asserted traditional territory of the Oweekeno First Nation. It is located approximately 25 kilometres south of the Oweekeno village and 120 kilometres southwest of Bella Coola.

The Ugwiwey/Cape Caution Conservancy is within the asserted territory of the Gwa'sala-Nakwaxda'xw First Nation. The conservancy, at 10,223 hectares, is a narrow strip of land along the mainland coast which borders the Queen Charlotte Strait. It protects an unrepresented biogeoclimatic variant of the Hecate lowland ecosection and characteristic coastal bog forests. It also protects special features such as beaches, tidal rapids and rock formations characteristic of our spectacular west coast.

The conservancy provides excellent opportunities for recreational boating by coastal cruisers and kayakers, with a number of safe anchorages and spectacular sandy beaches. The conservancy is located 44 kilometres north of Port Hardy.

Outer Central Coast Islands Conservancy, at 14,839 hectares, is adjacent to the Hakai Luxvbalis Conservancy and located west of Bella Bella. The conservancy protects an archipelago of outer coast islands with an intricate, exposed marine shoreline interface. The area receives high use as a sea kayak route from Raymond Passage to Goose Island. This conservancy is rich in marine life with important sea otter concentrations in the McMullin Group. The conservancy is within the asserted traditional territory of the Heiltsuk First Nation.

The Phillips Estuary/nacinux Conservancy, at 1,461 hectares, is located within the asserted territories of the Homalco, the Kwiakah and the Wei Wai Kum first nations. This small but very complex watershed is located at the end of Phillips Arm, north of East Thurlow Island. The conservancy protects a significant and unique combination of marine, estuary, lake and river features.

Phillips River and Phillips Lake provide opportunities for salmon and trout fishing as well as grizzly bear viewing. The conservancy is 52 kilometres north of Campbell River.

The Wawley/Seymour Estuary Conservancy, at 327 hectares, is located at the south end of Seymour Inlet, a 75-kilometre-long fjord. It protects a largely intact coastal estuary on a protected inlet. The conservancy includes the entire estuary complex of the Seymour River and a salt marsh of ecological interest.

Commercial tourism and recreational opportunities include wildlife viewing areas for grizzly bears, and

sport fishing. The conservancy is within the traditional territory of the Gwa'sala-Nakwaxda'xw First Nation. The conservancy is 73 kilometres northeast of Port Hardy.

This short list does not do true justice to the magnitude of what is being protected through the conservancies initiative, but I hope it does serve to give some indication of the range of areas and natural values that are being protected. It certainly has provided me with a few ideas for my summer vacation.

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, the member is quite correct. Hansard will be calling shortly, I'm sure, for assistance in some of the details in spelling those words.

There are also amendments to the act that concern changes to the protected area system in other parts of the province. Three new class-A parks are being established. As a result of private land acquisition, Anderson Flats near New Hazelton will be designated as a 99-hectare class-A park by these amendments. Boothman's Oxbow Park, with 43 hectares, and Gilpin Grasslands Park, with 791 hectares, will be established east of Grand Forks in accordance with the West Kootenay–Boundary goal 2 land use process to protect increasingly rare grassland habitat.

The amendments in this bill will also make additions to 16 existing class-A provincial parks and three conservancies. Brackendale Eagles Park near Squamish; MacMillan Park on Vancouver Island, better known as Cathedral Grove; Naikoon Park on Haida Gwaii; Indian Arm Park near Vancouver; as well as a park on Saltspring Island, among others, will all have lands added to them as a result of land acquisitions in this legislation.

Nine existing parks and one conservancy will also have their boundaries modified to facilitate improvements to the Sea to Sky Highway from Vancouver to Whistler, to allow highway improvements in other areas, to respond to input from first nations, or to accommodate economic development.

Babine Mountains Park, Brandywine Falls Park, Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park, the Roderick Haig-Brown Park and Stawamus Chief Park will be reduced slightly in size to accommodate highway improvements.

Eleven hectares will be removed from Rubyrock Lake Park to address concerns raised by the Yekooche First Nation. Approximately 478 hectares will be removed from the Mount Robson Park, representing less than 2/10 of 1 percent of the 244,852 hectares currently in the park, to accommodate expansion of an existing natural gas pipeline right-of-way.

These lands will, however, remain under the administration of the Ministry of Environment and will be designated as another form of protected area to ensure that the natural values are protected in all respects, aside from the impacts that cannot be avoided as a result of the construction project.

Amendments are also being made to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act to transfer some protected areas that are currently established by regulation into the act to give these areas full protection as statutory parks.

Lastly, several boundary descriptions for areas listed in the schedules to the act will also be updated using a more accurate mapped boundary description to replace the written metes and bounds descriptions that are difficult to read and to use.

This bill also makes amendments to the Park Act and Forest Act to provide a clear mechanism to address the rights of forest tenure holders when those rights are impacted by the creation or enlargement of parks and conservancies.

There are currently sections in the Forest Act that give the minister responsible for that act authority to make orders concerning deletions from area-based timber-harvesting tenures and reductions from volume-based tenures and that provide for compensation to tenure holders who are affected by such deletions or reductions. There is currently no linkage between these authorities and the establishment of parks and conservancies managed under the Park Act. The amendments contained within this bill will correct that gap.

Given that the establishment of parks and conservancies can displace previously allocated forestry rights, there is a need for a clear, proactive framework respecting the impacts on the rights of forest tenure holders that arise when protected areas are established on Crown land that up to that point has been available for timber harvesting. The amendments being introduced now provide a predictable, timely mechanism for addressing forest tenure rights in the specific context of establishing protected areas.

The new provisions for the Park Act that will provide the linkage to the Forest Act will be similar to existing authorities in the Park Act that deal with rights under the Mineral Tenure Act or the Coal Act when such rights are being displaced by the creation of parks or conservancies.

The displacement of forest tenure rights under the Park Act will be linked by these amendments to existing provisions in the Forest Act that deal with notice requirements and compensation for reductions in volume-based forest tenures and deletions from land-based forest tenures.

It is my pleasure to introduce these amendments which add to our world-class park system and our protected area system and demonstrate this government's willingness to work with first nations, conservation groups, industry and communities to find solutions that keep everyone's interests in mind, building a province that is prosperous and a world leader in the protection of our environment.

On an administrative note, I would like to point out to all members that I believe the Office of the Clerk has been provided with copies of all the maps that depict the boundaries of the new conservancies.

The Clerk just nodded his head in the affirmative. So, Members, you can rush out as soon as we're done this debate. These maps are available for viewing, if

Mr. Speaker, I'll take my place. That concludes my remarks on this stage of second reading.

S. Simpson: I would note for the Speaker that I am the designated speaker for purposes of Bill 24.

S. Simpson: The other side is starting, and I haven't even made a comment yet. There you go.

I'm pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 24, the Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. This bill, as the minister has said in his comments, brings into force a number of changes primarily, but not exclusively, around the Central and North Coast Land and Resource Management Plans that were put in place and finalized in February of last year.

In those plans, a whole range of land and acreage and significant areas up the central and the north coast were set aside as part of those plans following a negotiation that had started back in the days of our government, when we were government, and proceeded through the current government. They were finalized, as I said, back in February of 2006.

I know that I read the announcements in the media when this came out. At that time I know there was a lot of talk about the hectares and how big this was. What we need to do is understand that, while this is a significant piece of legislation in that it puts in force decisions that were made at that time, the vast majority of the land that is involved here is land that is being announced again. The 41 conservancies that are talked about in this piece of legislation — totalling about 165,000 hectares — is the land that was included in the LRMPs.

It's interesting, and we'll talk a little bit about this further, but there are another 45 conservancies that I believe are tentatively planned to be brought forward in June of next year. I look forward in committee stage, when we get there, to having some discussion with the minister about why those weren't brought forward at this time. We'll have an opportunity to talk about why the whole thing wasn't done as a package at this time.

The other things that we know about this area are that about 335 hectares of this land were donated privately, another 1,251 hectares or so came from mineral forfeitures, and total lands acquired from the government through private acquisitions were about another 405 hectares or so. Then another couple hundred hectares of Crown land were transferred to Parks.

What we know in terms of what's actually new here — new to the announcements that were made last February…. We actually have about a little more than 900 hectares — about 921 hectares — of new parkland and protected areas that are created under Bill 24. That's not insignificant, but I just wanted to make the point here for the purposes of second reading that a significant amount of this land in fact comes from previously announced agreements.

We have about 45 remaining conservancies that have been announced on the north and central coast that are to be established. I think it is important. I know that I've had questions raised to me by some of the people who are very engaged in the work that went forward. I know they have questions. They've raised some questions as to why the decision has been made not to bring those forward at this time, and they have some concern about that.

I hope we can satisfy those concerns — when we get to committee stage — as to what the government's thinking is for those 45 conservancies that make up a significant portion of the land that's to be set aside under the conservancies in the central and north coast, and as to why the decision has been made to not move forward with those at this time.

When we talk about those conservancies…. The minister talked about the management plans that need to be put in place. We've talked previously about the need for the conservancies to find a way to balance sustainability — that's the objective, between conservation, first nations and cultural uses — and some low-level economic activity as well. I'll be very interested as we look at those to get some sense around those conservancies — the 41 that are in this list and the others — as to some of the thinking of the government in putting those in place.

Most particularly, I know that ten of the conservancies, I believe, have been listed in what's called schedule F. Schedule F, as I understand it, is a categorization that allows roadbuilding to go forward for those conservancies that are in schedule F. I'll be very interested, as we move forward in the discussion around committee stage to delve into some of the process that the government envisions — what the criteria will be for deciding which conservancies actually get categorized as schedule F. What is the thinking, and how are decisions made about those — in this case, the ten conservancies that have been put into schedule F? We'll be looking to get some sense of how those decisions got made and how those particular conservancies got put there.

The other thing, as we look through and we get a chance to talk about that criterion…. The minister talked about management plans, and he acknowledged that there's not to be development or significant activity in there until management plans are put in place. I'm pleased that the minister made those comments.

We'll be looking, of course, for some assurances that for those conservancies that are under schedule F there won't be road development until those management plans are put in place, until we have a sense of what kinds of activities are envisioned in those areas — whether they're simply access roads to other areas, which might make perfect sense. We'll certainly be wanting to have a discussion and to have some assurances that the management plans the minister spoke about in his comments will in fact be put in place before any of those roads are allowed to be developed.

The minister also had talked about some of the small-scale activities that may be allowed to occur in some of the conservation areas. We know that there's been an awful lot of discussion that started, actually,

around the central and north coast activities. It is now spreading to other areas of economic activity in the province.

We hear a lot about EBM, ecosystem-based management, and about different ways to model how in fact you allow activity to happen in some of our conservancies and our protected areas. I'll look forward to having a discussion with the minister about where the EBM discussions are at now, how they relate to the activities within those conservancies, and what the expectations of the minister and the government are about having those EBM plans in place.

Along with the kinds of baselines…. I know, in discussions I've had, that some of the organizations are most keen about ecosystem-based management and are most interested in how that modelling works. It's not only critically important for the central and north coast, but it is a modelling that I think a lot of people are hopeful may play an integral role in resource development elsewhere in the province.

As we move forward on resource development activities elsewhere in the province, it may provide some examples, some modelling, that we can use in other places in the province as other activities move forward.

The minister and I have talked about climate change in his estimates, and I would think that on that and other green or sustainability issues, we'd all be looking to see whether we can make that model work, not just in the central and north coast but elsewhere. So I'm going to look forward to the discussions about where those EBM plans are at, how baselines are being put in place to allow us to model and develop from those, and we'll be looking to move that all forward.

I look forward to those discussions about the conservancies and about the limits of activity in those 41 conservancies that are included in Bill 24 and how, in fact, we're going to move those forward.

The minister spoke, and we know, that an integral part of the success of the conservancies in the future of the central and north coast agreements is the relationship with the first nations. They are key, clearly, to this, not just to the agreements themselves but to the future of that area, as they will play, I believe, the single most important role in the future of the central and north coast as they move forward to evolve those areas in ways that, hopefully, we will all be very excited about and will see as positive for more than decades to come.

There are other issues that we'll be looking at around the conservancies. Just to reference, to give some idea, for example, that when we talk about economic activity…. In the Banks Island conservancy, we know that there are proposals for a wind farm in the Banks Island area. I'd be very interested to get a sense of how that's going to be developed.

Again talking about EBM modelling, does that apply in some fashion? Are there management plan issues there? How is that going to be done? How is the conservancy model going to be used when you have those kinds of alternate energy activities?

I think this will be a good test case to have some discussion about how that is in fact going to be applied in the case of that conservancy. I am sure that when we get to committee stage, the minister will be able to enlighten us all about that as we have some discussion about how that works and what kinds of consultation will go on — consultation is such a critical part of this — and what kind of assessments will go on and what happens in terms of environmental assessment and in terms of those things that will be unique to the conservancies.

Again, this is a model that is somewhat unique that has been put in place and not necessarily done in this fashion before. So we're going to have an opportunity to see how that works around the conservancies. I think that will be important, and I look forward to having that discussion as well.

The minister talked about this, and we'll talk about this a little bit more. I'm going to look forward to having some discussion around how, in the cases of some of the tenured lands that are being removed or converted back…. The legislation talks about what compensation will look like. It makes references that there will be adjustments to allow for compensation to forest companies, to other resource companies that have tenured land taken out.

I'll be looking forward, as we move forward, to having some discussion about what that compensation looks like. Is this precedent-setting for the government in terms of compensation? Are we locking the province into some modelling around what compensation looks like? So I look forward because these are important questions not just for today and not just for Bill 24. These will be important questions as we move forward to look at how we deal with those compensation issues and what, in fact, occurs around the compensation matter as we do move forward on some of those issues.

Another issue that comes to mind here that is of some importance is an issue that I want to take some time to talk about. It relates to — and the minister referenced — what's going to occur in Mount Robson Park. In Mount Robson Park, I believe about 478 hectares or so of land will be removed to accommodate the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, or the loop, I believe it's called, through that area.

My understanding of what will occur there…. I believe that the comment I see is that it will be to accommodate an expansion of the existing pipeline. These 478 hectares that are to be removed from Mount Robson Park are to accommodate an expansion of the existing pipeline right-of-way for Kinder Morgan's pipeline looping project, as it's called.

My understanding is that these lands will remain under the administration of the Ministry of Environment and will be designated under the Environment and Land Use Act. Upon completion of the project, there will be some kind of mitigation and restoration around that, and some of that land may be added back in. Presumably Kinder Morgan will be asked to look at how they contribute to this.

I think this is important. It's important that we get to have this discussion around this project, in particu-

lar, because what we know is that this project…. It is the pipeline, in this case, through Mount Robson Park. But again, as we talked about in the case of some of the conservancies, there's going to be some modeling, and there will be some precedent set around how those conservancies deal with EBM issues and how we deal with issues around development of wind farms in a conservancy.

There will be a number of areas where we're going to set some precedent, and the government is going to be breaking some new ground here. It will be interesting to talk through that, and I think that what we know is that there is the potential that what's going to happen and how the government approaches the Mount Robson situation may very well have some precedent-setting nature to it as well.

I want to talk about that a little bit because we are talking about park boundary adjustments, how park boundary adjustments work and how they're done. We have policy, and as I said, this isn't the only one. We know, for example — and on another day we'll get into this in some detail, but I'll talk about it a little bit now — that we have pending here potentially another situation.

This case is in the Pinecone Burke Provincial Park, where there is also discussion there. There's a series of run-of-the-river projects — I believe they're Ledcor-owned — that are looking at the potential of running a transmission system across the park. That's in preapplication for environmental assessment, I believe, at this time. But it does raise some significant questions about how these things will occur.

I want to talk a little bit about the challenge that I think we face there because it will come to bear very quickly as we move forward on the discussion around Mount Robson Park and the taking out of the 478 hectares. I was looking through the provincial park boundary adjustment policy, the process, the guidelines that need to be put in place to make those adjustments, and I want to talk about those a little bit because I think they're important. They apply here, and they will raise — bring cause to raise — a series of questions, I believe, about how in fact this Mount Robson project moves forward, how it gets dealt with, and then we will use that, I hope, as some precedent or model for the things that might come afterwards.

When there's a consideration for proposals for park boundary changes, there are a series of principles that are put in place. Those are principles that need to be considered before these projects move forward. To give you a sense, I want to read a little bit about some of those principles and talk about them a little bit: "The province is committed to the long-term protection of provincial parks and the integrity of their associated ecological, recreational and cultural values." It's a very important principle in the adjustment policy, and I'm pleased that that would be the first principle, and so it should be.

Second: "The proposals for park boundary amendments will be considered on a case-by-case basis where there are compelling provincial, economic, environmental and social benefits that exceed preserving the integrity of the existing park boundary and values." That's an important discussion because we're saying that we have a unique situation here where there is a greater good than the protection of the integrity of this park, and if there's a greater good, this is what we need to do to make that happen.

I know that we're going to have that discussion on Mount Robson. I certainly know — and I think I made comment to it before — from the discussion with people in the community related to and around the Pinecone Burke Provincial Park, including the Burke Mountain Naturalists, that they are concerned about whether that in fact applies in the case of the park that they're most interested in.

We're going to get to talk, when we talk about Mount Robson here, about how those decisions get made — what the discussion looks like to make those decisions around park amendments and how people think about this criteria as we do that.

The third principle in the policy is that the review and evaluation process will be timely and transparent. I'm looking forward to that discussion, about how that occurred, how it occurred in the case of Mount Robson, what those discussions were and how they went. I look forward to the minister being able to provide some significant detail about how that evaluation and review went forward.

Fourth, the proponent must establish the case to amend the park boundary and bear the associated costs. This is a very important issue here. We know that there will be significant costs to be able to open up the 500 hectares — assuming, of course, that this legislation passes — to put the pipeline extension in and then to make the park whole again. It will be interesting to have that discussion.

I look forward to the discussion with the minister about how that money gets set aside; how those things get paid for; what the long-term commitments are, both in terms of the initial restoration and when that occurs after the pipeline is put in place; and then what the longer-term commitment is — for Kinder Morgan in this case, to be able to move forward and ensure that the environmental, the ecological, the habitat, the species impacts which may occur and may be assessed by experts and people who do that work — to ensure Kinder Morgan continues an ongoing and long-term obligation to pay and deal with those costs that may relate to that as we see what the impact of this pipeline is.

As the minister knows, and I know that he knows this full well, when you look at these impacts in any given area like this, in any natural habitat and particularly the impact on species and that, there's the immediate impact of what you do, but more important is the longer-term assessment of what this impact is on habitat, on animals, on the plant life, on all of those areas.

I'm sure that the ministry is going to want to have an ongoing assessment of that with their experts, the people in the ministry who have the expertise and skills to do that, the conservation staff. We need to have the assurance that whatever resources are required to deal with problems or challenges that are

found, that those resources are immediately available and immediately there to ensure that in fact those protections are put in place.

The principles also say that where a change is to be made to a park established through a local public process, participants in the original process will be consulted on the proposed change, within reason. I don't know what the implications of that are for Mount Robson. It's been around quite a while, but it may be an interesting question as to how that is dealt with. Of course, consultation with first nations is required as appropriate. That's always a consideration.

Then the last of the principles really is that suitable public consultation will be required consistent with the significance of the proposed change.

As we all know, with these changes…. Sometimes it is in the eyes of the beholder as to what the significance of a change is, but 500 hectares is 500 hectares. For some people it will certainly be seen as very significant, even though, as the minister noted, Mount Robson is a very substantial park.

Those principles will move forward, and I'll be interested, as we talk about this, to see what that application looks like and what those discussions look like in terms of the Mount Robson proposal.

One of the things when we talk about the guidelines for formal requests is that alternatives to avoid the park have been considered. Now, I suspect it's quite likely that all the alternatives were looked at. But we'll get a chance to talk about what those alternatives were before the decision was made that this had to go forward — that through Mount Robson Park was the place where this had to proceed, and it would go forward.

I think the overall economic benefits…. I'm sure the minister will be able to easily identify those economic benefits, considering what the purpose of this is, and we'll look at that.

We'll be looking at the guidelines around park adjustments and talking about social and environmental impacts in the documentation. I'll look forward to seeing the documentation, or having the minister, hopefully, table that documentation or make it available — I'm sure he has it — on what the expected impacts of this are and how those impacts on Mount Robson Park will be mitigated.

That leads to the next question which is: what is happening around mitigation and restoration? Presumably, a plan will be put in place; a plan is in place. Presumably, before anything is allowed to proceed, there will be comprehensive plans around these issues. I look forward to being able to have the minister explain about the mitigation and restoration related to that and what it may look like.

Of course, we talked earlier about first nations and community consultation. I'll look forward to seeing what that consultation looks like, as well, as we move forward on these matters.

What we know on this is that this particular project, the Mount Robson project, in some ways — accepting, of course, the magnitude of the enforcement of putting the conservancies in place, which is very important….

In terms of economic opportunity and economic development in the future and how parks or protected areas or conservancies are used in the future, or where changes are allowed to occur to promote or access economic activity — primarily in the resource sector, but other activities as well — I think that this may be a good place for us to learn some lessons based on Bill 24 and what it tells us about what will happen at Mount Robson. So I look forward to that.

As I said previously, I know that the discussion about the process of how decisions are made to make changes around park adjustments go forward, and then what happens around environmental assessment, and which comes first and how that all occurs, certainly will be an important matter of clarification.

I know, as I'd mentioned earlier, the situation around the Pinecome Burke Provincial Park. I know there's confusion there about what comes first. Hopefully, what we learn from the Mount Robson Park situation in Bill 24 will help us better understand how we deal with that and move forward on it.

As we look at the bill, some of the things that some of my colleagues will want to talk about are how the decisions were made, not so much around the conservancies…. We know the conservancies were part of the previous commitment around the central and north coast, and the moving forward of those commitments. I congratulate the government on doing that.

When the bill came forward and I had the opportunity to have discussion with some of the organizations that are most keen about this, I know they confirmed that the changes that are proposed here are certainly consistent with the commitments that were made in February 2006 around the mapping — that this is very consistent with the maps — and that these 41 conservancies do reflect what people's expectations were in those areas. That's a positive thing, and I congratulate the government on that.

In the other areas the conservancies are there. But I know that some of my colleagues and others are going to want to have discussions around some of the other park areas and decisions that are made around those park areas.

I suspect some of my colleagues may want to talk about parks that were or weren't included in this. They maybe could have been included in the parks and protected areas amendments, but the government at this point in time for any number of reasons chose not to include those, which we'll get to talk about.

I want to talk a little bit about the area here that talks about changes to the Forest Act to allow the minister to make orders in respect of deletions from Crown land that is subject to forest tenders triggering compensation. I spoke about that a little earlier, but it's an interesting question.

As we have land that for any number of reasons may be coming out of tenures — whether it be forest

tenures or around mineral exploration — how are those decisions made? What are the criteria? How does that land get valued for compensation? How are those decisions going to be made by the government? What's the process that we can reasonably expect to move forward to determine what fair compensation is, if land is removed from tenures and put into parks or protected areas or conservancies in the future? Who's going to make those decisions? What's the process? How transparent is that process going to be, so that everybody can see how those tenure holders are being compensated and to what levels they're being compensated? I know that's an important question. It's important for people in communities who are very interested in knowing how those things will occur in the future.

I'm pleased that the minister made the decision to go through and make the effort to name those conservancies. It was a valiant effort. I'm sure there are people who live around those communities, where the minister named the conservancies, who aren't aware that it was their conservancy that he was talking about. But it was a good effort on his part. To be fair, I'm not going to make the effort to do it, because I'm sure I would butcher them just as badly as the minister did. I'm not going to make the effort to name those areas.

I'm going back now to talk about this. This is the one, again, about this compensation. When we get to clause by clause, one of the things we'll be talking about in section 1 of the bill, which is pretty important, is around this authorization for the minister to expropriate improvements on Crown land related to a forest tenure, timber supply areas, licence areas, tree farm licence areas, community forest areas, etc., for the purposes of establishing or enlarging a park, conservancy or recreation area. Persons whose rights are expropriated are entitled to compensation and for which compensation may be paid to the tenure holder.

I talked about that before. It's going to be pretty interesting to see how that works and to actually get some idea of what the expectations of government are about the costs of that. Also, the decision to put that piece in this legislation suggests to me…. I don't think the government does things for no reason.

The government's decision to put that particular piece in Bill 24 suggests to me that they expect to have to exercise that particular clause of the bill sometime in the not too distant future. I'll look forward to a discussion about what the plans or the thoughts of the minister are about what, in fact, those changes might be: that we're going to compensate people who would fall into those categories — holding tenures for timber supply areas, licence areas, tree farm licence areas, community forest agreements or woodlot licences — and what we do around those areas.

We will be supporting the bill. We will certainly be supporting the bill now and throughout the process. As I said, it brings into force commitments that the government made in February of last year around what's commonly called the Great Bear. It made commitments there, and they are commitments that we supported when they were made in February of 2006. We're pleased to support those conservancies being put in place now, to bring into force the decisions that were made by the government in February of last year. They are important.

We will be supporting the bill. I have raised in my comments here a number of questions that we have, and I'm sure that my colleagues have other questions related to what is and isn't possible in these areas and what the expectations are.

We look forward, when we get to committee stage of this bill in the coming days, to being able to pose those questions to the minister and to his staff and to be able to determine what expectations, in fact, should be around that. We will be looking for more information around how decisions were made in terms of where the conservancies are listed and the schedules.

We will be looking for firm commitments that the management plans, which the minister referenced in his opening comments, will in fact be put in place prior to roads being allowed to be built in those conservancies in schedule F. We'll be looking for some explanation about why the decision wasn't made to bring those final 45 conservancies forward at this time, rather than to delay them to next year — into 2008.

We will be talking about using — this will be as an example to get a better sense of how this will work — the wind farm that's proposed on Bank's Island, to get a sense of how that works within one of these conservancies when you have an alternate energy source, because we know that the minister talked about run of the river and others. So we can expect there will be some alternate energy activity. I think that some of that may be just fine in those areas, so it will be interesting to see how that works.

That then raises the whole question around what that consultation process is going to look like down the road, particularly with first nations but also with other communities. There are a number of rural, outlying and northern communities, I know, that have a great interest in what happens in these areas, outside of the first nations. They're going to want to know how they're consulted on this.

We've talked to those communities because of frustrations around not feeling that some of the economic opportunities, which they believe were promised to them when the Great Bear was put in place, have been realized. They haven't been realized, and I know there's some frustration around that and around some of the development funds that they expected. Consequently, I know they're going to want some assurances about what the future looks like, as we head for some of those areas.

Some of my colleagues have an interest in speaking to the second reading of Bill 24. So, again, I thank the minister for bringing it forward. I look forward to getting into committee stage debate when it comes to that. At this point, I will take my place and allow somebody else to engage the debate.

C. Trevena: I too welcome this bill, and I really just wanted to…. I don't want to correct the minister on his

I will keep my pronunciation limited. I wasn't listening to all of them, but there are a number of the conservation areas that are around my constituency. I'm very pleased to see that they are being recognized and noted, although, as my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings mentioned, it's taken some time to get them from the drawing board to the bill. So I'm very pleased that they are being recognized.

However, there are a few issues that I would also like to raise as we proceed through this bill, from this stage into committee stage. When we're talking about some of the conservation areas and looking at the notes about the conservation areas, it's talking about providing recreation opportunities to mariners, scenic qualities important to anchorages, harbours — Wei Wai Kai traditional territory; the Thurston Bay conservancy, which is again in the constituency and is Wei Wai Kai, Wei Wai Kum and Homalco traditional territory — and talking about recreational opportunities for mariners, using the anchorage and so on. They're clearly being looked at as marine parks to a certain extent.

One of the questions that I will have, as my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings mentioned, is about the issue of wind farms in conservancies. A number of these areas are very well-used by the aquaculture industry. I'll be wanting to have a discussion with the minister about the overlap there because this is clearly a commitment here to backcountry and to protection of the water — the foreshore as well as the waters. So I will be asking the minister a bit about that when we move on.

That being said, I'm very pleased to see it and also very pleased to see that we have the research station for whales being noted. I think there are many positive things in this bill.

However, the other issue that I have with the bill is that while it expands certain parks, it ignores others. There was the prime opportunity to look at expansion for — I know the ministry has been looking at this — particularly the parks of Small Inlet and Octopus Islands on Quadra Island, where there has been a commitment for a land trade with Merril and Ring. I know that has been going on for a number of years and is very close to completion, so it would have been very nice to have seen that in the list of parks.

The other one which the ministry and the minister are well aware of, again on Quadra Island, is the acquisition of the land between Main and small lakes, both of which would be very easy to be able to expand the parks without much trouble and which I know the ministry has been working on.

That being said, there seem to be a number of very positive moves within this bill, a number of things that we do really want to make sure are as clear as they appear — that they are clearly recreational opportunities, that we are talking very much about conservation and, obviously, that the first nations are very well involved in making sure these conservancies can continue. With that, I will hand over to another colleague.

D. Thorne: I'm not even going to try the names, but I do have some comments that I have received from my constituency. I will speak to these at greater length when we move on with this bill. Some of my constituents feel that there are some discrepancies in some of the announcements around the Indian Arm Provincial Park, specifically looking at…. I'm just trying to find it here now on the list.

She was finally able to ascertain that the Indian Arm Provincial Park addition was Croker Island plus a parcel of land, the former Frenell lands, northwest of Croker Island. Apparently, Indian Arm Park was announced in the Park Act of 1995. The size was given as 9,300 hectares. At that time, the GVRD had just purchased Granite Falls and Clementine Fan and added them in. They are wondering about the actual size of the park and what this new addition is actually going to be doing.

There are some more details here. I'm not going to go into all of them. Another one of their concerns is the temporary deletions, I guess, looking at the bill that would be specifically around Mount Robson Park. People have never heard of temporary park deletions before, and they're wondering what kinds of policies the government has in place to guide them on decisions around temporary deletions. For instance, how long can a temporary deletion be?

This is leading into looking at one of the issues that my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings had raised earlier, about the hydroelectric proposals on the upper Pitt Lake and Pinecone Burke Park. Looking at the same boundary adjustments act from July 2004, the guiding principles and the formal request process for that, several people in our community, actually quite a few people….

I think you've heard from a number of people from Burke Mountain Naturalists yourself. Their members are wondering… I mean, they're not only concerned, because this proposal is in the pre-application stage for an environmental assessment. If the proposal goes through, we'll be looking at damming eight salmon tributaries into the Pitt Lake, which will render them pretty much impotent. That's what they're afraid of. So they're very concerned. I'm very concerned about what you can and can't do in a class-A park.

The Burke Mountain Naturalists have been in touch with the environmental assessment office and with your office and have had it acknowledged that a transmission line — for instance, a hydroelectric transmission line — through a class-A provincial park would in fact be illegal.

So while I'm very happy that we're adding conservancies, I'm not actually sure what that is. It's a new word to me. But I guess it's a protected area with less protection than a class-A park. That's what I'm assuming.

D. Thorne: Nevertheless, I'm assuming that's what it is. It doesn't have the same protection that a class-A park has. I'm still happy to see additions of any kind to protected areas. It does bring up a lot of questions about what we're doing with class-A parks and other areas like Mount Robson and those kinds of things.

That being said, I will let my colleague here speak because we're going to run out of time, and I'll be back at the next day.

S. Fraser: I'm pleased to be able to speak to Bill 24, Parks and Protected Area Statutes Amendments Act, 2007. I'd like to begin by reciting the names of the 41 conservancies in reverse order, if I could. No, I shall not, considering the time required. But hats off to the minister for going through that for us and getting the names. I know Hansard will have the correct spelling, after review, and this will be in Hansard.

I am pleased that we're seeing these park and conservancy creations, although it is a bit of a déjà vu experience. I know the local press said: "Well, we're not going to…. This is a re-announcement." Certainly, 165,000 hectares is essentially a re-announcement. But that being said, the nature of the bill…. I understand it is formalizing the creation of these.

There is some significance in Alberni-Qualicum. I had a letter to the minister dated April 24 of last year, just over a year ago, requesting that the integrity of Cathedral Grove park be maintained by the integration of a portion of area that was to be used as a parking lot into the class-A designation. So I'm pleased to see that that appears to be happening, and I thank the minister for that.

I do have some concerns. I see that 45 of the conservancies — mostly central and north coast — have not been announced in Bill 24. I have received some correspondence on that very recently, hoping that this isn't a problem. We'll certainly go through this a little more in committee stage. I look forward to that also.

I do note there are some gaps, and there were some expectations around Mount Arrowsmith and the potential for park creation there and Hamilton Marsh, certainly, and also Englishman River provincial park — the expansion that the minister has also received correspondence from myself on. I'm hopeful that we can pursue that further at the committee stages and possibly introduce a couple of other ideas that I have for the minister — Nile Creek and some of the great work they're doing there north of Qualicum Beach.

Most of the changes, as I mentioned, have already been agreed upon, and they were announced prior to the bill. I see that of the 45 remaining conservancies that I mentioned earlier, there is expectation that we will see the inclusion of these, potentially, with a further bill in 2008. Certainly, we'll be pursuing that and trying to get some confirmation of that, again, at committee stage.

A lot of the land involved here has been acquired by other means, and that's all right; I'm not criticizing that. I think only just over 900 hectares is actually new land. That's out of 165,000 hectares, so I appreciate that.

The fact that — certainly in Alberni-Qualicum — we're seeing quite a devastating effect in the landscape on private managed forest lands…. I think it's essential that we not stop here, that we look at acquiring land that specifically, in essence, protects watersheds. The water systems, certainly on Vancouver Island…. With climate change, I think the park designations and conservancies are very important because of expected growth in population and expected increase in temperatures globally. We've already seen some water problems across the Island, certainly Tofino everyone is aware of.

S. Fraser: I shall defer to my colleagues to…. I shall sit down. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Environment closes debate.

Hon. B. Penner: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I do rise to close debate, and just to make this one observation. Last year when the midcoast and north coast land use planning process was completed and announced, the government did state our intention to establish something in the order of 100 or so conservancies.

Work is moving forward on that very ambitious undertaking. Last year legislation was introduced and passed and voted for by all members of this House, establishing conservancies for the first time. I noted the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville expressing some concern about what the definition of conservancy was, but it was in the bill that she voted for last year. Anyway, that established 24 conservancies.

This bill will complete another 41 conservancies, for a total of 65. We will be working with first nations and other government ministries to make sure we get the boundaries correct on the remainder of the conservancies that we intend to designate, hopefully in time for the next legislative session.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole at the first sitting of the House after today.

Bill 24, Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, 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 (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

M. Farnworth: When we left off, I'd asked some questions around the Coroners Service. The minister indicated that there had been, besides an increase in staff, an increase in material resources available to coroners. I'd just like him to briefly outline, again, what they were.

Hon. J. Les: I'm glad to do that. First of all, in terms of the staffing levels, the approved level of full-time-equivalent staff is now at 81. The number of full-time coroners is 32, which is a considerable increase. There is a slight reduction in the number of community coroners, but that is actually quite deliberate in that we have fewer community coroners but more full-time coroners. So there are 70 community coroners across the province. There are seven FTEs in the child death review unit.

On the equipment side of the business, I referred earlier to a software program called TOSCA. That is a software program that is deliberately oriented to collecting, gathering and analyzing information that comes from the Coroners Service to properly assess the information that is being gathered to determine what trends might be developing in the investigation of these deaths.

There is also a considerable improvement in the mobile equipment available to the coroners as they carry out their duties across the province. These include such things, obviously, as digital cameras, identification equipment, GPS technology and new laptops that have been issued to all coroners across the province, as well as, I might add, clothing and equipment designed to keep the coroners themselves properly outfitted as they carry out their responsibilities.

M. Farnworth: The TOSCA system that the minister outlined. He said it will allow for tracking trends and used to correlate information. What type of information will it be tracking?

Hon. J. Les: The type of information that is entered into the TOSCA system is pretty well everything that has to do with a particular death — what happened, why it happened and the circumstances surrounding it. Just about everything you can imagine is entered into that system. That allows for all of that information to be correlated properly and for information to be extracted in terms of similarities between that death and others, whether causative factors are similar so that we….

In fact, this software is leading-edge technology. We can do a better job of assessing information. We can do a better job of extracting information, and based on that, the Coroners Service is better able to make recommendations to prevent other deaths.

M. Farnworth: That brings me to a question in terms of the type of information, the tracking and the retrieval of information. Being able to have a better sense of the type of deaths that occur and how and where they occur and all those things I think is important.

One of the things that has been raised — and I'm raising it outside the gaming issue — has been suicide by gambling, related to gambling addiction. Will that category be included? I know in 2004 there was an indication that this was something that was going to be checked on and monitored in the future. To date I haven't heard anything about that taking place. So will this now be one of the things covered by this new system?

Hon. J. Les: We have been tracking — in terms of the suicide issue — those who have, in addition to other issues, gaming addictions, for example. But what practice indicates is that it is extremely difficult to isolate gaming issues from other stressors that present themselves. Quite often these are not stand-alone precursors to a suicide. There are very often other issues of a financial or personal relationship nature or an addiction to alcohol type of issue. There are a number of those things that are quite often difficult to extract from the other and to assess them as being attributable to one particular cause or not.

We are tracking all of those issues, but as I said, it is difficult to isolate one of those stressors and to assign that specifically as leading to the cause of the suicide.

M. Farnworth: When the minister says that they're tracking those particular stressors, is it done in a concept of…? Okay, you have had a suicide. The coroner ruled that it was a suicide, and then indicated there were these particular factors which may have led to that suicide. Are they definitive in nature?

For example, if a note is left, that may well be the cause or the reason. If there's been a family breakup or a breakdown in marriage that has resulted, is it categorized in that way? If it comes to light that, okay, a gaming addiction or an alcohol addiction or a drug

addiction was involved, is it…? Are they monitored on that basis? Each one of those was a factor, and at the end of this you'll be able to get a result that says that there have been X number of suicides this year in British Columbia, and as a result of the coroner's inquests, we can say that in 20 percent of them these things were a factor and in 15 percent of them these things were a factor. Is that how it's monitored?

Hon. J. Les: It is almost always the case that when there is a suicide there is more than one reason why a person was driven to that horrible conclusion. So when the Coroners Service identifies the various stressors that led to that act, they will in fact try to determine all of them and list all of them. But they will be very careful in terms of trying to identify any one issue that is the cause of the suicide.

Because they are interrelated and because of case law, there is a need to ensure that there is actually proof beyond a reasonable doubt before the Coroners Service asserts that a certain thing is so. They will be very cautious. They'll try to identify all of the stressors but will be cautious in terms of saying that it is that one thing that caused the suicide. As I said at the outset, normally there will be two or three or four different things that gave rise to the ultimate, very tragic conclusion.

M. Farnworth: Thanks to the minister for that answer. I ask this question, then, because I want to make sure that we are tracking all of those stressors. One of the things that you can do is to develop programs that target particular issues — whether it's alcohol and drug treatment programs for people with problems in that particular area; family support programs, if marital breakdown is being shown to be of significance or an important stressor; and likewise the same with gaming addiction in terms of the development of gaming addiction programs. That's why I want to make sure that that is, in fact, one of the stressors that is being monitored.

Hon. J. Les: Yes, definitely. We collect all of this information and we do that with a purpose. We do want to collect that information to ensure that we develop a knowledge base and a database to…. This is what the Coroners Service is all about — to try to prevent other tragedies from occurring. Over time as we collect this information, we identify trends. We will feed that directly back into prevention programs.

As the member may be aware, we fund a gaming addictions program within the ministry through the gaming policy and enforcement branch. That will be very much informed by any results that come from the Coroners Service, and that's deliberate, actually. We know that when gaming is provided as a form of entertainment, a vast majority of the people will not have any difficulty with that. There's always that small minority, as there is with alcohol and other things, where people run into difficulty.

We want to try and be aware of those issues as soon as possible. Where people have come to a point where, because of a variety of stressors in their lives — whether it's alcohol, whether it's family breakup, whether it's gaming or a combination of any of those things…. We want to over time develop those indicators and try and use that information in a way that is preventive in nature.

M. Farnworth: How does this approach compare with other provinces? How do other provinces deal with this particular issue?

Hon. J. Les: Actually, I'm pleased to say that to the best of our knowledge, we actually lead the country in terms of how we collect and analyze this particular type of information. It is something that I think we have an obligation to do and that we're putting significant resources into. We have, I think it's fair to say, the best available software today that allows us to do this work. So I'm pleased that we are as leading-edge with respect to this as we are in all of Canada.

C. Puchmayr: My question is with respect to reporting of fatalities in the workplace. Last year almost three workers a week in British Columbia died either from industrial disease or directly on the job. I'd like to know how the deaths — specifically, the ones that die on the job — are reported. Why do some make the media quickly and with others we have a great difficulty in finding that information?

Hon. J. Les: Let me say at the outset that it's not about whether something makes the media or not. A death is a tragedy and is not first and foremost a media event. Every accidental death in the province must be reported to the Coroners Service, period.

C. Puchmayr: The information comes…. Of course, WorkSafe is initially triggered because there is an inspection by the employer that's mandated. Where does that information then…? Do the police give that information immediately to the coroner? How is the coroner initially notified of that fatality?

Hon. J. Les: The Coroners Service is notified immediately when a death occurs.

C. Puchmayr: And then does the Coroners Service then make that information public immediately once they receive it?

Hon. J. Les: Anytime there's an accidental death in British Columbia, the Coroners Service is immediately notified. The coroner does his investigation and reports out publicly either by way of inquest and the subsequent recommendations or, where an inquest is not required, by a judgment of inquiry.

C. Puchmayr: Can the minister explain what the parameters of time lines would be to that? Is there a way that the public can get the information quicker?

I know the coroner will often be seized of the case for a considerable period of time before making a recommendation as to whether there will be an inquest or not. Would that delay that information being made public to the general public?

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, we all share a desire to have information made available as quickly as possible and for conclusions to be learned as quickly as possible.

What is sometimes the case when a tragedy occurs is that there is a police investigation and sometimes criminal proceedings. Clearly, those have to take precedence. If we're involved in criminal proceedings, for example, there is a trial.

I think the member can understand and appreciate that the rights of certain individuals that will be at play in the trial must not be compromised by other proceedings. So it is necessary for the coroner, in those kinds of cases, to stand down proceedings such as an inquest pending the outcome and conclusion of criminal trials. That's perhaps unfortunate, but at the same time necessary.

We all know that as a result of that requirement, some inquests have had to be delayed in some cases for several years. Regrettable as that is, particularly for next of kin and others who have a very distinct interest in those matters, it is nonetheless necessary to protect the ability of a trial to come to the appropriate conclusion.

C. Puchmayr: I know that in the minister's community and my community and everyone's community, if there is a fatality through a shooting or a stabbing or a murder, it's basically reported immediately. It's on the radio. It's in the local newspapers. It's in the major newspapers.

Granted, in respect for the next of kin, names are often withheld until that notification is made. But the incident is made public immediately. Are there different criteria or is there a different policy with respect to workers' deaths?

Hon. J. Les: Not particularly at all, Mr. Chair. As I've said before, anytime there is an accidental death, this is a tragedy. It's a horrible thing — extremely traumatic and most clearly so for next of kin and family.

The Coroners Service is not about first and foremost making sure that something is in the media. The Coroners Service is about making sure that all of the facts surrounding a fatality are made known and are investigated and are found out so that at the end of the day we know who died, what happened, when it happened and how it happened — all those things. All those questions must be answered.

The coroner's process is designed to find the facts. It is not designed to find fault. I think that is an understanding that is very basic to how the Coroners Service does its work. So in the case of a murder investigation involving the police, for example, clearly that is almost immediately in the news simply because of the nature of the event. An accident in a workplace, while equally tragic and horrific, is often not as immediately picked up by the media, or if it is picked up by the media, it isn't given the same kind of prominence in the media.

That is not something that really is an interest of the Coroners Service. It has its basic mandate. It is to carry out that mandate, and whether or not there is the attention of a great deal of media interest is actually quite secondary.

C. Puchmayr: Is there, then, an availability of the public to communicate with the coroner's office to see what cases are, or if there are any work-related cases, being dealt with in any given week, or any cases of homicides as well?

Hon. J. Les: The Coroners Service does not, as a matter of course, have an inventory of all the cases that it is working on posted online, but it quite freely discloses to interested individuals the status of investigations into individual deaths. But of course, always guided by freedom of information considerations and personal privacy considerations, as I'm sure the member understands and appreciates, the coroner's investigation also cannot be compromised by a premature disclosure.

Often there are privacy considerations involving family members, next of kin, that need to be respected and protected as well. But within those parameters, certainly, the Coroners Service has no difficulty disclosing information. It just does not regularly disclose it in an inventory form, if you will, on the Internet.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for the answers to those questions, and I want to stress at this particular point on this issue the importance in terms of tracking those stressors, because I think that is crucial information. If we have this new technology, new system and up-to-date abilities to get the very best information, the best data, then we need to use it to best effect.

I think in terms of development of new programs and new ways to treat individuals who suffer from addictions — whether it be alcohol, drugs, gaming or whatever — and dealing with family breakdown situations and issues around suicide, this is crucial. It's important that we do, in fact, monitor all the stressors so that we can develop the best preventative programs available.

Having said that, I would like to move on. I would ask the minister…. I know we have said that we'll deal with prisons and that the crystal meth program is further down the list. Would it be a problem right now if we wanted to deal with the crystal meth program, or do you need a few minutes?

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about the activities around the prevention of usage of crystal meth, substance abuse programs in general and about the crystal meth secretariat in particular, which is charged with cross-ministry initiatives, I know, to fo-

cus attention on disrupting and dealing with the spread of crystal meth in our province.

Maybe I could ask the minister to just give an overview, to start this discussion, around some of the funding initiatives in the budget and in the most recent fiscal year, to get an idea about changes that may be occurring and ongoing programs that may be continuing on this question. Can the minister tell me — in relation to a news release that was sent out in March of last year announcing youth addictions and crystal meth initiatives — how the funding has been spent previously, how it has been distributed and maybe also try and give an idea of actual versus the budgeted amount that was announced? The date of this news release is March 16, 2006.

Hon. J. Les: Maybe I'll take the opportunity for a minute to just draw some parameters around the issue of crystal meth, because it is a very serious issue. Drug addictions, generally, are something that we need to take very, very seriously. But I would suggest that crystal meth is, perhaps, one of those substances that people ingest which we should be even more concerned with than most other forms of drug taking.

Crystal meth is a horrible drug, quite frankly. It is rightfully classified as a poison. It can almost immediately do mental and physical damage and very often leads to the death of the individual taking that substance. There are people who recover completely from using crystal meth, but regrettably they are the minority. It is something that we as government need to take very, very seriously.

Some suggest that there is somewhat of an epidemic of the use of crystal meth across North America. We in British Columbia certainly are not immune to that, and for that reason the Premier, in particular, has taken a real interest to make sure that we are doing everything we can as a province to ensure that we are working in a preventative way to keep people from taking crystal meth. If they are so unfortunate as to take it, we are able to intervene, as difficult as it is to actually do that.

The member opposite mentions March of '06. Actually, I believe it was at the UBCM convention of October '05 where the Premier talked at some length about the crystal meth challenge and announced that we were making available $7 million to deal with crystal meth in a very specific way. So we ended up, out of that $7 million, distributing $2 million to the various communities across British Columbia.

About half of that money went to first nations communities, which I was pleased to see. Some very good initiatives have come out of that, some of which I have seen the results of. I am, indeed, pleased with the initiatives that first nations communities themselves took to address this problem, which is very real and prevalent in their communities.

We also invested $2 million in a public awareness campaign across the province. I think that, too, has played a role in making people more aware of how crystal meth is everywhere and how young people of all ages can be vulnerable to being exposed to this drug.

We also conducted a series of workshops across the province. I think in almost all cases I was present at those myself. Quite often we played to a sold-out house. Parents, students, grandparents, victims in recovery, family members — quite a mixture of people at those particular events. It was kind of very much heart-wrenching to listen to the personal experiences of some of the people who have been exposed either as a victim or as a relative of a victim.

Probably more troubling than any were parents who would say: "I had no idea that my son or daughter was taking this drug." They had noticed some strange behaviour but had no idea that it was actually crystal meth that was driving that particular behaviour.

We also invested $1 million in putting together materials that will be used in schools across British Columbia. Again, trying to educate young people to ensure that we prevent them from ever using crystal meth is probably the best investment and the most useful thing that we can do.

Also, there was an investment of $2 million for increasing the number of beds available for treatment for crystal meth addiction. There are currently somewhere just in excess of 1,000 beds available across British Columbia for mental health and addiction services, and that often is, of course, a very necessary component of addictions treatment.

It is interesting, though, that practitioners in the field will tell you that when it comes to treating someone for a crystal meth addiction it is often quite possible to treat them in the community. They don't need to be in an institutionalized sort of setting. What is important, though, is that they have those supports in the community and a structured program of counselling to help wean them off of their addiction.

I have personally visited several of those counselling programs to see how they work, and I understand and appreciate how difficult it is, actually, to get people to leave the drug addiction lifestyle and reintegrate themselves into useful and productive lives. So that's just by way of a quick overview in terms of the issue and some of the challenges and some of the initiatives that we have taken to address them.

In this discussion I want to avoid confusing or mixing funding initiatives for mental health and addictions in general and the things that the government is specifically trying to do on crystal meth. When you put out numbers like there being over 1,000 beds in the province, I appreciate that those are in general for people suffering all manner of addictions and mental health issues.

In fact, the situation in the province as it relates to specialized treatment for people suffering crystal meth addictions is very small. I wonder if the minister can tell me — and provide as many regional breakdowns as he can — how many drug treatment facilities in the

province are currently accepting adults and youth for treatment of crystal meth addiction.

Hon. J. Les: What I will do is specifically address the $2 million and how that has been utilized, and I will do that by health region. Keeping in mind, as I said earlier, when we're talking about treating crystal meth addicts, clearly from time to time you need a "bed." But more often you need a program, counselling support, because institutionalization is not necessarily the option that people are looking for — unless, of course, the addiction has gotten to a point where a client has become completely psychotic, which unfortunately is sometimes the case.

In the case of Vancouver Coastal, there was $455,000 for developing crystal meth strategies, of which treatment is a key component. They are developing a treatment program for crystal meth users that is part of existing out-patient programs. The components of that strategy include prevention, education, harm reduction and ongoing research.

In Fraser Health, there was almost $560,000 invested. In that case, they hired six crystal meth youth outreach workers, as well as investing in prevention and harm-reduction measures. What they're doing there is a number of community-based activities designed to reach at-risk youth as well as, of course, treating addicted youth and, again, minimizing harm that is associated with meth use. They deal with homeless clients as well as those currently using other drugs such as alcohol or marijuana. They also spend time in the schools, trying to reach those young people.

In Interior Health they invested $360,000. I'm just rounding off the numbers a little bit here. They invested that in four chemical-dependency nurse clinicians, one in each health service delivery area, to provide assessment and treatment services for crystal meth users and training and support for team members who encounter addicted clients.

In Northern Health, just over $100,000 was invested in just over one full-time-equivalent dedicated for assessment and treatment of crystal meth users.

In the Vancouver Island Health Authority, $365,000 for withdrawal management and stabilization beds prioritized for crystal meth users and for an enhancement of the intensive day treatment and community-based counselling services which, as I said earlier, are very important components of meth treatment.

In the Provincial Health Authority, there was almost $160,000 invested in specialty consultation and treatment services for youth. There's a dedicated clinical specialist in crystal meth within the provincial youth mental health treatment and substance abuse program.

R. Fleming: I think there won't be any disagreement from anyone in this House that when it comes to treating crystal meth, what families need, what addicts need, is a broad range of services. They need a continuum of services available until they successfully defeat their addiction to crystal meth. I think one of the problems we're having in this province and in many regions of the province is that we have huge gaps in the kinds of services that addicts need to be successful and to get back to restoring their lives and making a contribution to their communities.

I want to talk about that and maybe just…. I don't know if I disagree with the minister, but I would make the point that treatment beds are incredibly important to be successful. There is incredible demand for these facilities and incredible disparity as to how affected families — say, where they have an addicted son or daughter — are able to deal with that in their families.

Those with financial means can send their children for months at a time to very good treatment facilities that cost a substantial amount of money, both south of the border and some in B.C. Others that simply can't afford $10,000 or $12,000 to get a start on this are forced to rely on the public system, and there are very few beds out there.

To illustrate this point, Greater Victoria just got its first set of targeted youth detox beds for crystal meth. I should say recovery home environment — past detox, for that next stage.

There are six of them, only available to males, and that's all we have on the south Island. To give the minister an idea of the demand out there, the day it opened, the waiting list for that facility was 144 young males to get into that. So clearly we have a long way to go. There is tremendous demand because the spread of this drug unfortunately continues. It continues to grow.

I wonder if the minister could tell me: how many specific beds are there across the province? I'm not interested in the other programs right now, just for this part of the discussion. How many beds are there both for detox and the supportive recovery phase of treating this addiction? If you can give me any regional breakdown, that would be much appreciated.

Hon. J. Les: I'm not sure that I'll be able to quite get to the specifics of the answer that the member is looking for, because many of these answers, of course, lie within the ambit of the Ministry of Health. I know that there has been significant additional funding put into the area of addiction services within the Ministry of Health. When those estimates are up, the member may want to canvass that in a little bit more detail with that minister.

I will say this, however. When we're talking about beds specifically available for addictions, we tried to stay away from labelling those beds as specifically for crystal meth or specifically for cocaine or specifically for something else. Beds that are available for addictions treatment are available for addictions treatment, whatever the cause of that addiction is.

This is something that I think is important to understand as well. When the client presents with a drug addiction, they quite often are addicted to several drugs at the same time. If you have a crystal meth ad-

dict, it is not at all unusual for that person to be addicted to cocaine and alcohol and perhaps other things at the same time.

You don't have a particular stereotype when it comes to a crystal meth addict. People come from all walks of life. People come from all kinds of individual circumstances and often are using several drugs at the same time, including crystal meth.

R. Fleming: Just to follow up on that, though. I wonder if the minister could give me a specific relating to Kamloops and Interior Health. I know he's familiar with the Meth Kickers program there.

When I visited that facility, one of the things that was explained to me, in talking to young addicts, former addicts and the people working in that centre, was that what they have there is a very high quality sort of seven- to ten-day detox that serves the entire Interior Health catchment.

After somebody comes through that door, finally, who has generally referred themselves, and they successfully complete that seven-day phase, there is nothing there for them in terms of going to the next level of treatment and getting their lives back and learning some life skills, if that's what they need.

It was described to me that basically, they can't even afford to give them a bus ticket to go back to their home community, whether it's Armstrong or wherever. In many cases, they go back to where they have been, and they get right back into drugs again. So it's been in vain, that seven-day detox treatment.

My question is: is that the situation still in Interior Health? I know that's one of the more obvious and wide-spoken problems that the minister is probably aware of. Has the new funding announcement specifically tried to address gaps in crystal meth treatment services that we have in Interior Health, in this case, but elsewhere as well?

Hon. J. Les: Good points, valid points being raised by the member opposite. I referred earlier to an additional investment that had been made in Interior Health, specifically in the area of individual and group programs that are now being offered with a clinical focus on early recovery skills, relapse prevention and family education.

It's often necessary to involve more than just the client. If family members get involved, the probability of treatment being successful increases, in some cases quite remarkably. It's simply a fact that when an addict is recovering from meth addiction, they need as much family support or other community support as they can possibly muster. So in Interior Health, they've chosen to invest more in those areas.

I have seen — not specifically in the Interior Health area, but in Burnaby and Vancouver and in Richmond — recovery homes that are operating quite successfully. I can't remember the names of all of them. One, I believe in Vancouver on Kingsway, is called Together We Can — a very successful operation. I visited there about five or six months ago — very impressed with the staff there. It is based in the private non-profit sector. I know that as they go through that program, the addicts learn all about their addiction, and they're reacquiring life skills. They live in a communal environment there. I took the time to discuss the program with several of the addicts that were in treatment, and I was remarkably impressed by the nature of the program, the dedication of the staff, and their relative success rate.

As the member opposite is probably aware, it is the case that the vast majority of meth addicts are not successful on the first go-round in terms of kicking the habit. Recidivism is common, and it's not that unusual that an addict attempts recovery five or six times before they are ultimately successful. It is, after all, a wicked and evil drug that is very difficult to shake. But some of these programs are doing a remarkably good job in assisting those people who have come to the conclusion that they need treatment.

This is another feature of meth addiction. Some people advocate that you forcibly remove people from the street and force them into treatment. There are an awful lot of medical practitioners out there who will assert quite positively that the only addict that can be successfully treated is an addict that has come to the conclusion that they need treatment in the first place.

As troubling as that is, a personal decision to actually attempt to get off drugs is sometimes a necessary precursor to successful treatment.

R. Fleming: The points that the minister ended that comment on, around the success rate of being able to shake oneself free of this addiction and that it often takes many attempts…. I take that point. Part of the discussion I want to have is around having the best supports possible to increase that success rate.

Many of our young people, in particular, who are trying to kick this drug go into a facility, if they're lucky enough to get in there. They may be detoxed for a period of days. They do not have a next step to go to. In fact, they're probably discharged into a housing situation that is not stable or secure, in some cases. They may be couch surfing with acquaintances that are still involved with the drug. They may not have any employment, as well, to try and get them to a different life.

The Chair: It appears that a division has been called. We'll recess until after the vote.

R. Fleming: We were talking about some of the gaps in services around treatment and some examples

from around the province. The minister made the comment that oftentimes people who are addicted to crystal meth are also using many substances. That's fair enough. In terms of treatment programs, we'd want them to be able to access comprehensive treatment programs to deal with a combination of those.

I wonder if the minister could comment on the fact that there are many treatment facilities — and the ones I'm most familiar with are in my own neck of the woods here — that deliberately exclude people who have crystal meth addictions. They either don't have the training or they don't have the capacity to deal with some of the psychosis symptoms of this drug that can accommodate the process of treatment.

I'm specifically speaking of the Archie Courtnall Centre here at the Royal Jubilee Hospital. Victoria Detox is another example — also the existing youth detox service that we have had. They do treat opiates, alcohol and other drugs, but they have explicitly turned away people seeking treatment for addiction to crystal meth. I wonder if the minister could comment about that, in light of his earlier comments.

Hon. J. Les: I tried to inject a small note of caution earlier, which I will perhaps refer to again in that we're getting deeper and deeper into issues best resolved in the estimates of the Ministry of Health. I'm not sure that in some of these cases I'll be able to give a very informed answer.

To the extent that we are aware here…. We're not aware that people are actually being excluded from certain drug treatment programs. I'm not saying that is not the case. It is just not something that my ministry staff in the crystal meth secretariat are aware of, but perhaps staff in the Ministry of Health are aware of those. I would encourage the member to raise those issues with the Minister of Health.

It is the case that this issue of crystal meth use and treatment cuts across a number of ministries. That is why the Premier asked my ministry specifically to act as a secretariat, but also the place in government where we would try to knit together the various approaches and strategies to this challenge.

If you look at the Attorney General Ministry, for example, they, too, have a role to play here. The community court process that the Attorney General is working on currently will be able to take a meth addict who is engaged in a crime spree and give them some options, such as: "You are going to court, and you're going to go to jail, or you have an option of taking treatment with very specific parameters, very specific conditions."

That ministry, too, will have a role to play through the community court process and perhaps others in hopefully helping us all deal more successfully with the reintegration and curing of crystal meth addicts.

R. Fleming: I wonder if — maybe to stay out of where the Ministry of Health might have a lead responsibility, but nevertheless keeping to the cross-ministerial purpose of the crystal meth secretariat — I could ask the minister to talk about some of the initiatives and things that the secretariat is coordinating, and specifically in three areas. If he could give an indication in this service plan of what is in store for enforcement initiatives, education, preventative initiatives — and also where it does indeed touch on launching treatment opportunities throughout that continuum of needs in the treatment realm.

Hon. J. Les: Obviously, the work that we began is ongoing, and for the investments that we have made so far, we are very much involved in extending those and the benefits of those.

Just a couple of examples that I would like to cite. We have coordinated the development of a training DVD for use by police and firefighters, because often, of course, the discovery of and the dealing with a crystal meth lab is a very, very dangerous event and process. We want to make sure that they are kept safe while they deal with those kinds of issues.

We have also developed within government a community impact statement that is used by prosecutors when they are presenting to the court reasons for sentencing, which I think is a very important contribution to the appropriate disposition of cases involving the trafficking of crystal meth, for example.

I referenced earlier the materials that are being made available in the classrooms of British Columbia's K-to-12 school system. That is another important contribution to prevention. Again, I think it's extremely important to put the appropriate resources into prevention. It's much more rewarding to keep people from using crystal meth in the first place than it is to try and treat them, as necessary as that is, once they have started down the path of crystal meth addiction.

We also see some of the community groups that arose as a result of the funding that was provided through the UBCM. In some cases, they have come together and are looking at what more they can do to provide services to communities, meth addicts and families. I know that there is a group in Nanaimo, for example, that has come together. I believe that they have a conference scheduled. I think it is later this month.

There are a number of initiatives like that across the province that are very actively being supported by the secretariat in my ministry. Many of these are products that have come out of the $7 million that was invested several years ago. We, unfortunately, have a long way to go in terms of dealing with this issue.

I have no doubt that, as we speak, there are more people still taking crystal meth. That is just an unfortunate fact, but I think that as a result of the efforts that are being expended, hopefully, the curve will start trending in the right direction.

We'll be doing some monitoring work together with some of the university colleges to see what the trends are. I know that in some communities we've had better information than in others. The objective, of course, is to rid our society of this poison that, when it is ingested by young people particularly, has such a horrible potential for destroying their lives.

R. Fleming: Maybe I could ask the minister for an update on the $1 million fund that was disbursed through the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The parameters, I think, were a fixed amount of grants of about $25,000 for the approximately 200 municipalities. He'll correct me if I'm wrong.

I wonder if you could give an account of what the takeup rate was, how many municipalities participated, how much money was disbursed and what has been done in the ministry with the remaining funds that were not embraced as an opportunity by certain municipalities.

Hon. J. Les: First of all, I should be clear. It was actually $2 million that was distributed across the province through the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I want to say that we very much appreciate the role they played. This was something that the UBCM is particularly well equipped to carry out on behalf of government, given that they are the organization that represents each and every community across the province.

The funding went to 160 organizations in 190 communities and first nations across the province. As a result of the funding being made available, there were 30 new crystal meth task forces and community coalitions developed across the province. What happened, of course, when that funding was being made available was that communities developed their own grass-roots-oriented solutions to this challenge. It wasn't a top-down approach. It was communities sitting down, often in large community gatherings, and generating solutions for their particular communities.

I think this has been a real success, as I said, particularly because so much of the funding went to first nations. As we held workshops across the province, first nations leaders came forward in significant numbers and said that this was a particular concern in their communities. I know that in the case of the Stó:lô Nation in my particular riding, they actually put together a stage production — the name of it escapes me at the moment — a very powerful piece of work that they eventually took across the province. I hope that it will be very useful in terms of educating communities across the province, but certainly first nations communities as well.

R. Fleming: Sorry. I didn't get any numbers in that answer as to the funds. I wonder if the minister could answer that part of the question.

Hon. J. Les: As I indicated earlier, it was $2 million that was turned over to the Union of B.C. Municipalities. All but $50,000 was expended directly to communities. I believe UBCM retains that $50,000 as an administration fee.

R. Fleming: The ministry wasn't in charge of disbursing the money. They handed that responsibility over to UBCM, and the minister thinks that was the appropriate thing to do. Has there been an evaluation of whether the parameters of the funds were optimal? He's given some numbers on the takeup rate, and he's obviously satisfied with that aspect of it.

Nevertheless, it did remain that a city like Vancouver received the same maximum grant level as, say, a jurisdiction like Sparwood. There was no consideration of population, and there was no consideration of how those resources would have to be spread out. This program is completed now, it has resulted in these task forces, and the funding is uncertain for the future. I wonder if the minister could tell me whether he has an evaluation and whether there is a document that he could share with all members of the House in that regard.

Hon. J. Les: I certainly appreciate the question. First of all, the member is right that communities large or small tended to receive a similar allocation of money, but that's not entirely inappropriate either. The city of Vancouver has many resources available to it; the town of Valemount doesn't. There is no doubt that a $10,000 or $20,000 allocation to a place like Valemount can actually be very, very meaningful. Quite often what you'll find in those rural communities — and we certainly find that in aboriginal communities, as well — is that their options are much more limited than they are in the more metropolitan areas of the province. I don't think I need to be too defensive about the fact that large communities didn't, relatively speaking, get as much.

In terms of the evaluation of what this spending accomplished, we are not yet in a position to comment on that. The grants were disbursed based on an initial allocation of 75 percent of the grant, with the final 25 percent to be paid out once they had reported out the successful completion of the program or process which they had undertaken in that particular community. The reporting-back process is not yet complete. Until that is complete, we'll be unable to do a complete assessment and evaluation, but that certainly is our intention.

R. Fleming: I look forward to receiving that. I think that the province, when it sets up funds like this, should want to do the greatest good for the greatest number. There is no question. I mean, there are some places where crystal meth is an enormous challenge and other places where it is not a problem or just an emerging problem. I would hope that the report has a very frank discussion about that.

The other aspect of it should look at whether the programs that have been developed from small grants scattered across the province are in fact sustainable — whether they have created something that is renewing itself and teaching successive generations of middle or high school students coming through the system, as they do each year or two in the various cohorts.

I want to talk about education a bit more, time permitting. I do want to talk about enforcement issues as well. This government has repeatedly chosen not to join with other jurisdictions. The majority of states south of us in the U.S. and the majority of provinces now have legislation placing restrictions on meth precursor ingredients at pharmacies. It has chosen a voluntary system in its place.

Does the ministry plan, over the service plan of the ministry, to develop legislation following the majority of jurisdictions that border us, which have done so?

Hon. J. Les: The issue of crystal meth of course plays out differently in different jurisdictions. When it comes to regulating the production or prohibiting the production of crystal meth, one of the first places we tend to go to is the police, to give us their experience and what they're finding on the ground.

What they have consistently told us is that the production of crystal meth in British Columbia is almost entirely focused on large commercial labs, based on bulk precursors such as ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. That is not to say that you'll never find a small bathtub-based lab in British Columbia. But the preponderance of evidence is that large commercial-scale labs are the precursors to meth production in British Columbia.

Based on that information and advice from the police, we have decided, to date, not to do what they have done in some of the other jurisdictions in North America, where they very tightly regulate the sale of medications based on ephedrine or pseudoephedrine.

We do have in place in the province, however, what is called a Meth Watch program. If any unusual quantities of drugs containing those substances are encountered, they are properly reported so that they can be followed up.

We are, as everyone knows, a coastal province. We are a place where bulk quantities of ephedrine and a pseudoephedrine have been imported. Regrettably, the importation of those substances has not enjoyed adequate federal regulation. It is in fact not an offence to possess large quantities of those substances, and we think that is a gap in federal law. I have certainly made that known forcefully to the federal authorities. I remain hopeful that they will more effectively regulate the importation of those substances.

On the federal front, on the Criminal Code side, we have seen an increase in penalties that are required in terms of people who are convicted of possession and trafficking of crystal meth. That certainly is an improvement, because previously those indicated penalties were even less than those indicated for the possession and trafficking of cannabis.

There are a number of fronts on which we need to be active as we try to reduce the availability and usage of crystal meth in our province.

R. Fleming: I think the minister's answer around not having any restrictions in this province, unlike most provinces in Canada, around restrictions on meth precursor ingredients…. It doesn't satisfy me, quite honestly, to say there is nothing active and there are no plans. We are in the minority of provinces without this kind of legislation.

I don't know how many high-profile examples the minister needs of evacuations from home-based small labs in East Vancouver. There was one that was well-publicized. Just a few blocks from this very building here in Victoria, there was such a lab. I'm sorry, but Meth Watch, that voluntary program, does nothing to stem that, and putting those ingredients behind the counter would. Alberta has done it.

I agree with him in terms of his assessment that most of the crystal meth sold on the streets of the province is made in large-scale labs. But I don't agree with his statement that there is no interest from police and law enforcement in the province in having legislation like this. In fact, I recall that when the private member's bill was brought into the House by the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge proposing this legislation, it was wholeheartedly supported by the province's main federation representing police officers. So there is interest from law enforcement. They have a long wish list, I think, in the fight against meth. Correctly, the minister has said that federal import regulation is key among them.

Maybe I will conclude that by just asking him around the gap in federal law. We've had two federal governments now that have probably studied this issue to death. If the minister could give me an indication as to when we might expect some action. Currently it is absolutely ridiculous. Anyone could go and import these bulk ingredients from China or another place, and they could sell them to virtually anyone they wanted. That is not tracked in Canada.

It's unacceptable. The law lags behind our neighbouring jurisdictions here. Could the minister give something more precise in terms of what discussions are occurring with his federal counterparts and what action might be taken within the next length of time.

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the question. Actually, at the most recent meeting of the federal and provincial ministers of justice, this issue was discussed, and it was discussed in the context of a working group report, which was led by British Columbia. This was in October in Newfoundland. We had a very thorough discussion. Again, the Minister of Justice federally as well as the Minister of Public Safety federally were both encouraged to make sure that the law was tightened up.

I have certainly been, I think, quite outspoken on the matter. I've been interviewed on national media several times. I think there is willingness, but as we know, often federal law moves very, very slowly.

It's not just a question of the law or the regulations being changed. It's putting the resources in place. The regulation of the importation of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine lies under the federal Ministry of Health. When you have no federal health inspectors resident in the province, it's pretty difficult to even imagine that there's any enforcement going on at all. That's quite apart from any deficiencies that there might be in the law at all.

This is something that we continue to press with federal authorities. I have seen information that would indicate that of all of the ephedrine that is imported into the country in a given year in Canada, only 30 percent is actually required for legitimate uses and that

I don't think we need any more evidence than that, frankly, to shut down this importation altogether and to ensure that any importation of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine is strictly by permit only.

R. Fleming: I appreciate that response and some of the facts and figures there. I don't even think cold remedies need ephedrine and pseudoephedrine to be effective. Laws could be changed that way as well. There are other ingredients that have nothing to do with the manufacture of crystal meth, do not enable it in any way, and that's perhaps another item for discussion with his counterparts and with the federal government.

I want to ask him about the development of curriculum on the prevention side around the crystal meth epidemic. Maybe if I could just ask the minister: how much has been spent to date in the development of a curriculum to warn students in the province about crystal meth?

Hon. J. Les: As I indicated previously, of the $7 million that we invested a year and a half ago, about a million of that went into the education system, mostly for the preparation of materials that teachers can use in the classrooms to educate students.

In addition to that, there has been a lot of in-service training provided so that teachers are themselves more familiarized with crystal meth and its challenges. Simply because it is an issue in society does not necessarily mean that teachers are automatically equipped to knowledgably deal with this subject in a classroom setting. So there has been effort put into training teachers and giving them the knowledge, in addition to the resources, to deal with this issue.

Beyond that, I would suggest that the member might want to refer himself to the Ministry of Education, because much more detail than that, of course, I do not have at my disposal. This ministry is simply the secretariat that ensures that these things happen, but the detail to which they happen should be sought in the various ministries themselves.

I note, Mr. Chair, that we are being summoned to the House for yet another vote.

R. Fleming: We were talking about the development of curriculum for high schools, in particular, that is being funded through the crystal meth secretariat. The minister has said that the $1 million has been expended for those purposes, and it has also provided for in-service training.

I wonder if I could ask him, in terms of the high school curriculum, if this will be something that is mandatory and be included in the career and personal planning program, for example — CAPP courses that are studied by all students in British Columbia — in order that it gets as wide an audience as possible and in order that as many teachers become familiar with it so that they can teach it themselves or connect with voluntary organizations that do drug education in the community.

Could you tell me how many students have actually received the curriculum? I know it's been under development for many, many months and years now. How much of it has actually made its way into the classroom? If you could tell me how many students have been educated.

Hon. J. Les: The materials that have gone into the schools were developed in conjunction with the Centre for Addictions Research of British Columbia — CARBC. That work started last year in August, and the materials were completed and were available as of February of this year.

In answer to the member's question, these materials will be part of the CAPP career and personal planning program. As part of the career and personal planning program, all parents of students will receive a parents' guide as well to assist them in looking out for meth addiction issues. If they have a child with meth addictions, it gives them useful information as well. So it includes, in a way, education of the student as well as the parents.

In addition, of course, I referenced earlier in-service training that's going to be required for the teachers, because none of us inherently necessarily has this knowledge. We need to make sure that teachers, as they teach this element of programming within the CAPP program, have a certain level of knowledge so that they can successfully do that.

I hope that answers the member's questions. It is a mandatory part of the CAPP program, and I think that's basic and fundamental and necessary.

R. Fleming: Well, it doesn't completely answer how the distribution has been accomplished. I am very interested to know whether the amount of money that has been invested in the materials — whether the materials are actually getting to their intended recipients….

I know of many superintendents of school districts who are unaware that this initiative is underway and have not received anything. The minister said the materials were completed in February. Well, it would appear that in at least in some of the more populated school districts — and maybe the situation is happening around B.C. — those materials have not yet arrived and are not being integrated in classrooms.

Again, we've been talking about crystal meth in this province for years. The fact that we don't have curriculum that is still, to this day, not integrated with the education system to prevent young people from using this drug and to inform them of the facts around the dangers of crystal meth is, I think, a disturbing scenario.

Can the minister actually tell me: is he aware of these materials being distributed and used, and can he give me a number of how many hundreds or hopefully tens of thousands of students have actually received instruction and materials developed by the crystal meth secretariat in this contract?

Hon. J. Les: Let me simply say this. We expect that these materials will be distributed absolutely everywhere in all schools of the province. We may well not achieve full implementation of the program in every school in the province or indeed in every school district of the province until September of this year. That is the start of the new school year. I certainly would understand that.

I do know from my staff that these materials are available to the Victoria school district now, and it is of course the responsibility of school district administration to make sure that these materials are available in every grade 6 to 12 classroom in the school district. We obviously are going to be monitoring that very, very closely. It is expressly our intention to make sure that these materials are available in every classroom, grade 6 to 12, in every school district of the province. At the very latest, that will occur everywhere by September 2007.

M. Farnworth: I thank my colleague from Victoria-Hillside for his remarks and the minister's comments on crystal meth. I thank the minister's staff as well.

With that, I'd like to move to prisons. Prisons, hon. Chair. Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?

I'd like to ask the Solicitor General about issues concerning prisons in British Columbia. What has been the impact on the prison system, in particular the operation of our current prisons, since the closure of the prisons that took place between 2001 and 2005?

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the question. I believe it was back in 2002 that a number of provincial corrections facilities were closed in British Columbia. Many of those facilities that were closed were small, quite inefficient and old, so we were able to become more efficient in the operation of the prison system in British Columbia. With those closures and with continued population growth and some changes in sentencing patterns, we have certainly seen an increase in the prison per-cell population, if you will, which has led some to double-bunking.

That has not all been as a result of the closure of those small, older facilities. We have seen a particular increase in the remanded section of our inmates. We have a relatively stable population of sentenced individuals, but we have an ever-increasing proportion of those who are in our institution on remand, awaiting trial. If my memory serves me correctly, those on remand now make up about half of our prison population.

That is an area of concern. It's something I have discussed several times with my colleague, the Attorney General. As I'm sure the member opposite is aware, there are certain benefits that accrue to awaiting trial on remand as opposed to actually being convicted and sentenced to an equivalent amount of time. It is perhaps the case that there is a perverse incentive at work that is causing us this difficulty.

All in all, I should give great credit to our staff that operate our prison facilities. I think they do a great job at all levels to manage the prison population well. I'm sure they will continue to do that in the future.

M. Farnworth: One of the concerns that was raised has been the issue around double-bunking and the increased pressure on guards, which is already a stressful job. The member has commented about issues around remand. I'll get to those in a moment.

But the issue of prisons themselves and prisons having been closed…. What plans are there? Are there plans to increase the number of prisons that we have in this province? If so, what type of facilities is the ministry looking at?

Hon. J. Les: Given that we have a lot of double-bunking going on, obviously, we need to make sure that we're developing increased capacity at some point in the very near future. So we're actively in discussion about doing that in two different ways. One is by the development of interim capacity at several of the institutions where we have grounds available to do that.

We haven't made any announcements yet, but I think in the not too distant future, we will. Those are basically structures that are referred to as sprung structures. Within the main structure itself, you develop a number of different of living units. The benefit of that type of construction is that once those facilities are no longer required for the housing of inmates, they can be used for purposes of programming within that institution.

Also, we are actively working on plans for an additional facility that would house sentenced inmates. We haven't yet reached any final conclusions in that regard, but we're certainly very actively working on that, because clearly we need additional capacity, and we need to do that fairly soon.

M. Farnworth: It's that issue of capacity. I think one of the things that you're seeing is the issues around double-bunking. It's a recognition that that one place has increased stress on the prison guards being able to do their job. It removes the ability to, as the minister just said, free up space for things such as programming.

You're working on a program. What sort of time line are you envisaging? What part of the planning stage are we at? Are we looking at a time line of two years? Four years? Six years? Eight years? What sort of time line is the ministry looking at in terms of getting actual physical capacity built and available?

Hon. J. Les: Several things. First of all, recognizing the double-bunking that we have now and the extra demands that that places on staff, there is an increased allocation for personnel in the budget this year to give us some increased capability in terms of staffing.

The interim facilities that I talked about earlier — it's likely we would be able to get that in place within about six months of a decision to proceed. In the case of a completely new, permanent facility, we'd probably need in the area of three years from the time that a decision is made to proceed before that facility was able to be occupied.

M. Farnworth: When are you anticipating a decision? In many cases — having sat on the other side — that is actually the more difficult of the issues. Once that's a decision, then it's easy to get out and build. So what time line are we looking at for a decision to be made?

Hon. J. Les: I don't want to be coy with the member opposite, but at this point I think I will simply say as soon as possible, and I would encourage the member to take that at face value.

M. Farnworth: I do take it at face value, so I will make a statement and ask a question. In terms of capital projects, in terms of how decisions are made, I think one of the key things is that the minister needs to recognize this should be one of the top priorities of his ministry.

Issues of public safety: members of the public are concerned when there is not the capacity there for people, who should not be on the street, to be in some place where they are not able to cause individuals harm. If the issue is a decision-making time line, and I understand what the minister is saying, then the minister needs to make this a top priority for his ministry.

If he does that, then I think in terms of how time lines work, the time line can be a lot shorter than if it's not a priority, in which case it's one of those things — "we will do; we will do; we will do" — but it always gets put off till tomorrow.

Hon. J. Les: The member is correct. This is indeed a priority. Certainly, it's the main capital priority within my ministry, but I think I'd like to suggest that it is a significant priority for government as well.

I wouldn't want to suggest, however, that this really represents a threat to those communities where these facilities are located, because they are all well secured. We've had, touch wood, relatively few and minor incidents.

It is clearly the case that we are in a situation where we have too many inmates in the capacity we have available. I am determined that that is rectified, at least to a significant degree. It is a priority, and as I said earlier, we are going to address it as quickly as we can.

M. Farnworth: I would encourage the minister to do that, because I think it needs to be a top priority for his ministry. Having said that, with the issue around overcrowding and double-bunking not going away until something like this has been done, and questions being raised in terms of…. I understand the minister's statement about the safety of facilities and communities, and I think everyone accepts the fact that they are safe and secure.

I think one of the real questions is not on that front, but rather on people who are on the street who really shouldn't be. I understand there is a federal component to that, but also at the provincial level, and that's one of the points I'm trying to stress to the minister.

In terms of our corrections officers who work in facilities, has the ministry looked at types of problems…? How is the ministry addressing the types of problems that can occur around increased overcrowding and double-bunking? What sort of programs or actions has the ministry undertaken?

Hon. J. Les: Obviously, one of the more significant ways in which you can impact on this challenge is to hire more people, and that is what we have done. This year's budget actually allows us to hire an additional 117 FTEs to address safety and workload issues that result from the increasing population. Of those new positions, 85 have already been implemented. So I think we are responding effectively to those workload conditions, and hopefully, it will have the desired effect of ameliorating the stress that I know can very much be part of the day-to-day work experience of our corrections officers.

M. Farnworth: Has the ministry, in response, been monitoring, for example, any increase in infractions involving drugs within the provincial prison system?

Hon. J. Les: We of course monitor what goes on in our prisons on an ongoing basis. Inmate safety and corrections officer safety often depend on making sure that illegal substances are not present in our prisons.

We are not aware of any particular trend, either up or down, with respect to illicit drugs coming into our prisons, but we do bring in drug detection dogs from time to time to ensure that we catch it where we can.

As well, particularly at the Surrey Pretrial Centre where there is a walled but open exercise yard, netting has now been installed above that exercise yard because there's some bush located immediately next door and friends of inmates apparently used to, from the bush area, lob drugs into the exercise yard which were retrieved by inmates.

We do things of that nature as well to ensure that the importation of illegal substances into the institutions is minimized. I wouldn't pretend for a minute that it never happens, but we do try to do those things that a person would reasonably expect to ensure that it doesn't happen.

M. Farnworth: Are we keeping statistics on the number of drug offences within the prison system?

Hon. J. Les: Yes, a record is kept of all of those kinds of incidents in the institutions. They are brought to the attention of the relevant warden. There is a process called a Warden's Court that is used most of the time, and these kinds of infractions typically do result in less time off for good behaviour.

I'm sure we're all aware of where prisoners behave well, they get some additional time off. If someone has behavioural issues while they are incarcerated, they will get less of that time off for good behaviour. Where there is a very, very serious infraction, of course, the police are called in to deal with that appropriately.

We don't have the statistics here in terms of the incidence of drug offences within institutions, but I'm told those statistics are available, and I'll certainly undertake to make them available to the member.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, because that was going to be my next question. What was the number of offences in 2001, and what is the number of offences today and in the intervening years as well? I think it is an issue that we need to be concerned about, particularly when one reads and hears about statistics coming out of our federal prisons about the rate of drug use and illicit substance use in our federal prisons. I want to ensure that we are monitoring at the provincial level. I look forward very much to getting that information.

Now, that's dealing with illicit substances. How about acts of violence against corrections officers in our prison systems? Do we have statistics of what they were in 2001 and what they are now?

Hon. J. Les: We have the statistics here. These are for 2004, 2005 and 2006 — although, 2006 is recorded here as a partial year. I'm not sure exactly what that means. That may well mean that it's nine months instead of 12.

However, we had 26 staff injured as a result of being assaulted by an inmate in 2004, 26 in 2005, and ten in 2006. The other way to express that is assaults per 10,000 bed days. In 2004, that was 0.33; in 2005, that was 0.31; and in 2006, that was 0.22.

As I look across all of the assault categories here, including inmate-on-inmate, inmate-on-staff and staff injured as a result of inmate-on-inmate violence, we see a downward trend, which is actually quite encouraging, given that that is the trend in spite of some increased overcrowding.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the statistics the minister has given. I would ask for from 2001 on, because I think three years is…. We need a couple more years there before we can definitively say one way or another in which direction things are heading.

Any indication of where things are so far this year? Do we have numbers for that? Are they compiled monthly, or are they done on an annual basis?

Hon. J. Les: This information obviously is gathered on an ongoing basis. When an incident occurs, it's noted. We are in the process of automating the recording and retrieval of that information so that we will have it available on an up-to-date basis in the future. We're not quite there yet, so we don't have any up-to-date figures for 2007.

If the member wishes an up-to-date count on that, I'm sure our staff can put those numbers together and make them available to him. I will undertake to do that if we have those numbers available.

M. Farnworth: That would be great. The minister mentioned about an automated system coming on stream. I take it that that is going to apply to the prison system as a whole, or is it an administrative system within the ministry? Can you give me a little bit of detail on what is proposed and when it's expected to come on stream?

Hon. J. Les: What we're talking about here is a system that's been in use for some time in the corrections system called CORNET. This is going to involve the next generation of that software, and it will involve all corrections operations, in terms of the incarcerated individuals as well as those who are on probation and under other kinds of ministry care.

We don't have an exact implementation date at this point, when that conversion will be complete. It is something though that we are very actively working on and hope to complete by the end of this year.

M. Farnworth: I would encourage the minister to do that because I think one of the things we can do, in terms of making our system more efficient and being able to deal with issues as they arise, is to be able to have the information. I think that this type of work needs to be in place, and it needs to be a.s.a.p.

I'm concerned in terms of, as I said, the issues around double-bunking. We talked about issues around drugs and violence against corrections officers. I guess it relates to what took place in the coroner's…. That is: how are the different things measured? So what types of violence are measured within the corrections facilities? How is it broken down?

Hon. J. Les: There are four main categories of how we categorize violence in the prisons. There is inmate-on-inmate violence and inmate-on-staff. We also track the number of staff injured as a result of inmate-on-inmate violence and staff injured as a result of being assaulted by an inmate. So you have two types of violence and two types of injuries that we track.

M. Farnworth: What would be the difference in the two types of violence against corrections officers by inmates? What's the difference between the two categories?

Hon. J. Les: In the case of staff being injured as a result of inmate-on-inmate violence, that is a situation where staff have to intervene in a fight or altercation

that occurs between two inmates. The other category involves staff who are injured as a result of a direct assault by an inmate. I think there is certainly a demarcation there, in terms of the types of violence and the causes that give rise to the injury of a corrections officer.

M. Farnworth: What would constitute an assault against a corrections officer? Is it actual physical violence, or is it broader than that? The issue I'll raise is that I've heard from corrections officers, and I've heard reports, that what has increased in facilities is assault — I guess, if you like — by bodily fluids, such as spitting, or excrement and things of that nature. Are they included in the assaults — as opposed to what you would normally think of as an assault, which would be a traditional physical assault? I wonder if the minister could answer that question.

Hon. J. Les: The sort of guideline here is that anything that involves worker safety tends to get recorded as an assault. Let me rephrase that. Anything that potentially compromises worker safety would be reported as an assault. So if an inmate was spitting at a guard, that clearly involves potentially compromising that guard's health, and therefore it is classified as an assault.

Similarly, with other bodily fluids, if those are used in a way that could easily compromise the health of a corrections officer, that is considered an assault.

M. Farnworth: Is there any breakdown within the assault category between those types of assaults, which I've just asked you, and the more traditional physical assaults where physical violence is used?

Hon. J. Les: We don't have that information here. I don't know how much work will be involved in trying to extract and categorize that. I will undertake that we will try, but perhaps this underlines why we are updating our software systems, so in the future we'll be able to have that information much more readily available.

M. Farnworth: That is, I think, one of the reasons why I'm asking these questions and why I'm happy to hear about the updated system. I think it's important that one of the things that you have categories of is what constitutes an assault or what constitutes an offence. Things change over time. It may require different approaches.

Given the rise in the last 20 years, for example, in concern around infectious diseases — whether it be hepatitis C or HIV or whatever — as being a way of striking out in a more frightening way, as opposed to a traditional assault or physical offence, I think we need to recognize that. I think we need to make sure we are on top of and watch for situations like that so that if we need to make changes in policy, changes in how we deal with individuals or inmates or improve conditions for corrections officers, I think we want to be doing that.

I encourage the minister to ensure that, as this system is updated, we take opportunities to look at improving over the traditional reporting measures and seek new and innovative ways of doing that. If we do that, then we can have a better corrections system and safer working places for our corrections officers.

While we are on the subject of facilities…. If this strays into the Attorney General's ministry, I'm sure the minister won't hesitate to let me know. What programs is the minister responsible for in terms of rehabilitation programs within the facilities under his jurisdiction?

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate that question because, after all, at the end of the day, we ought to be doing as much as we can in the institutions to attempt rehabilitation of inmates and to give them the tools to rehabilitate.

We actually have an arrangement with school districts to provide teachers who go into institutions to provide literacy instruction, which is often a serious deficiency amongst inmates. We offer training in substance abuse management, violence prevention, family violence, sex offender maintenance program and educational upgrading. We have a set of women-focused programs that involve substance abuse for women, emotion management for women and relationship skills for women.

Those are the categories under which we provide programs in the institutions. We also have native courtworkers involved with aboriginal offenders in our institutions as well.

M. Farnworth: I'm glad that we're going to be able to discuss this particular section of the minister's responsibilities. I, too, think this is an important component, even though there are people who think that I don't believe in these types of programs and that sometimes I'm probably a little too hard the other way.

I would like to explore this further with the minister because I do think it is important, particularly with first-time offenders, that we are able to get them the help they require — the medical help, training help or the skills development and educational help — to ensure that, as much as possible, rehabilitation is the path they go down to get them out of the system and hopefully not back into the system.

The minister has laid out literacy, training, violence control management issues, educational training and women-focused programs. What percentage of the inmate population in our facilities in British Columbia takes advantage of any or all of these particular programs?

Hon. J. Les: One of the challenges that we have in running a provincial correction system is the relatively short period of time that we have an inmate in the institution. It might be surprising to some, but the average inmate on remand is there for 21 days, and the average sentenced individual is there for 55 days — in other words, not even two months. As we can readily imagine, that compromises our ability to effectively do much of anything that is constructive with inmates.

Given that inmates potentially can be in a provincial institution for up to two years, some will be there for a longer period of time than the average of 55 days.

All of that is to say that we don't have a good handle on the actual percentage of inmates that take some kind of instruction while they are incarcerated.

An important aspect of this, though, is that we try very hard, as these inmates are released, to ensure that they carry on with that instruction upon their release in the community. We're hopefully going to be able to put more focus and emphasis on that.

As the member is aware, we recently got out of the provision of parole services at the provincial level. In part, the resources that were freed up by that are going to be put into this post-release area so that we can be more successful in reintegrating inmates back into the community.

M. Farnworth: I understand what the minister is saying, but I am a bit concerned on this. Someone comes into a facility, and they're there for 21 days or even 55 days, if that's the average the minister is talking about. I guess there's an assessment period in terms of trying to determine exactly what the needs of the individual are before any program is thought to be appropriate. Would that be correct?

Hon. J. Les: When an inmate is admitted, the first thing that happens is that they are assessed by our staff, by mental health personnel and by other health personnel to see what other issues they have, if any, relating to health or mental illness or drug addiction, depending on the individual circumstances. If they pass that health exam, if you will, they are then eligible to enter the work programs within that institution. At the same time, then, they can apply to take the various courses that I outlined just a few minutes ago.

Of course, nothing compels them to do that. You do run across individuals from time to time who just choose to sit there for however long until their warrant expires, and then they leave.

As I sense the member opposite is interested, I, too, am interested in making sure that we do everything possible to break the cycle of recidivism, whether that's in the case of a first offence or a multiple offender. I know I've had some experience, having initiated the restorative justice program in my community back in my days as mayor, in how successful that can be. Now, that's usually for first offenders, but it's one of those examples of an alternative resolution process that is quite successful.

Similarly, the Attorney General is working on a community court process currently that I think will be started up in Vancouver in October of this year. That will be another opportunity — rather than the usual run-of-the-mill type of situation that we see nowadays, where essentially we have a treadmill situation — where an offender will actually be given a choice to carry on as before or be diverted into a treatment process with very strict conditions to try and get off that treadmill of crime.

Where that has been tried in other jurisdictions, it seems to enjoy pretty considerable success. So I think when we try it here in British Columbia, there is, equally, an opportunity to achieve better outcomes than simply putting people in jail multiple times.

M. Farnworth: The issue becomes, for someone going in for 21 days or 55 days, that they have an assessment, and if they want to take a program, provided they have a clean bill of health, they're able to do so. But in that time you're somewhat limited in your ability to be effective, certainly in terms of an educational program and, I would think, some of the other areas such as, I guess, anger management or violence-related issues in terms of trying to deal with them.

Let me go to the other end, then. If people are in for, let's say, 18 months to two years, how many of them would be involved in some of these programs? Do we have figures on how many would be involved in these types of programs if they were in for 18 months to two years?

Hon. J. Les: First of all, we need to establish one thing here: inmates who are sentenced to our provincial institutions are sentenced to two years less a day — or less. Then, with a third off for good behaviour, which the vast majority of them achieve, it is rare indeed for an inmate to spend even as much as 16 months in our provincial institutions.

Even in the cases where they spend only a few months, what we try to accomplish while they are incarcerated is to get them started on the appropriate programs they need — whether it is anger management, substance abuse, addiction counselling or what have you — and then, as a condition of their probation, try to ensure that that carries on once they leave the prison facility.

I'm sure that doesn't always succeed. I know that doesn't always succeed. But that is the current structure. Given the very short time that we actually have them under our direct control in the institution, we have to put our effort into making sure that we establish those conditions and hopefully a framework so that they can carry on with that programming outside of the institution after they leave.

M. Farnworth: I understand what the minister is saying. I guess that's why I'll ask the question again. One of the issues is the type of treatment or type of program that people should have versus what they do get and what the follow-up is after they leave the system. Can the minister answer this question: what percentage of inmates or people in the facilities are involved in a particular program?

I understand the question around the 21 days or even the 55 days. There might be some things you can do. But for those who are longer…. A year is, by provincial standards, a fairly lengthy sentence. It's not the full two years, but time off for good behaviour is 16 months. You've got, let's say, a year or six months to 16 months to do something.

Hon. J. Les: I would like to give the member a very accurate answer. We don't have those numbers here. We'll probably have to do some analysis to arrive at those numbers. But I will undertake that that work will be done, and we'll get that information to the member.

M. Farnworth: Does the ministry have performance measures in terms of the programs that it's been offering within its facilities — in terms of the success of those particular programs? If so, what are they?

Hon. J. Les: Obviously, we do monitor the success of these programs. The way that we monitor is in terms of the reduction of recidivism. When we monitor these programs, we monitor not only within the prison but also post-release so that we're monitoring the entire package.

As I said, the ultimate objective is to ensure that we decrease recidivism in terms of the percentage of offenders who do not reoffend for two years following corrections supervision. Currently, that stands at 68 percent who do not reoffend. Clearly, the ultimate objective is to keep driving upward that level of offenders who do not come back into the institution.

M. Farnworth: What's the current goal? What's the current target? If 68 percent is the actual, what's the target you're trying to hit at the present time?

Hon. J. Les: It would be utterly naive, of course, to even suggest that 100 percent would be the goal. That's utopian. Our current stated objective is 70 percent who do not reoffend.

M. Farnworth: Does that apply to your program as a whole or to each of these individual types of programs — for example, literacy, violence management programs?

Hon. J. Les: We are monitoring the overall effectiveness of all of the programs. It is normally the case that an offender will take several of these together because, simply, they need a variety of different interventions to help them succeed post-release.

M. Farnworth: So there's no sort of individual monitoring of the programs? The reason I ask, that I'm looking at it, is: if someone needs one of several different types of these programs taking place, some may be more successful than others in dealing with particular issues. It may be a particular issue that keeps recurring as a problem area. I'm wondering: are the programs managed individually as well as globally?

Hon. J. Les: In addition to the ministry monitoring the overall effect of the entire range of the programs, they are individually monitored as well. Take substance abuse management, for example. There are different issues that arise from year to year, from time to time, given the different trends in society. We always want to be monitoring the efficacy of these programs to ensure that we're getting, to be blunt about it, good value for money. There's no point in having programs that have no positive or beneficial effect on inmates.

We need to adjust as time goes along. We use outside resources to help us monitor those things as well. As I've said before, our goal is to intervene with inmates as beneficially as possible to help them succeed once they are released from incarceration.

M. Farnworth: I think that is something that we all want to see. I note the minister commented about the recidivism rate two years out. Is that also measured five or ten years out, or just on the basis of two years?

Hon. J. Les: It's been our practice to monitor two years out. That's what we do currently. We do not monitor any further out than that. I'm not, frankly, aware of a particular necessity to do that either, given the nature of the offences that we are dealing with. Again, though, that's something that I'm sure is being thought about on an ongoing basis.

If our experience showed there was a need to do more extensive monitoring further into the future, then, obviously we would be open to that, but we are not aware that there is currently a particular need to do that.

M. Farnworth: I'm a bit puzzled by that. It would seem to me that if you have a program and someone comes in…. You're getting treatment for, let's say, alcohol and drug issues. You deal with that, you go out in two years, and you're fine. Then after the two years you're sort of on your own again. You may re-enter the system again, but you're not caught within that two-year window, so would you enter in as a recidivist or as a new, individual case?

Hon. J. Les: Well, just another baseline fact here. We deal, in our provincial correction system, with some 26,000 admissions a year, which is a pretty startling number, actually, in my book. Beyond two years we do not necessarily monitor whether they are repeating as offenders. At the same time, I would hasten to point out that academic institutions quite often do a lot of this kind of work, upon which we can draw if necessary.

The other thing that's important to point out is that these offenders don't lose their criminal record, regardless of how much checking and monitoring we do or do not do. Those records are still there, and of course if they are rearrested, let's say three years out, that record is there and forms part of their history, and they are treated accordingly.

M. Farnworth: No, I understand that. I guess I'm raising this because one of the things I think we would want to ensure in our system is that we have programs that are as effective as possible and that if individuals need treatment…. In some ways it's like a kid, in a

sense. If you get someone, a young child, doing bad behaviour early enough, it's much easier to deal with that particular issue or that particular behaviour or problem at a young age than it is at an older age.

Likewise, if you are trying to assist someone in dealing with a substance abuse problem, an anger management problem, a literacy problem or whatever that problem is, and you want to get them early and you want to be able to make that intervention early, it's easier if you're doing that at time one as opposed to the third or fourth or fifth time.

That's why I asked the question. It's not a question of the criminal record not disappearing or not being kept but rather to see the efficacy of the programs themselves — that they're working in and that they're accomplishing the objectives and the goals we expect them to.

I think that it's one thing to say yeah, academic institutions do work on this. But I think it's more important if we also have the ability within the ministry, within government ourselves, to look at what is taking place, to ensure that the efficacy of programs is what we expect it to be — to be what the minister said, which is to get good value for money, because I think that is important.

I think people do want to know…. I firmly believe that people support programs to get people the help they need when they enter the prison system, particularly for the first time. People absolutely believe that. Then they also absolutely believe, on the other end of the scale, that if you are a repeat offender and you have not…. Then I'm sorry. You are not getting out; you are staying behind bars.

When it comes to this particular issue, I think it's important for the public to have confidence — and to build and to ensure that you have public support for these types of programs and expand these types of programs, that we understand fully how the efficacy is.

The minister has spoken about a number of upgrades that are happening in terms of our ability to get information. A new system is coming on line that allows us to do better data information.

It would seem to me that this would be one of the areas the minister would want to look at not just at two years out, but let's say at three years out or five years out to get a better, much more accurate picture in terms of what the recidivism rate is for people who have undergone programs. That would allow us either to develop more effective programs or to target resources more efficiently.

Hon. J. Les: Actually, the two-year standard is fairly widely used in research in this area, and that is why we use that as our standard as well. But I certainly take the member's point. It may be quite interesting to take a look at, say, three years out, for starters and see whether that brings us any significant new information.

We are guardedly optimistic that once we have implemented the new CORNET software, we will in fact be able to do that quite readily. That's one of the advantages, I guess, of being involved in the electronic age. We sometimes do these things much more readily than would have been the case in the past. Where we are able to do that, I personally would be quite interested in doing that. We'll see if we can accomplish that in the months ahead.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to ask a few questions around one of the programs the minister mentioned, and that is the women-focused program. Can he outline how it works, how it's targeted and how it's delivered?

Hon. J. Les: What we have learned over many years is that treatment programs need to be specifically tailored for women. It is sadly the case that quite a significant number of the women that enter our institutions have suffered abuse in the past, whether it's physical abuse or sexual abuse. This often leads to a cycle of developing relationships that result in further abuse.

When we offer programs, for example, in the development of relationship skills for women, that's an important aspect to allow them to break that cycle of establishing those negative relationships. Often, of course, because of their horrible experiences in life, they have developed substance abuse issues and other ailments of that nature.

You often simply cannot involve women in programs within the institutions that are made available to all of the inmates. First of all, the women are a small subset of the prison population. Less than 10 percent of the prison population is comprised of women.

Of course, many of them are aboriginal women as well, who have their own particular needs. So we do try to tailor the programs that are available to these groups to try and achieve more success and to be more relevant to their individual and specific needs.

M. Farnworth: The development of the programs, particularly as they relate to aboriginal women, for example…. Have they been developed in conjunction with aboriginal communities? Has aboriginal input been used and taken advantage of in the development of these particular programs?

Hon. J. Les: When it comes to aboriginal persons generally in our correction system…. We are consistently striving to make sure that we have programs that are culturally sensitive. That applies to male and female alike. There is a real appetite for that, and it is something that we are striving to achieve as a government.

The member may recall the throne speech of 2006, I believe it was, where we made specific reference to the need for more aboriginal involvement and more culturally appropriate mechanisms in our provincial institutions. We continue to work towards that. This is one of those areas where I think it's fair to say that it's easier said than done. Nevertheless, that should not deter us from trying to accomplish what I think is an objective worth achieving.

In the interim, however, as I've said, we do try to put in place programs that are culturally appropriate and culturally sensitive, and we try to involve aboriginal people as much as possible. We have aboriginal prison liaison workers that come into our institutions.

I think the institution at Maple Ridge…. I can never figure out whether that's the north Fraser or the other Fraser — I keep confusing those two — but there certainly is evidence on site at the Maple Ridge institution of some aboriginal-specific programming and even facilities on those grounds that are there specifically to be more sensitive to and more relevant to aboriginal inmates.

M. Farnworth: The minister said…. "There's more work that needs to be done," was what I got from his comments. I'm wondering if he could tell me, then, from 2006: have there been specific new initiatives in place, for example, dealing with aboriginal people — in particular with aboriginal women — since the 2006 throne speech?

Hon. J. Les: As I said earlier, there is a lot of work to do here, and it's not easy work. It's not a case of making a decision and then watching it being implemented in a short period of time. To do it well, it needs to be done thoughtfully, and that does take some time.

However, we are in the process of doubling the aboriginal liaison workers within our institutions. We're increasing the number of aboriginal courtworkers. We are expanding aboriginal justice programs in aboriginal communities, and we are putting in place additional transitional support when aboriginal people leave our institutions, to make sure that they have a better likelihood of success at integrating back into life outside of the corrections facility.

All of these are steps. None of these is a great leap forward, but well-thought-out, deliberate steps, I think, are what is most likely going to bring us success in these areas. More and more, involving aboriginal people themselves in running these programs and providing liaison services is part of that success. Some have suggested that down the road an institutional setting involving only aboriginal people may be part of a solution as well.

I offer no particular opinion on that, but we need to constantly consult with aboriginal people to give us the greatest likelihood of succeeding in terms of lowering recidivism amongst aboriginal people as well.

M. Farnworth: I take from that answer that there is a lot of work to be done, and I think the ministry needs to recognize that this should be an important area in which they do pay some attention, particularly since it has apparently been a key focus of one of the throne speeches.

Having said that, coming back to this topic…. In the beginning, it was around women-focused programs. We have looked at how aboriginal people are fitting into that.

In terms of the goals and the performance management of this particular program, does it have the same criteria focus as the other programs we have talked about? Is it monitored as well for its success rate? Has it met its targets, and what are its targets?

Hon. J. Les: The set of programs specific to women in our provincial institutions is relatively recent. In the last two to three years the majority of these have been started up. Evaluation is an integral component of each of these programs.

It is important that we are able to monitor the effectiveness of these programs from time to time. But given that they have been in place for a relatively short period of time, we don't yet have a sufficient database to enable us to draw many conclusions for the long term.

These results are being analyzed by outside researchers on an ongoing basis. As results become available, we will be able to draw those conclusions and to adjust these programs if necessary.

M. Farnworth: I'll come back on this particular program to what I said before. I think that particularly if it's a new program, it's even more important that we look at the successes and the failures in these particular programs by recognizing that we need to have more than just a two-year cycle — in terms of saying there has been no recidivism within that two-year period and therefore it is successful or it's meeting its goals and objectives.

I think that one of the phenomena we have seen is particularly women…. More women are coming into contact with the judicial system in a number of areas. I know that violence is one of those.

I would suggest to the minister that I think what we need to have is better monitoring — more than just the two years, I think. We talked about, in the other programs, that three years may be good, for example. I think maybe looking at five years or even ten would be appropriate. I would suggest that we need to do that.

If the minister wants to respond to that, that's fine. Otherwise I would propose that we move on at this time for some questions around community policing. Then we will go to emergency preparedness.

M. Karagianis: I do have a couple of questions on community policing. I expect that the minister will need to call in some other staff support. I did recognize them here in the room.

I'd like to ask a couple of questions with regard to the Victoria and Esquimalt police department. It may come as no surprise whatsoever to the minister. As you know, the amalgamation of the two departments was a fairly contentious and passionate issue in the community when it happened in 2002.

The residual feelings in the community still run very deep and are easily reactivated, I guess. Recently there have been some headlines around funding challenges with the department, so I wanted to ask…. Given the constraints that a small community like Esquimalt has, with a modest tax base and modest population, there will certainly continue to be growing costs for community policing.

I wonder whether the minister has a plan for how to deal with the future impacts and growing demands on this amalgamated police department, especially how it affects a small community's ability to pay its share. I'd be really interested in hearing what you have to say about that.

Hon. J. Les: I'm somewhat aware of the debate and discussion that is prevalent in the community of Esquimalt. It has been about four years now, I think, since the amalgamation of the Esquimalt police department with the Victoria police department. I don't want to in any way belittle the concerns. Clearly, those concerns are there, but I think they are, to a degree at least, transitional.

When I look at the degree to which policing costs have escalated in the community of Esquimalt over that period of time, it has been 18 percent. When we have seen the average cost for policing across the province in that same period of time go up 19 percent, I would say they are pretty average, in terms of the increasing policing costs that are being experienced in Esquimalt.

In that same period of time, in that community, their fire department costs have gone up 59 percent. Clearly, they're experiencing additional cost pressures in a number of areas, not just in policing. Based on the evidence, I would say that their experience in terms of policing costs is not unusual at all.

To help communities deal with increasing policing costs, though — as the member I'm sure is aware — we have instituted several responses. The first was turning over what is now about $50 million worth of traffic fine revenue to municipalities. I know that's a very significant contribution.

As well, we have integrated a number of higher-level policing services in various areas. We see that in the south Island area here also with the integrated road safety unit, for example. Some very successful programs like the bait car program and several others like that…. We're certainly looking at doing more integration in the south Island in terms of the creation of a serious crimes unit, which will be announced very shortly.

There are several different responses that we've put in place both on the monetary side and otherwise, on the side of integration of resources, that I think are helping to ameliorate some of the pressures on municipalities.

Unless I see any different evidence that would contradict some of the facts that I've laid out here, I'm not at all sure that what Esquimalt is experiencing is unusual. I understand the fact that in being part of an amalgamated police department there may be some differences in policing patterns. I don't want to comment on that. That is a decision for the police board to make.

I have not yet conducted a review of statistics for Esquimalt specifically. I'm not even sure whether those would be available. I'd be interested in doing that, as well, to determine if there was any discrepancy between the last four years and the time of the years previous.

M. Karagianis: I am aware of the responsibilities of the police board, having sat in on many of those meetings myself when I was a municipal councillor there. I think the heart of the matter here is that the community is at this point showing some resistance to paying increased costs based on, I guess, a whole number of criteria that they have presented to their council.

The Esquimalt council has notified the police department that they will be reducing the expected funding contribution. In a case like that, what does the province do with that funding formula?

It's based on a percentage share of cost that impacts the Victoria portion of the funding as well. So if Esquimalt reduces its funding, does that mean that Victoria reduces its funding? Then how does the province carry through on its responsibilities to deliver the expected level of policing service here in the two communities?

Hon. J. Les: What we have to establish, first of all, is that in no way can community safety be put at risk. That's sort of a basic parameter that we have to keep in mind. I get the fact that communities from time to time are unhappy with the cost of policing or the cost of fire services or the cost of recreational services.

In this particular case there is an agreed-upon formula by which both Victoria and Esquimalt contribute to the cost of policing. I am not at all sure that it contemplates Esquimalt making unilateral decisions as to how and at what level it will contribute to policing services in this amalgamated police department. I would hope that they would be able to resolve those things amicably between the two parties.

If that is not the case, then obviously at some point it would be referred to my ministry for adjudication, given that under the Police Act, it is the responsibility of my ministry to ensure that police services are appropriately provided.

That is the ultimate — that the ministry, or myself as the minister, would make that decision. I would hope that that would not be necessary. We would make our mediation services available, if you like, a long time before we would impose anything on any jurisdiction like this.

As I have said before, I think this is part of the fact that this is a fairly new amalgamation. I guess they're still in some ways becoming accustomed to the new reality. Beyond that, it's not my intention to poke around too much in local responsibilities unless it's absolutely necessary.

M. Karagianis: Certainly, I think you have touched on a couple of the key issues here for the community. One is talking about the community's willingness to pay. In the case of services that they have sole responsibility and authority over, like recreation services or park services, if a community determines that the budget is too high, they can simply reduce the amount of service that they provide. That's a decision that is made between the municipal authority and its citizens.

In this case, though, as you very clearly outlined, the province has the ability and the authority and over-

sight to expect a certain level of safety, of protective services, and then to impose that authority, if necessary, on the community.

So I would ask: at what point does a community like Esquimalt cry uncle if police costs continue to increase? The burden is extreme on a very small, modest community — 17,000 residents. The tax base is modest and finite, and it's not a community that's growing as dramatically as some other areas of the region. At what point, I guess, does the community have the ability to make its own decision on what it is capable of paying?

Hon. J. Les: As I said a few minutes ago, the evidence I have to date — which is fairly basic information, but nonetheless, I think it's interesting information — is that the amount by which the policing costs in Esquimalt have increased over the last four years is not at all out of context with experiences right across the province. In fact, it's a tad below. So when we're talking about extreme increases or extreme pressures, frankly, I'm not sure the evidence supports that.

I think this needs to be carefully reassessed by Esquimalt council. It's a difficult situation when you have one of the two member municipalities in a police service attempting, or indicating that it wishes, at least, to make a unilateral decision as to the extent of its contribution.

Clearly, at a certain point in time that's simply not going to be on. As I indicated earlier, if necessary, the ministry will get involved. But I would hope that long before that is necessary, cooler heads would prevail and the parties between them could work out a resolution to their mutual benefit.

There's no question that policing costs have risen over the last number of years. I've already outlined the number of things that the province has done to help municipalities deal with that. When I talk about those things, I haven't even mentioned all of them. I'm sure the member is aware of programs like PRIME, for example, that are perhaps not that well understood yet, because they're very new, but will contribute very significantly to the efficiency of policing. Perhaps a subtle point, but it's nonetheless very real in terms of getting more policing out of a taxpayer's dollar.

If it comes to the ministry, we will deal with it. But based on the evidence and the information I have to date, I am not sure exactly what the problem is.

M. Karagianis: Well, certainly I think there are some negotiations going on right now within both communities around the cost of policing. I imagine we'll all see the results of that fairly soon as we move into the municipal budgeting determinations here. I guess we'll see what happens with the police services based on Esquimalt's decision recently in their budget.

At the crux of the matter here, if I can go back a little bit to the historical events that took place around that amalgamation, was the expectation that that was the first of a series of amalgamations that would deal with regional policing. The community of Esquimalt is feeling — and you can judge whether you think rightly or wrongly — that they are bearing costs of policing that should be regionwide.

This is a debate that's gone on for a long time in this community around the policing that occurs in the downtown core of Victoria being not just solely their responsibility. Frankly, Esquimalt, I believe at this point, is seeing that their end of the bargain is carrying a bit of the load for the entire region. The community wonders, often and out loud, what happened to the rest of the amalgamation program that was to take place. They were the first, and subsequent amalgamations didn't occur.

I think Esquimalt, rightly and fairly, is asking the question at this point: if our taxpayers are going to have to dig deeper to pay for policing, why has the province not moved to fulfil the amalgamation promise for policing here that would then balance off all the policing costs on the entire region, not just on Victoria and Esquimalt?

Hon. J. Les: I think we should be clear. The amalgamation of the Esquimalt police with the Victoria police at the time was done as a result of an audit that was done on the Esquimalt police department. It was determined that there were issues there that, frankly, could only be properly dealt with by an amalgamation with the Victoria police department.

At no time did that involve an expectation that that was a continuing process that involved other police departments down the road. There may well have been people in Esquimalt who thought that, but there has never been an indication or a promise that that process was going to continue.

I am fully aware of the debate that goes on around this part of the province on whether or not there should be amalgamation and whether or not that should be imposed. My preference is to allow local communities to come to those decisions themselves. Oak Bay, Saanich, Central Saanich all seem to very much enjoy having their own police departments, and I see no need to undo that if policing services are not compromised.

We are moving towards more integrated policing at certain levels. The serious crimes unit that we'll be announcing soon, the integrated road safety unit and the IMPACT program are examples of where we have taken certain levels of policing and integrated police departments to work collaboratively on those specific issues.

That still allows communities in these areas to have their own dedicated police forces for general-duty policing services, and they enjoy that. I am loath to intervene and say: "Thou shalt amalgamate." That, frankly, represents to me an imposition that isn't necessarily supported by the residents of all these communities, so we have resisted going there.

The ultimate that I'm looking for is to make sure that policing services are appropriately available, that we are combatting crime wherever it arises and giving people the type of policing — whether RCMP or a municipal police force — of their choosing, so long as that is in keeping with the results that we're looking for.

M. Karagianis: I'll just ask one more question. Certainly, I may be familiar if not more familiar than many with the events that took place around the amalgamation and the feelings that were created in the community. I sat on council when that decision was made. I would ask you this, then — not taking any position either pro or con, but just to get it on the record.

There is certainly a question in the community as to whether or not that police department could be split and whether Esquimalt could once again resume responsibility for its own police services, independent of the joint department. Is that something that government would consider, allow or support in any way?

Hon. J. Les: My temptation here is to give a short answer, which would be no. That probably is the essence of my answer. We amalgamated these two departments for good reasons four years ago. There was actually an evaluation done two years later — a survey of the public that indicated relatively good levels of satisfaction. Perhaps we could do that again, but I'm not sure to what end.

I think we have a pretty plausible situation in place today. It's a situation that should work. Frankly, we're not about amalgamating where amalgamations are not desired. At the same time, though, once we have accomplished an amalgamation, to turn around four or five years later and say, "Let's create two police departments again," is really just a recipe for confusion and consternation. I think what we all have to be focused on is making the amalgamated police department work.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to move on to emergency preparedness, and I guess what we will do is talk about what I think is top of mind for most people in many communities, particularly along the Fraser and other major rivers in the province: this year's extremely high snowpack and the measures that are being taken by the ministry to ensure that lives and property are protected in the advent of a rapid melt.

Can the minister give a current update on what the latest scenario is, in terms of the snowpack and the likelihood of a rapid melt?

Hon. J. Les: I'm certainly pleased to do that. As I'm sure all members are aware, we've had a very heavy snowpack that accumulated over the winter and the spring of this year. We've had relatively cool weather so far this spring, so diabolically, we've seen almost a continued accumulation of snowpack until very, very recently.

The accumulation of snowpack varies somewhat across the province, but generally speaking, it's well above average. The most disturbing aspect of that is that in the Nechako Basin, which contributes about 44 percent of the runoff of the Fraser River, the accumulation of snowpack is at levels never seen before, so that's obviously a significant concern.

As members will know, we track this information every year. We have snow pillow readings that are administered by the Ministry of Environment. Early this year we started to become aware that the snowpack was significant and accumulating. Every time we read the snow pillow data, it had accumulated some more.

Since the seventh of January staff in the provincial emergency program, under the umbrella of emergency management British Columbia, have been meeting and working on getting their preparedness in order, working across government. All of the assistant deputy ministers of government are a part of this exercise to make sure that all of the resources of government are available should we face an emergency situation this year.

We've also been conducting workshops across the province to involve local governments, who all have emergency plans in place, which they are required to do by provincial legislation. We've been working to make sure that they are completely integrated, in terms of their plans and our responsibilities, in the event of a flood.

Of course, you can be prepared, and that's great. I have great respect and admiration for our staff and in fact for all of the resources we have in the municipalities and regional districts across the province as well. But you also have to do whatever you can to ensure that, in this case, the dikes and other flood containment infrastructure is in good shape.

We had a report from the Fraser Basin Council earlier this year which indicated — mainly because of an ongoing accumulation over many decades of silt and gravel on the bottom of the Fraser River — that in fact some of the water-carrying capacity of the river has been compromised. This means, in real terms, that where we once thought we had dikes that were able to handle the flood of record — a 200-year flood event — plus a half a metre of freeboard…. Essentially, that freeboard is gone in many areas. In some cases, more than the freeboard has been compromised.

That is the new reality that we're dealing with today. Some people have suggested: "Well, get busy and start excavating silt and gravel out of the river." Frankly, it would take tens of millions of tonnes excavated to compensate for the lack of that removal over the last 50 years. Clearly, what we have to do at this point in time is make sure that the dikes are in good shape, that they're well armoured and that, where possible, we raise those dikes to deal with the potential elevation of the water.

I think it was about six weeks ago today that the Premier made an announcement after a decision by cabinet contributing $33 million towards that effort. We are still expecting up to now that the federal government will pick up half of that tab. It's perhaps an unusual way of doing things, but we found ourselves in a position of having to move forward and not being able to wait for a federal contribution to the solution.

Since that time we have invited municipalities and regional districts to submit projects that would have the effect of dealing with the flood threat effectively. Many have responded from around the province — some in the Kootenays, some in places like Prince George, Telkwa and Houston, just to name a few in the more northern parts of the province. Of course, the

More recently, 1972 was also a year when we had extremely high water and lots of flooding, although none of the dikes at that time were breached.

That $33 million has now been fully allocated. Municipalities and regional districts are hard at work. I have seen some of the work that they are doing. It's impressive in terms of the amount of work that they have been able to do. I was in Port Coquitlam early on, and great credit to the engineering staff in the city of Port Coquitlam. They were one of the first off the mark, raising the dikes along the Pitt River, and I believe ultimately Port Coquitlam was awarded some $3.7 million or $3.8 million to get that work done.

It involves cooperation with one of the first nations communities there as well. That's just one example of a community that has been able to undertake significant work simply in raising the dikes to deal with the new….

Hon. J. Les: Yes. It takes all of us working together, actually, to keep communities safe. I would hasten to say that this is probably one of those issues that would safely be categorized as being completely non-partisan.

There are still communities that are hard at work finishing up. We established as one of the parameters that we would be able to complete the works necessary by the 15th of May. That is a date that's somewhat movable, but we are already seeing the water levels coming up in the Fraser River system, and it increasingly is going to compromise the ability to do some of that work, particularly if it involves armouring the riverbank, for example. Once the river comes up too high, you can't do very much of that work anymore.

We feel that with that significant contribution to the infrastructure in and around the river, which is the largest contribution in the history of the province in a pre-flood situation, we're going to be in relatively good shape. But with that very, very significant snowpack, of course, the other factor that comes into this is weather patterns over the next two months — obviously an issue, in spite of the Ministry of Environment, over which we have no control.

We are simply going to have to await the weather patterns, and if it stays relatively cool, as it has over the last several months, and suddenly decides to unleash upon us a heatwave for two or three weeks at the end of this month, we could be facing some very significant challenges.

At the same time that we're engaged in all of these preparations, we also don't want to panic the public, but it's important for everyone to understand that we have to undertake that planning so that we will be ready if certain challenges come our way. The window of vulnerability, generally speaking, is from about the middle of May to the middle of June. Once the middle of June has come and gone, I will sleep a little more easily at night.

In the meantime, everyone is hard at work, most particularly the staff in the provincial emergency program and the volunteers across the province, some of whom I met on Saturday when they were at a conference here in Victoria, and many others, of course, who are located all over the province. It's interesting to note, for example, that Emergency Social Services alone comprises some 13,000 volunteers across the province.

Anyway, I think I've probably prattled on long enough, and I'm sure that members opposite have further questions.

M. Sather: Certainly, this is a very serious issue for my communities of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, but particularly Pitt Meadows, which is mostly at about sea level. The Fraser Basin Council report that came out said that up to 90 percent of Pitt Meadows could be flooded in the event of a breach of the dikes.

They talk about deaths in the report, too, so it's a very serious issue. I'm trying to get a grasp, at the local level, on what the minister's perspective is about my community.

The minister said recently in question period in answer to the member for New Westminster, quoting the mayor of Maple Ridge, that the "…citizens for the MLA's uneducated and non-productive comments…." That MLA was me that he was referring to. So I'm assuming that since he quoted the mayor on this that he takes ownership, passes this on and believes in this.

The mayor was responding to a letter that I wrote to the minister on April 18 that I haven't had a response to. The letter says:

I would like to ask the minister what in that letter he sees as uneducated and non-productive.

Hon. J. Les: Well, I hear what the member is saying, and I'm not going to get involved in whatever discus-

sion he might have had with the mayor of Maple Ridge, or anyone else, for that matter.

Let's frame this thing here, though. Between the communities of Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge, they've had over $4 million worth of resources made available to them to improve their diking infrastructure. Just for the member's reference, that is equivalent to the entire allocation that was made available to the whole province in 1999 when we had a similar snowpack as we have this year.

As I have said previously, this is the largest allocation of money to allow communities to get ready for a potential flood that we've ever seen in the history of the province. The two communities of Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge have certainly benefited and are benefiting from that. So $4 million worth of improved diking is a lot of work and is a lot of improvement. Is it the whole enchilada? No, it's not. I understand that. But it certainly gives us much more of a chance to be able to deal with floodwater this spring. If the situation becomes critical, clearly, more resources will be brought to the table on an emergency basis to help us deal with other situations that might arise.

We need to be careful as well…. The member mentioned that a certain report he had read even mentioned death. Well, let's be clear. We, I think, have a responsibility to encourage readiness in every way possible, but we also have a responsibility not to panic people. The fact of the matter is that with the monitoring capabilities and equipment that we have today, we are going to be able to give communities a significant heads-up — perhaps three, four, five days in advance in terms of rising water.

I've known since I was a kid that if you watched the water level in the river at Prince George, whether it was going up or down, you'd be able to predict three or four days in advance whether the water levels in the Fraser at the Mission gauge were going to go up or down. There has been an awful lot of refinement of that capability.

We have done a lot to enhance the state of infrastructure right through the lower mainland and in certain locations across the rest of the province as well. We've purchased several million additional sandbags. We've, for the first time, purchased what are called gabion weirs, about five kilometres of those, which are simply a newfangled form of huge sandbags that are possibly going to be very useful if there is extremely high water.

All of the rhetoric aside, we have had a solid, proactive response to the potential flood threat this spring. We will continue to be vigilant, and we will do everything possible to mitigate the damage and disaster.

M. Sather: I talked to an elderly gentleman along the Pitt River dikes the other day. He owns 14 acres there and has lived there many, many years. You know, he says, "They came and talked to me" — being, I guess, emergency people. "I have a hernia. I can't place sandbags." That sort of was the option that was left to him. People will stay in their homes until the last moment. That's the problem, even if they have advance notice.

With reference to what the minister said about 1999, the difference is that we have this authoritative report from the Fraser Basin Council. It came out in December. It said that the dikes needed to be raised up two metres.

My final question, then, to the minister is…. That information didn't come out in February or March; it came out in December. Why didn't the ministry, why didn't the government prepare then with money in the budget to address the problem adequately?

Hon. J. Les: I'll be very brief, Chair. As a matter of fact, I think rather than attempt to be brief, why don't I just suggest that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.


	YEAS — 42

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Krueger	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Nuraney	Whittred	Horning
Cantelon	Thorpe	Hagen
Oppal	de Jong	Taylor
Bond	Hansen	Abbott
Penner	Coleman	Hogg
Sultan	Hawkins	Bennett
Lekstrom	Mayencourt	Polak
Hawes	Yap	MacKay
Black	McIntyre	Rustad

	NAYS — 32

Brar	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	James	Kwan
Ralston	B. Simpson	Cubberley
Hammell	Coons	Thorne
Simons	Puchmayr	Gentner
Routley	Fraser	Horgan
Lali	Dix	Trevena
Bains	Robertson	Karagianis
Krog	Austin	Chudnovsky
Chouhan	Wyse	Sather
Macdonald		Conroy


	YEAS — 41

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Krueger	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Nuraney	Whittred	Horning
Cantelon	Hagen	Oppal
de Jong	Taylor	Bond
Hansen	Abbott	Penner
Coleman	Hogg	Sultan
Hawkins	Bennett	Lekstrom
Mayencourt	Polak	Hawes
Yap	MacKay	Black
McIntyre		Rustad

	NAYS — 31

Brar	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	James	Kwan
Ralston	B. Simpson	Cubberley
Hammell	Coons	Thorne
Simons	Puchmayr	Gentner
Routley	Fraser	Horgan
Dix	Trevena	Bains
Robertson	Karagianis	Evans
Krog	Austin	Chudnovsky
Chouhan	Wyse	Sather
	Macdonald