2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 30, Number 9

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2012

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

K. Corrigan: It's my great pleasure to introduce my friend Rob Jandric. Rob is a veteran. He served his country in Bosnia. For the last several years he has been a very able servicing rep with the Canadian Union of Public Employees. I hope the House will make him feel very welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm very pleased today to rise and welcome Howard Lloyd to the House this afternoon. Mr. Lloyd proudly represented the former riding of Fort George from 1975 to 1979 as a member of the Social Credit Party.

He is here in Victoria today, and I know he is visiting his family. I'm hoping I've got the numbers right, because as a grandmother of only two — not only two, which I think is a fantastic number…. I think that between him and his wife they now have 15 grandchildren and 13 great-grandchildren.

I know that he served our part of the province incredibly well, and it's a real pleasure to see him here in Victoria and welcome him back to this place where he served so very capably on behalf of northern British Columbians. Please join me in welcoming Howard Lloyd to the chamber today.

[1335]

R. Fleming: I have one more introduction I'd like to make before the House. I'd like to introduce the president of the Canadian Auto Workers Local 333, who is with us in the gallery today, as well as Jim Pullen, who is the chair of the political action committee of CAW Local 333.

These gentlemen keep passengers safe on the road each day. They work under very difficult conditions, and they are also excellent transit advocates in the community of greater Victoria. I hope that all members of the House will join me, especially the Transportation Minister, in making these two gentlemen welcome here today.

Hon. C. Clark: I rise to make a ministerial statement.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Ministerial Statements

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO REPORT ON
DEATHS OF SCHOENBORN CHILDREN

Hon. C. Clark: I rise in this House today to offer my deepest sympathies and condolences and apology to the mother of Kaitlynne, Max and Cordon Shoenborn, who were tragically murdered by their father sometime on the weekend of April 5 and 6, 2008.

As a parent, I cannot begin to imagine the impact that this loss has had on the mother of those three children and her extended family. To this end, I want to assure this House and all British Columbians that on behalf of our province, we will provide the services and the support that this family required and deserves, including those available through our criminal injury compensation program, as they continue their journey along the long road back from this inconceivable tragedy.

I want to thank the Representative for Children and Youth for taking the time to undertake both a thorough and a thoughtful investigation into the events that preceded the murders of these children. She cares deeply, and she serves our province extremely well. No one who has read the report could fail to be moved by its content, by the struggle of the family to deal with the challenges of income security, domestic violence and mental health.

The report rightly points out that the system was fragmented and that it didn't provide the mother with the support that she needed to keep her children safe from harm, nor did it provide Mr. Schoenborn with the assistance he needed to overcome his mental health and addictions challenges. The consequence of that is a grieving mother, a father in a forensic psychiatric institution and the loss of three innocent children.

We as a province can and must do better to ensure that we provide improved support for families who find themselves in similar situations. I want to assure the representative and the families of B.C. that we will implement her recommendations and that we are committed to following the timeline she has set out for us.

I remember when I was in radio that I grieved with the rest of the province when we learned of this tragedy. I got back into politics because I wanted to make sure that our government was doing a better job of supporting families, particularly those who struggle, but all of them in all their shapes and sizes.

Within days of becoming Premier, we changed the senior staffing at the ministry, and I think the representative would agree that since then we have made some progress in addressing some of the issues that have arisen over the years. It is clear today that government must do more to improve the way that domestic violence is fought in this province.

As a result, we have made the Ministry of Children and Family Development the lead ministry for domestic violence programs and services. The new domestic violence unit will be created, and it will assemble provincial resources under a single ministry and improve the coordination with health care providers, educators and the police, as demanded by the representative. All the resources across government will be spent more efficiently once we've broken down the silos, and then if the unit
[ Page 9630 ]
needs additional resources, we will find them.

Very sadly, none of us can reverse the past, but we can learn from this tragedy and make sure that families in these circumstances receive better support than did the wife and children of Allan Schoenborn, a sick man who did so much harm.

[1340]

A. Dix: I thank the Premier for her ministerial statement. I think all members of the House would associate themselves with the apology that the Premier has made to the family, to the mother, on behalf of the government of British Columbia. I think all of us would recognize the sense of loss beyond, really, all understanding that this case brings up.

There are serious issues, ones that we will, of course, be raising in this House about this question. I think it tells us why this House unanimously did the right thing together in 2006 in creating the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth and why this House has recognized, in its reappointment of Ms. Turpel-Lafond, the important work done by Representative for Children and Youth.

Ultimately, it's up to the members of this House to act on those reports. In 2009, as everyone knows, there was another report raising many of the same questions. We had a budget year in 2010, we had a budget year in 2011, and we had a budget year in 2012. I think a reasonable person would say — indeed, Ms. Turpel-Lafond has suggested — that the response hasn't been adequate.

Now, I don't believe anybody in this House doesn't take the issues of domestic violence seriously. We all do. So what this significant report presents before all of us is the need to ensure that we not delay further and that action is taken. If that's the intention of the government, then it will have our support in doing so.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

SAANICH ORGANICS AND
BOOK ON ORGANIC FARMING

L. Popham: Saanich Organics is a community of farmers from small certified organic farms who work together on the Saanich Peninsula. Robin Tunnicliffe of Feisty Field Organic Farm, Rachel Fisher of Three Oaks Farm and Heather Stretch of Northbrook Farm are the owners of this successful business. They cooperate and support each other in many ways, and through Saanich Organics, they get as much fresh, delicious, healthy, local certified organic produce as they can onto tables in and around Victoria.

They are passionate about the importance of good farming, and they are creating a viable alternative to the industrial agriculture model. Their farms support biodiversity and practise soil conservation, humane living conditions of farm animals and high labour standards.

Robin, Rachel and Heather are my pals. They taught me how to farm over a decade ago. These wonderful friends of mine have just published a book revealing all of their secrets to a successful organic farming business, called All the Dirt.

New farmers, experienced growers, budding environmentalists are sure to love All the Dirt, filled with beautiful photographs and covering a wide variety of topics, from agrifuels and food sovereignty to practical tips about specific tools. All the Dirt is a must-read how-to book on small-scale organic farming, but beyond the practical applications, it's also the inspiring story of three friends who followed their dreams and became successful business partners.

All the Dirt proves that there is no one right way to start a farm and no single solution to any problem but that working together, farmers can create a resilient agriculture that is vibrant and fun as well as economically viable.

TZU CHI FOUNDATION
COMMUNITY SERVICE IN SURREY

D. Hayer: Today I want to talk about the great things the Tzu Chi Foundation of Canada does in Surrey, where more than a thousand members live.

For the past ten years members of the Tzu Chi Foundation of Canada volunteer every Wednesday at the Surrey Food Bank. Each year they donate over $10,000 to the Surrey Food Bank to buy baby food for single mothers.

Every Saturday for the last 15 years Tzu Chi volunteers help Surrey seniors at Kinsmen Place, and four days a week they run the hydration program for seniors at CareLife Fleetwood. Once a month every summer more than 50 Tzu Chi volunteers clean up the Guildford area through Surrey's Adopt-A-Street program.

But the foundation's help doesn't just stop there. Since 2004 they have donated more than $30,000 per year to the bursary program for students from low-income families and have donated over $150,000 to the new emergency department at Surrey Memorial Hospital.

[1345]

They provide emergency relief to fire and other disaster victims, with $100-per-person gift cards and other items. They just held a winter relief event for the Surrey Food Bank, where 210 families received packages, which included new blankets, food, and health and other home care products. They help the homeless at the Front Room and Gateway Shelter, and 105 people received new jackets, gloves, scarfs and socks.

This organization does great work in Surrey and throughout the world, wherever help is needed. Last month when I was in Taiwan, I met at the Tzu Chi Foundation headquarters with many volunteers to bring
[ Page 9631 ]
greetings from British Columbia members.

I ask every member in the House to join me in thanking and congratulating the great work of Tzu Chi that all of the volunteers of Tzu Chi Foundation and their members do, and especially the Surrey volunteers and donors, including Susan Lee and Tom Torng.

LADYSMITH SENIORS ADVISORY COUNCIL

D. Routley: The Ladysmith Seniors Advisory Council is a seniors advisory service group led by Linda Brown, chair, and seven other counsellors from a variety of backgrounds ranging from nursing, notaries, community leaders to retired professionals. They are active, strong, caring and generous.

The lives of our seniors are varied, but all involve challenges. Whether it's housing, home care, health care, transportation or simply isolation, the Ladysmith Seniors Advisory Council are there to help. The fact is that so many of our seniors face increased costs and fees. From soaring hydro rates to increased food bills, our seniors, mostly living on fixed incomes, are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet.

The Ladysmith Seniors Advisory Council is a resource centre first. When seniors are searching for a ride to medical appointments, when they are without adequate care for basic household needs, the Ladysmith Seniors Advisory Council is often the answer.

Recently MP Jean Crowder and I hosted a meeting for seniors in Ladysmith. The meeting was primarily focused on hearing from seniors about what their challenges are and what solutions they seek. We heard much from those in attendance that will help us, as representatives, to recommend solutions through public policy.

We also were reminded of just how much a human resource resides in our communities in the form of our seniors. From all walks of life and with deep history and experience, our seniors offer our communities the wisdom of their ages, the breadth of their knowledge. This great resource often gets forgotten. The Ladysmith Seniors Advisory Council is an avenue of expression for those voices.

Another thing happened, though. As the issues came forward, many were answered right there on the spot by Linda Brown, chair of the Ladysmith Seniors Advisory Council. It became quite obvious, through example after example, that the resources available to seniors, as stretched as they are, are not well known to many. From housing, transportation and health care to companionship, security and community, Ladysmith Seniors Advisory Council has an answer for just about everything.

OKANAGAN VALLEY WINES

N. Letnick: Living in Kelowna has given me the opportunity to experience great wines without going very far. Tasting wine is where all the fun begins — smelling, swirling, sipping and, of course, drinking. The art of wine tasting involves a lot of finesse and etiquette, and like any sport or hobby, practice makes perfect.

The Okanagan Valley has been referred to as the Napa of the north, so it was most befitting to be rated as the No. 1 wine destination in the world, according to a recent article from travel website viator.com. This website reports on over 400 cities and 80 countries. Other wine regions on the top list include Bordeaux, Tuscany and California's Napa and Sonoma.

The Okanagan Valley is home to over 120 wineries, including Kelowna's world-class Gray Monk, Quails Gate, Mission Hill and Cedar Creek. These wines, along with many other Okanagan wines, are featured at our first-rate golf courses, restaurants and ski resorts across the region.

While wineries, from world-class to cottage, have become economic stimulants for the region, more importantly, they have become a visitor experience, and the Okanagan Valley, without a doubt, deserves the distinction of top wine destination in the world. Its success is emblematic of the outstanding people and regions throughout all of British Columbia.

[1350]

WEDDING PLANNING AND
SUPPORT FOR LOCAL FOOD

M. Mungall: Valentine's Day has come and gone, and now many couples are full swing into the wedding planning season — bridal gowns, tuxes, guest lists, seating plans, gift registration, rings, flowers, wineglasses, beer kegs, twinkle lights and tulle, bridesmaids, groomsmen, flower girls, ring bearer, DJ, MC, drivers, photographer, harpist, officiant, and don't forget the mother of the bride.

It's enough to make your head spin, and I ought to know, because I did it all last year. I survived. To all the stressed-out couples: yes, it is worth it.

One of the things that added stress, but was also worth every bit, was insisting that everything that we served at the reception came from B.C. Now, a Buy B.C. program would have made the job easier, but without it, we were fortunate to have the Creston Valley Food Action Coalition Farm Fresh Guide. With the amazing caterer Annie Bailey, support from local farmers and participation from the Slocan Valley's Legendary Meats, we served up a fabulous feast, 95 percent of which came from within 100 miles of Kokanee Creek Park on Kootenay Lake. Not only did we reduce our wedding's carbon footprint with this 100-mile feast; we also supported our local farmers and producers. Plus, the food was amazing, and Uncle Allan is still raving about it.

So for all the couples stressing about what to serve at their wedding, go local. You can read up on how we did it and get my top five tips for your 100-mile wedding banquet in this year's B.C. Bridal Guide, available free on line. With that, Mr. Speaker, bon appétit.
[ Page 9632 ]

BURNABY NORTH SECONDARY SCHOOL
TABLE TENNIS CHAMPIONS

R. Lee: Today I would like to congratulate Burnaby North Secondary School for winning the 2012 B.C. Secondary School Table Tennis Championships. Table tennis is a sport loved by many young adult and senior players. Student players usually practise at the school in table tennis clubs in Burnaby, Vancouver and Richmond under the guidance of many dedicated coaches.

Last month Burnaby North Secondary won gold medals in five out of six categories of the competition — girls teams, boys teams, girls doubles, boys doubles and girls singles. Congratulations to Shirley Fu and Leanne Lee for winning the girls doubles; Teddy Wu and Michael Luo, the boys doubles; Shirley Fu, the girls singles; and Michael Luo for capturing the bronze in the boys singles.

Other players like Devina Ngai, Cynthia Leung, Joy Lim, Jackson Lu and Richard Lei are also members of these teams, but I would like to particularly commend Shirley Fu for her achievement. To this Vancouver Winter Olympics torchbearer, winning the girls singles three times in a row in B.C. has come quite easily.

Over the last five years she has won first place in the Canadian national table tennis championships in all age categories: under-11, under-13, under-15, under-18, under-21 and women's singles. She's also a national member of the Pan American Games, a member of the team that won a bronze in the world junior circuit and a gold medallist in the Canadian Winter Games.

I would like the House to join me in congratulating these outstanding young athletes from Burnaby North Secondary School.

Hon. D. McRae: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. McRae: In the galleries today we have the explorative grade 11 class from G.P. Vanier. They are ably led by my former colleagues and amazing teachers. I see Mr. Dave Neill, Mr. Grayson Pettigrew and Ms. Ilene Yeomans. They are a fantastic group of individuals. It's a great program.

Would this chamber please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO REPORTS ON
PROTECTION SYSTEM FOR VICTIMS OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

A. Dix: My question is to the Premier, and it's with respect to the report by the Representative for Children and Youth today. The report says very clearly — and it's really important to emphasize this when we talk about these issues — that it's obvious that the cause of deaths of Kaitlynne, Max and Cordon was their father, as established by a criminal trial. It also says the words that haunt, I think, everybody in the system when it says the deaths of these three children were preventable. In a previous report in 2009 honouring Christian Lee, the representative made a number of recommendations that in this report she notes were not followed.

[1355]

I wanted to ask the Premier…. The Premier referred to the replacement — I think that she was referring to the replacement of Ms. du Toit — last year as an important event in terms of dealing with these issues. Is the Premier suggesting that there was institutional opposition to change? And how can she explain why three years after that report, in three budget rounds, nothing seems to have happened with many of the key recommendations of the Lee report?

Hon. C. Clark: First, let me again thank the representative for her report. It was thorough, it was very thoughtful, and as I said, she cares very deeply about this province and families in it.

Second, to say again to the family of those children who lost their lives: on behalf of the government, our deepest condolences and apologies.

The representative made some important recommendations in her report. We will be guided by those recommendations and acting on them. We will also be meeting the timeline that she has set out.

Not enough has been done across government to fight domestic violence. Work is spread across ministries. It's diffused, and it's far less effective than it should be. We are going to centralize it in the Ministry of Children and Families. I believe that doing that can make a very, very big difference. As I said, once those resources are centralized and we see how that works, if more resources are required, we'll find them.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

A. Dix: First of all, I think that we need to understand, and it's very important to be clear about the facts, that the report in the Lee case came after the deaths of these children. I don't think anyone would want to link the two, but I think it's disconcerting. So I'd be interested to hear from the Premier.

We had a report. We had a terrible incident in this community. We had a report with recommendations. We went through three budget cycles. Those recommendations were not taken up by government. I guess what I'm asking from the Premier is an explanation for that, because now we have another report with many of the same
[ Page 9633 ]
recommendations. We're back in this process.

The Premier referred to problems in the Ministry of Children and Family Development when she referred to the replacement of certain senior officials there as a key act of her government. I want to know if the Premier suggesting that that was the problem. Is the Premier suggesting that that was the reason why, through three budget cycles, they didn't take up this issue? What was the reason? What is the explanation of why there was no action in the Lee case?

Hon. C. Clark: You know, I think if he was to put that question to the representative, she would say that the tension that existed between her office and the previous deputy's office was very, very unproductive and that the progress that she's observed in the ministry since the new deputy has taken on the role has been heartening. We certainly have seen significant changes in the ministry in the last year.

There is a lot more to be done, in particular in the area of domestic violence. This report that we've seen today tells us how urgently we need to address that, so we are addressing it.

I'd say this to the member. We are not back at the same place. The ministry is doing much better than it was a year ago. It has different leadership which is guiding it on a different path. We are going to respond to the representative's recommendations, and we're going to do it on the timeline that she set out. We have to deal with domestic violence better in this province than we have in the past.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: While I think it's reasonable to talk about the senior executive of the ministry, what really matters is what happens on the ground. That's what really matters — the change that we're trying to effect in the lives of children and families. I think that's the problem here, because the government, as you know, tabled a budget recently that didn't address these questions. The representative's comments with respect to that budget, I think, were as unequivocal as they could have been.

[1400]

I guess what we're trying to understand is why action hasn't been taken on that report, why the Premier feels that it wasn't required to take action in advance of the 2012 budget, why it wasn't appropriate to take action prior to the 2011 budget, why it wasn't appropriate to take action before the 2010 budget — in fact, to reject significantly the recommendations of the report Honouring Christian Lee.

Again, I understand that the issues in this case are so serious that people are not acting out of a sense of disrespect. But action didn't happen, and the consequences are just a little bit disrespectful. I guess what I want to ask the Premier to tell us is why that action wasn't taken in last week's budget.

Hon. C. Clark: The report of the representative is absolutely clear. Not enough action was taken. That's what I said in my ministerial statement before we got to question period here today — that not enough action has been taken.

I don't expect the Leader of the Opposition to accept my apology for that, but I very, very much hope that the mother of those children who died will accept my apology on behalf of government for that fact.

I remember sitting on my radio show at the time, learning about this tragedy and grieving with British Columbians. It was an awful thing that happened. It should never have happened. If it's true that government could have prevented it, we should have.

My commitment, having received this report yesterday, is to respond to her recommendations. It's to act on them. It's to bring these resources from across government, which are broken up into different silos, into one place. It's to make sure that we devote the resources necessary to dealing with domestic violence.

What happened in the past was not good enough. The ministry began to make some very big changes about a year ago, but we are not all the way down that road. That's what we learned in this report today, and that's why we will be addressing the recommendations she's given us.

C. Trevena: We've heard promises for children and families over and over again from this government, but they've turned out to be hollow year after year — years of denying problems and years of neglect for the most vulnerable children. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it's 2½ years since we had the Honouring Christian Lee report, and nothing happened.

The children's representative in this latest report says: "Countless opportunities to ensure that the children and their mother were safe were missed because of a profound lack of coordination among the child-serving, mental health and criminal justice systems over many years, compounded by glaring failures in child protection practice."

I'd like to ask the Premier. There is apparently a commitment now to doing something, but how does she expect her minister to implement the recommendations in this report, including the establishment of a new unit on domestic violence, when the budget introduced last week had not a penny more for the next three years for the ministry?

Hon. M. McNeil: First, I want to start with a statement about this unimaginable tragedy. My heart goes out to the family. As a mother and a grandmother, I can't imagine what the mother must have been going through, has gone through and is continuing to go through. I also
[ Page 9634 ]
have to say that as a minister, this is the toughest case I've seen.

I was given the report last Thursday. I have read it cover to cover more than once. I have taken very much to heart what the representative has said. It's clear that more has to be done. She has said that we have made strides — significant improvements, as she said — over the last year. But clearly, that's not enough. That's why she asked for leadership and why I, this mornin,g have committed to the establishment of a domestic violence unit within the Ministry of Children and Families.

[1405]

It will report to my deputy minister, and there will be a deputy ministers committee which is going to start, first off, with taking a look at all of the resources we're currently doing across ministries to ensure what we are doing, to find out what the gaps are and then to put together an action plan which will go back to the Representative for Children and Youth by July 31. I will make sure that happens.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I hear the minister talking about a commitment. It's very sad that this commitment wasn't shown earlier on. We've known about domestic violence for an awfully long while in this province, and there's been no commitment from this government in the last 11 years.

I was asking the minister how she expects this new unit to be funded when the budget has not given a penny more for her ministry. We have a number of significant recommendations in this report, including implementing all the recommendations of the Christian Lee report as well as the recommendations of this report.

If the minister is serious about addressing domestic violence and dealing with the systemic problems that have plagued her ministry for many years, I'd like a very straight answer of how she expects to pay for it when there is no extra money in her budget.

Hon. M. McNeil: The Premier, during her ministerial statement, made the comment that after we've done the work and we have our action plan put together by July 31, if we need more resources, that will be addressed at that time.

I also want to comment a bit about what has happened over the last bit. We are working on a strategic plan for the next three years. The representative has been working alongside us. She is very pleased with some of the initiatives that we're doing in it, feels that it's a very comprehensive plan.

Clearly, as the minister I recognize that we need to do a better job working across ministries. These are very complex cases that involved mental health issues, that involved substance abuse, that involved domestic violence. We need to do a better job of coordinating cross-ministry, and that's exactly what the domestic violence unit will do.

H. Lali: I've lived in Merritt for 46 years, and no one in Merritt can recall an instance as horrific as the brutal murder of these three kids. Kaitlynne, Max and Cordon were children who should not have died. The Schoenborn family had moved to Merritt from the Lower Mainland. They were known to the ministry, but their file did not follow them. Crucial help disappeared despite the history of mental health problems and also of contact with the police. There was also ministry involvement, and the family fell through the cracks.

The representative states: "The resulting lack of timelines and of continuity contributed to a failure to protect these vulnerable children and their mother." The children and youth investigators were told that in the Interior office there were no measures in place to mitigate serious threats to good case management, with one worker juggling 60 files, many of which were considered high risk.

My question is to the minister. The representative has made it clear that she does not want another piecemeal approach from this government, so will the minister commit today to implementing all of the recommendations meant to work in conjunction and ensure sufficient protections for children at risk?

Hon. M. McNeil: As I said this morning when I gave my statement in response to the representative's report, the government agrees with the intent of all the recommendations, and we will be looking into all of them. In addition, we will be establishing the domestic violence unit, which will make a big difference when it comes to dealing with these complex cases that require many different ministries' involvement.

We need to do a better job of breaking down the silos and talking to each other, and that's exactly what I have committed, not only to the family but also to the representative and to the province of British Columbia.

[1410]

INFECTION CONTROL AT
BURNABY HOSPITAL

S. Hammell: Yesterday we brought up the situation of the serious C. difficile outbreak at Burnaby Hospital. Let me quote again from the doctor's letter. "Over the period of the last 2½ years at Burnaby Hospital…there have been 473 serious cases of CDAD colitis" — of which seven resulted in total colectomies — "and 84 patient deaths." This data does not include the latest patient numbers relating to the two subsequent C. difficile outbreaks at Burnaby Hospital, which prompted unprecedented unit closure in late 2011. I assure you, these numbers will be high.

The minister said he toured the hospital recently, but
[ Page 9635 ]
it was clear from his answers yesterday that he was unaware of the problems outlined by department heads at the hospital.

Can the minister explain how this is possible? There are 84 associated deaths, 473 infections, seven colectomies and more to come. Will the minister explain how he was unaware of the severity of this problem?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, the issue of C. difficile infection is a serious one. I don't begrudge any official or any member of this House bringing the matter forward for discussion, but I would like to think that we can have that discussion based on fact.

Having consulted again with officials and clinicians at Fraser Health, I want to say this to the member, members of the House and the public: to suggest that 84 individuals have passed away because of C. difficile is incorrect. It is incorrect, and it unnecessarily causes concern, as one might expect, in the public.

It also is important for members of this House to know — and the member — that in fact a third party has been brought in. That third party, an internationally recognized expert in infection control, has completed a report. That report, the member should know, was completed just over a couple of weeks ago. It has been released. It contains specific recommendations pertaining to Burnaby Hospital, and those recommendations will be implemented.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Hammell: I am not saying these deaths are associated with C. difficile; the doctors are. It's pretty obvious that we have a minister not knowing what's going on in his file, and we have senior administrators obviously not taking the problem seriously.

It's the site director's responsibility to be aware of the problems and to address them as they arise, but the doctors wrote: "I make note of the fact that our local site director has been absent for all of the Burnaby infection control committee meetings of 2011." We have 84 associated deaths and 473 infections as a disease is raging through a hospital, and the person who is supposed to be in charge doesn't show up for meetings.

Can the minister explain now, a day later, the complete failure of leadership in the midst of an infection crisis at Burnaby Hospital?

Hon. M. de Jong: I regret very much that the member, in pursuing an issue that is legitimate to pursue, would choose to politicize it and use that kind of language. If she wanted to have a discussion, a debate, based on fact, she would have acknowledged — in fact, the opposition would have acknowledged it yesterday, at the very time they were calling for the intervention of a third party, waving a letter around — that they knew that an internationally recognized expert in infection control had already been called in.

[1415]

Dr. Michael Gardam has completed the report. The report is now available. The report contains specific recommendations that the member should know will be followed. And I can tell the member one other thing. Dr. Doug Cochrane, chair of the B.C. Patient Safety Quality Council…. I have asked him, as someone also independent of Fraser Health, to step in and work closely to ensure that the recommendations contained in the review completed by Dr. Gardam are fully implemented.

If we're going to have a conversation — which is fine; it's an important issue — it should not be on the basis of the kind of fearmongering that we heard yesterday and, I regret, that the member is continuing today.

K. Corrigan: Well, I think it's appalling that this minister, who has been trying to…. Obviously, for years this problem has been covered up by this ministry. There's a complete lack of coordination. There's a complete lack of communication. And this minister is trying to point the finger at us?

We released this letter yesterday from the doctors, and it said exactly what has been read out. In addition, there were comments in the letter that talked exactly about how many of the deaths could be related to C. difficile. Nothing has been hidden by us. There were 84 deaths. Was every single one of them caused by C. difficile? Maybe not. Maybe only 80. Maybe 80 to 90. The letter says it's 80 percent or more.

But you know what? There have been two more unit closures since then, and there have been more deaths, so I'll tell you that 84 sounds like a pretty good number to me. But I think it's despicable that this minister would sit here and try to point the finger at anybody else but his own incompetence.

It's clear there was a lack of leadership on the C. difficile crisis at Burnaby Hospital. According to the doctors at the hospital, who I will believe, there was a complete lack of transparency and hiding of the problem. But maybe we can get a bit of a picture from one patient who went to the hospital.

Mr. Speaker: Could the member pose the question, please?

K. Corrigan: When Diana from Burnaby was admitted to hospital in January of 2010, she was placed in a room with two patients that had C. difficile. This was a room that was meant for two people. They were told that if they didn't like it, they could leave.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please, Member.

K. Corrigan: Diana was lucky. She didn't get infected.
[ Page 9636 ]
We're dealing with a potentially deadly disease. How is it best practices to put a patient in a room with two patients who have C. difficile?

Hon. M. de Jong: Unfortunately, in her zeal to try and score political points, the member chooses to ignore some fundamental facts.

First of all, everyone at the Burnaby Hospital is doing their level best, in an admittedly older facility, to restrict and reduce the presence of C. difficile. That's why the rate of C. difficile infection, whilst by no means great, has been reduced by 40 percent over the last number of years. It's not where it should be. It's not where we want it to be. It's not where the health authority wants it to be. But that is progress and a mark of the commitment on the part of those professionals and a sign that they take this issue seriously.

The health authority brought in an internationally recognized expert to examine this and provide recommendations. Dr. Cochrane will be there to assist.

Rather than standing here and trying to score cheap political points, the member should recognize that the officials, the clinicians, the doctors, the nurses, the cleaners — everyone at Burnaby Hospital — are doing their best.

We are in a planning process, and yes, we would like to replace an aged facility with a new one — that's what the budget is designed to help us achieve — and add to the $7 billion in capital construction that has already taken place in health care facilities across B.C.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: I'm not trying to score cheap political points. I'm trying to stop people from dying in my community hospital.

Yesterday we referred to a letter from department heads at Burnaby General in which they laid out the problem and the cause of the C. difficile outbreak. They said part of the problem is "hospital overcrowding consistently above census." That overcrowding meant that Diana was placed in a room built for two with two C. difficile patients.

[1420]

We know about Tim Hortons care. We know about code purples and hallway care. Will the minister admit that hospital overcrowding is putting patients at risk in Burnaby and at other hospitals around the province?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it's an intriguing question and one that, I can assure you, I appreciate receiving from the member. The answer lies not in my words in this House but is visible across British Columbia, if members will look, many times in their own communities, and see the construction that has taken place over the last 11 years — $7 billion worth of new hospital facilities.

Here's the difference, just to particularize this in a way that, hopefully, the member will understand. When we launch and the Fraser Health Authority launches a site redevelopment plan, as they are at Burnaby, the difference between today and when another group was in power is that there's actually some chance that that redevelopment will occur. We've got $7 billion of evidence, new hospitals in communities right across British Columbia, that is proof of that fact.

FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY
INFECTION CONTROL PROGRAM

M. Farnworth: The physician's letter of yesterday outlining 473 cases of C. difficile infection, seven people losing their colons and 84 deaths linked to C. difficile is proof that things are not well at Burnaby General Hospital.

The minister has stated that today there is a report, and the recommendations are going to be adopted. The government clearly didn't know that yesterday, even though this infection crisis has been happening for some two years now and physicians were warning about it.

Let's go to that report with its recommendations that the minister is talking about. Let's go to recommendation No. 3. "The Fraser Health regional infection prevention and control program is considerably under-resourced compared to other jurisdictions in Canada and the United States." It goes on to list: "Based on the above, it is evident that the Fraser Health regional infection prevention and control program does not meet any modern staffing recommendations."

How is it that in the province of British Columbia an infection control program in a major hospital cannot even meet recognized modern staffing standards?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member has referred to one of 13 recommendations which are now before the public. They arise in a report that was initiated by Fraser Health as a demonstration of how seriously they take the issue and how committed they are and we are to addressing what are unacceptably high rates of C. difficile. I don't think anyone is disputing that whatsoever.

There are 12 other recommendations that Fraser Health is committed to implementing. That's why they brought in the international expert. That's why we've asked Dr. Doug Cochrane, who has an impeccable record in this province when it comes to protecting patients' interests. And that's why we are going to continue to build on a record of improvement that has seen C. difficile rates reduced by 40 percent at Burnaby Hospital.

[End of question period.]

K. Corrigan: Permission to make an introduction, please.
[ Page 9637 ]

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

K. Corrigan: I just see that we have up in the gallery my good friend, another colleague from CUPE years, a fellow researcher, John Malcolmson and his wife, Miriam. Thank you very much. I hope the House will make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon we will start second reading of Bill 22, intituled the Education Improvement Act. In Section A, for the members' information, we will be starting the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take a few minutes, Minister.

Proceed, Minister.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the bill be read for a second time.

Bill 22 is a very important and very complex bill. There are many, many aspects to the bill which I intend to canvass. It is a bill, in the first instance, which is intended to bring an end to a phase 1 job action in respect to the dispute between the B.C. Teachers Federation, BCPSEA, the employer and the government of British Columbia.

[D. Black in the chair.]

That phase 1 dispute has been ongoing since September 6, 2011, and, of course, the negotiations between the parties have been ongoing since March 1, 2011. Exactly one year ago the negotiations between the parties began. Of course, this bill is intended, for reasons which I will outline in detail, to be a response to that, to bring an end to that phase 1 job action, which, without any doubt, has had an impact on students. It has had an impact particularly on vulnerable students, on students who are on the bubble in terms of success or failure in their academic or scholastic programs.

I have heard, since the dispute began, a variety of concerns, particularly in recent weeks. I have been hearing concerns from parents and others about hearing that their child had failed a course or was in jeopardy of failing a grade and that they had not had the kind of early warning that they would have liked in order to undertake a remedial strategy to ensure that their child was successful in school.

Very recently I heard from a gentleman who said: "My son will no longer be graduating with his friends in grade 12 because he's failed a course, and we didn't have any idea that he was in jeopardy of failing." Again, the parents had had no opportunity to work with the teacher, to work with the principal or the vice-principal to develop a remedial strategy to have the student be successful in the program.

To be fair, and I indeed will be fair in all of my comments here, there are many teachers in British Columbia who have reached out, either by phone or through the Internet, with the parents of the students that they teach, and I salute them for those efforts. Many, many teachers have done that. Indeed, as well, many, many parents have made strong efforts to reach out to teachers, to understand, as their child progressed, whether it was kindergarten or grade 12, how their child was progressing through school. Again, many parents did that; not all parents did that. Many teachers reached out; not all teachers reached out.

I am Education Minister for 520,000 public school students in the province of B.C. — not for just some of those students but for all of those students. It is clear that there are more than a few cases. There are many cases where we have vulnerable or on-the-bubble kids who are at risk of failure or who have failed as a consequence of no timely collaborative meetings and, as a consequence, no timely remedial strategies to help them through the issues.

[1430]

The second part of the bill, and I'll be canvassing this in detail today, is the Ministry of Education and the government's response to a decision by Madam Justice Griffin of the Supreme Court of B.C. of April 13, 2011. That is a very complex piece, and again, I will be walking through, in some detail, government's response to the thoughtful judgment of Justice Griffin in the B.C. Supreme Court.

That response embodies vital educational reforms which we are proposing in the context of this bill — all consistent, we believe, with both the direction of the judgment and what is the most effective way of managing the important issues that are discussed in the judgment. They go to the often-controversial and invariably complex issue of class size and composition; that has been a very important issue in schools in British Columbia for probably 30 to 40 years.

Many decades ago, when I was going to elementary school and high school, there was not a societal inclusion of children with special needs often in schools. It was the order of the day that often the education of those with special needs was outside of mainstream schools. But now — I think about three or four decades ago — we have seen a change in that. Inclusion is the order of the day today and has been.
[ Page 9638 ]

I think that we have been very much challenged in the education system as well as, I think, in society to understand how we can best manage those often very complex needs of those with special needs in school. And while it's controversial, I think it is necessary to take a fresh look at this and think about how we can better manage and better allocate the resources that are devoted to special needs in the province.

I'll speak of the learning improvement fund of $165 million shortly here. But currently within the block of funds that goes out annually to school districts across the province is $866 million which is earmarked for children with level 1, level 2, level 3 diagnoses as special needs.

It's important, I think, to have a look at that, and again, we'll be talking at some length about that, because it is hugely important to this bill and it is hugely important, I think, to the renewal of the education system.

This bill is important, and it was reflected in many ways. I had the opportunity to sit down, I guess for about an hour, with the opposition Education critic. I did that in advance of tabling Bill 22 in the House, because I felt it was very important. I find the opposition Education critic is almost invariably thoughtful in his understanding and comments, and I always appreciate the opportunity to let him know what it is we're doing.

I also had the opportunity to spend an hour with the two independent members of the House to provide them, as well, with a very thorough briefing on the contents of this bill. I sometimes like to think that there are issues which, while they may lend themselves to partisan endeavour, sometimes our efforts in these areas, I hope, can surmount partisan differences. This may or may not be one of those cases.

I want to reflect on this too. The Leader of the Opposition asked this question yesterday: why did we not start the debate on Bill 22 on Wednesday as opposed to today, Thursday, in starting the bill? Again, I think it's important that every member of this House have the opportunity to read and, if necessary, re-read this bill. It is hugely important to our future in this province.

[1435]

Furthermore, I didn't want to spend the day, as we did in reviewing the legislation for the B.C. Teachers Council in this House, having an entire day devoted to why the bill was tabled in the House so quickly. The opposition leader may have missed that debate that day. I'm not sure. Certainly, it's not a day that I would choose to relive and I hope we don't have to.

Members have had a good opportunity to look at this bill, and I'm certain we will hear many constructive comments. I do look forward to that. I do hope that all members, whether they are on the government side of the House or the opposition side of the House, will enter this debate appreciating that our deliberations here will be very important to the education of our kids and our grandkids in this great province of British Columbia.

I do look forward to hearing the thoughtful responses of members. Again, I hope, at times at least, we will see the opportunity to rise above partisan imperatives and look at how we can better provide education in the province of B.C.

There are a couple of issues that I think need to be mentioned in terms of the context of this debate. One is around the potential withdrawal of services. Even since early this morning we have had clarification with respect to this. It appears that the Teachers Federation leadership will be leading a withdrawal of services on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, although that rests entirely in the hands of the BCTF leadership, whether they wish to do that or not.

I do respect, first of all, that the federation went to the Labour Relations Board to seek the guidance of the board, in respect of what is acceptable and not acceptable within the bounds of the essential service legislation that guides us in this area. They received that advice, and indeed, it includes potentially three days' withdrawal of services next week — which the BCTF have now advised us will be Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, all things being equal. Then they have an opportunity in the next week to have withdrawal of one day.

I think there is going to be some tension in terms of competing principles here. We know that parents are always troubled when their kids lose educational opportunities, even for a short period of time. Certainly, we were troubled, or many were troubled, by the phase 1 partial withdrawal of services as well. So there's that tension, but there is absolutely also a need for vital and fulsome debate with respect to the government's response to the decision of April 13, 2011, by Madam Justice Griffin, and that's what we will do as well.

To begin, I think it's important to note a few things about Justice Griffin's decision and the process which followed that. Her decision struck down several provisions of the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, otherwise known as Bill 28, and the Education Services Collective Agreement Act, also known as Bill 27.

Certain provisions in both of those bills were declared unconstitutional on April 13, 2011. However, she suspended that judgment for a period of one year to allow the parties — I think she hoped — to reach a collaborative and consensual agreement around how those issues might be remedied. Indeed, that is what we attempted to do.

[1440]

It's important to note also that the decision of Justice Griffin, with respect to Bills 27 and 28, followed very closely, in terms of its logic, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, in respect of Bill 29 of 2007. I'm well aware of Bill 29 of 2007. I had the honour of being the Health Minister for the province at the time we prepared a response to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on Bill 29.
[ Page 9639 ]

In the case of Bill 29, the government constructed a table with the HEU, Hospital Employees Union, and with the B.C. Nurses Union. Again, just as in the case of Bills 27 and 28, the government had a one-year window in which to sit down with the aggrieved unions and attempt to work out a consensual and collaborative agreement.

In the case of Bill 29, the parties did precisely that. Over the period of several months both the HEU and the BCNU were able to reach agreement with the government on an appropriate package of remediation. That bill was presented to this Legislature in the spring of 2008 as both a collaborative and a consensual bill enjoying the support of all parties, at least all parties to the issue. I think it actually may have got the support of the opposition as well. But it had broad support.

The experience has been rather different with Bills 27 and 28. Again, government structured a table, just as we had with Bill 29, to deal with the issues of Bills 27 and 28. The table was created. The B.C. Teachers Federation was invited to come to the table, to bring their perspectives to the table, to bring proposals to the table and to see, hopefully, the parties — as we had with the HEU and the BCNU — reach that collaborative agreement which we hoped everyone would seek.

In the case of the B.C. Teachers Federation, it appeared that they did not share the government's interpretation of Justice Griffin's decision on Bills 27 and 28. The view that was expressed by the union in that case was that the government's early ideas and proposals were wholly wanting, that there needed to be over $300 million investment put on the table before constructive discussions could begin.

Unfortunately, the government couldn't share that view, did not share that view. We continued to try to bring constructive suggestions to the table, but never with success. As a consequence of that, in October of 2011 government brought to the Bill 27-28 table a proposal, today embodied in this legislation as the learning improvement fund.

The learning improvement fund, which I'll discuss here in greater detail, not only involves proposals for better management and allocation of special needs resources and classrooms, schools and school districts; it also brings $30 million to the table in the fiscal year beginning on April 1, $60 million in the next year, $75 million in the third year and $75 million every year thereafter — again, to build upon the work that can be undertaken with the $866 million which is currently in the block for special needs funding.

Government had one year. We brought that proposal to the Bill 27-28 table. In that case again, the Teachers Federation rejected that proposal as wholly inadequate in their view, and now the suggestion was that some $600 million or more was required to get a serious discussion going on that. Again, that approach was very much at odds with what our reading of the decision was.

[1445]

As a consequence of that, the table broke off and, in fact, has continued to not function. As a consequence, today we're in a position where we are bringing this bill to the Legislature, not as a collaborative and consensual bill, as it had been with Bill 29, but rather a bill that we strongly suspect may well be judicially challenged in the future by the B.C. Teachers Federation.

In terms of consultations and legal considerations, Justice Griffin's decision said these things: government must engage in consultations and demonstrate good faith with targeted new funds sufficient to make a noticeable difference in teachers' working conditions — and we've done that through the learning improvement fund, which I've just discussed, as well as some ideas on implementing that fund; and return the right to collectively bargain matters related to class size and composition. Again, shortly here I'll talk about exactly how we're going to achieve that within the bounds of the legislation.

The other areas which flow from the learning improvement fund are important as well. I want to take some time on these. The learning improvement fund will be allocated to classrooms with the highest need in school districts, based on consultation involving the BCTF representatives, classroom teachers, and district and school staff. The LIF framework will replace consultative requirements in the School Act.

Those requirements are, at least in considerable measure, known as Bill 33. Districts will be able to use funds to…. These are among the ways in which the LIF funds may be utilized: assign additional teachers and education assistants; provide additional teaching time or, for that matter, educational assistant time; and support professional development activities useful in addressing complex needs in the classroom.

We're recognizing here that the business of managing those needs is a complex one, that it is a partnership not only between teachers, principals, vice-principals, superintendents and parents; it's also a partnership with educational assistants. Indeed, in the recent agreements with the Canadian Union of Public Employees…. I think there are now 18 collective agreements with CUPE and educational assistants and other support staff.

I can tell you that educational assistants are very excited not only about the possibility of having more funded contact time with students with special needs but also being able to enhance their skills in the classroom through training modules that might strengthen their understanding of complex challenges in the classroom, like autism spectrum disorder or physiological physical challenges that might be encountered in the classroom.

All of that, I think, is hugely important, as is hugely important a new approach to special needs. One of the things we are aiming to do is bring an end to what I would characterize as special needs quotas. There are no hard caps in respect of the number of special needs students in a class. Generally, however, there is what is
[ Page 9640 ]
termed a quota, of three, in a class.

It is important to note an example, like a home economics class. If there are 29 students in a class and that class should contain three students with special needs designation, there is an opportunity for a 30th member of that class. All things being equal, a fourth student with special needs designation would not be permitted in the class, whereas someone without such a designation would be. We think that is an inappropriate way to handle the issue of special needs in the classroom.

[1450]

I know that I'm not the only one who has such a view, but in my view, we should begin the discussion about class size and composition with this premise: that every one of the 520,000 children, students in public schools in British Columbia, is an individual. They're an individual human being. They all come with strengths, they all come with challenges, and it is unfair to structure a class around a designation. One should structure a class around the human beings, the individuals, that may comprise that class, not make any assumptions about who should be in a class.

One of the most outstanding — if not the most outstanding — English students….

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope the members take this seriously, because it's a serious matter.

The most outstanding English student in the province of British Columbia comes to school in a wheelchair. She attracts level 1 support and funding for her disability, but she is an outstanding student and should not be looked at as a disabled student but rather as a student, as an individual, as a human being in her own right. This is a vitally important distinction which we all should think about around the issues of class size and composition.

I'm certain we will have a very thoughtful debate on this. But let's look at the characteristics of the students involved. Let's not look at the designations that they bring to the classroom. Let's look at them as individuals, as human beings, in forming our conclusions about what may or may not be acceptable in a class.

In respect of that, I received — I think, probably now about two or three weeks ago — what I believe to be quite a remarkable piece of work by the Victoria Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils. I think it's important that I quote from their very good work.

I should also note, based on the very good work that John Bird and the Victoria Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils did, that this submission now enjoys the support of the board of education of Victoria school district. I know their resolution is moving through other boards of education and may well, in the end, I think, enjoy the support of many school districts across the province.

If I may quote from the Victoria Confederation of PACs here. This is a section entitled "Meeting the Needs of All Students."

"Decisions based on the unique needs of each student are sound educational practices. Decisions based on group characteristics are inherently discriminatory. Belonging in a classroom is an individual right and should be supported unconditionally. The moment we fail to develop our classrooms based on the needs and rights of each student, we are failing to meet their needs and we are violating their rights.

"The key to full inclusion is not to focus solely on groups of students that one is trying to include but instead to see to the needs of all students in the classroom. Each student's needs must be individually analyzed. Staff skills must also be analyzed to ensure that they are sufficient to meet the needs of the students. This process must involve staff and parents, with the primary focus on every student's success."

That's Victoria CPAC.

I know this is a document which is on their website, and I urge all members of the House as well as all British Columbians to take a good study of that. It's just, I think, a remarkably thoughtful document.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, am I correct in assuming that you are the designated speaker?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, I am, Madam Speaker. I hadn't realized that already a half an hour has passed.

[1455]

Other letters and submissions I've received. Many members of the House will know of Dawn Steele. She is a leader in terms of the disabled advocacy community in the province, and she has weighed in on this very important issue as well. I'll just quote briefly from her submission. She says:

"Kudos to the Education Minister. He's absolutely right that legislated limits on students with special needs in K-to-12 classrooms are discriminatory.

"Parent groups were united in opposing the class composition limits introduced in 2006. They have proved unworkable, failing to help students or teachers while creating nightmares for administrators.

"The solution to unmanageable classes is not discriminatory quotas but better support for teaching and learning that addresses the realities of today's diverse classrooms."

That's Dawn Steele.

Also, a submission from an advocate in this area, Katherine Abraham.

"It is a pleasure to provide this letter in support of BCCPAC's classroom support fund, a collaborative approach to effective classrooms. As a parent of a daughter with a bouquet of special needs, I have been involved with special education for many years, both at the district and the provincial levels.

"It is patently evident to me that we have locational inclusion but that real inclusion has eluded us. Children with learning differences are still guests in our classrooms. It has become commonplace for us to hear stories from teachers about their classrooms, about the fact that they have, for example, 24 students, and they have three students with special needs. The wedge is firmly planted, dividing classrooms into those typical learners who rightfully belong and those exceptional learners who take an inordinate amount of time and energy away from the typical learners.

"Do we really want to narrow the responsibility of the classroom
[ Page 9641 ]
teacher to the middle of the class? Do we want to dance the dance of locational inclusion? That is the direction we've been taking. Our feet keep dancing to that tired, outdated tune. We should be very concerned that many educators and parents believe we are experiencing a plethora of exceptional students burdening the educational system beyond its capacity to cope.

"In fact, our schools have simply become adept at labelling students. The knowledge base of educators in addressing the learning differences they have identified has lagged far behind labels. The BCCPAC proposal takes us in a different direction. It looks at the classroom as a community of learners and seeks to identify the resources needed to make learning possible for all students within that community. The proposal reflects inclusion as it was meant to be.

"Sincerely, Katherine Abraham."

From the B.C. Association for Community Living, and it's addressed to me:

"On behalf of the B.C. Association for Community Living, I would like to thank you for your comments made pertaining to the issue of class composition previously introduced in Bill 33 in your address at the B.C. Superintendents Association meeting of February 18, 2012."

It goes on to say:

"Children with special needs are entitled to the same level of access to inclusive classrooms as all other children. The passing of Bill 33 has made children with special needs vulnerable to exclusion from classrooms — the classrooms that would allow them to learn alongside their age-typical peers. We agree with you that this law is discriminatory."

From Community Living Victoria, Carlene Thompson, president. I'll quote again from a letter to me.

"We are writing you to request that you table immediate legislation to repeal 76.1(2.3) and related clauses of the School Act. We see this legislation as discriminatory. We believe that better resourcing is essential and would support teachers, principals, superintendents and parents to work collaboratively to organize classes and supports in a way that does not discriminate against any child and will provide the richest learning environment for all children. Resources and class composition must be established based on individual needs and adequate support, not on labelling numbers."

Those are some — and there are many more — of the very thoughtful comments that have come to us in respect of the special needs issue. And again, I hope all members of the House will look at this in this spirit. We should not be looking at this as a political or partisan issue.

[1500]

We have been working as a society now for 30 years or more to try to find the most effective way that we can balance the principle of inclusion with effective classroom management. That is what I think we should all be seeking as legislators here in this great province, and that is what I hope we will do in respect of these issues.

I also wanted to talk a little bit about related provisions to this, because the whole issue of class limits has been one that we've looked at over many years. First of all, in respect of that, just to note that we will be returning class size, composition and related matters to scope of bargaining, as recommended in the decision of Justice Griffin and similar to the resolution of these issues in Bill 29. We will be returning that at the end of the next collective agreement. The end of June 2013 is when that will be in place.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The issue of manner and consequence around class size and composition is something which can be discussed and negotiated in the context of the current agreement, but returning it fully to scope of bargaining will come with the next collective agreement, effective the end of June 2013.

It should also be noted now, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation, Bill 22, does not restore past collective agreement provisions related to class size and composition. Future bargaining on these matters would start from a clean slate.

I should say this. I was in cabinet in 2002 when we debated Bills 27 and 28 and 29. I do recall the frustration, the desperation, that was characteristic of the Deputy Minister of Education and his senior executive team of superintendents across the province who, by the combination of 60 local agreements, brought an absolute patchwork of often unworkable regulations into contract.

We are not returning to that age, nor do we believe it was ever the intention of Justice Griffin of the B.C. Supreme Court to drive us there, and we will not be doing that. But for clarity, we will be doing the following.

We will be maintaining a maximum class size of 22 students in kindergarten. That is currently the case, and we will be maintaining that and maintaining it as a hard cap — that is, a class maximum which cannot be exceeded for kindergarten.

Similarly, we are re-enacting the class maximum of 24 students for grades 1 to 3, and again, that will be a hard cap. It will be a maximum which can't be exceeded.

In grades 4 to 12 we are making a modest change, although it should be noted that this is a change that is already in place in the Kamloops school district, in Coquitlam school district and, I gather, in several other districts that have moved to a class maximum approach. That's what we will be doing across the system, and that is to have a class maximum of 30 students in grades 4 to 12.

It should be emphasized here that any classes above 30 would be very much the exception and only contemplated under certain circumstances, and I'll walk through those.

[1505]

For example, in Coquitlam, which is one of the largest school districts in the province, they have had now, for a few years, a class maximum of 30. Last year they had zero classes in grades 4 to 12 that exceeded the class maximum of 30. It is entirely possible to construct classes around this framework. They have demonstrated that very successfully.

Further — and I will discuss this in detail as well — where because of extraordinary circumstance one might be compelled to have a class of 31, 32, 33, we will be proposing to the Legislature compensation for teachers for classes that exceed those maximums, based on the advice
[ Page 9642 ]
or consistent with the advice and decisions of arbitrator James Dorsey. James Dorsey is the arbitrator who has now looked at over 10,000 arbitrations that have flowed from grievances lodged by BCTF members against the Bill 33 approach to class construction.

Obviously, despite I'm sure the best efforts of all who put the Bill 33 provisions in place in 2006, they have simply not worked out the way one would hope, and I think even the BCTF would acknowledge that, based on their over 10,000 grievances that have been launched against the class composition proposed there. It is time, I think, for us to look to a new construct, and that is precisely what we will be doing in this bill. We will be looking at an end to the Bill 33 approach to class construction.

It's important, again…. I mentioned Coquitlam and zero classes exceeding 30 last year. I'm not sure if there were any in Kamloops. I think there were very few, if any. But exceptions would only be contemplated under the following circumstances.

First, principals and superintendents must determine that conditions are appropriate for student learning. So they, again, will be looking at classes and looking at them on that basis, and if they believe that the conditions are not appropriate for student learning, any variation would not be permitted. They will only be possible where there are school-based consultations among principals, vice-principals, teachers and, where appropriate, education assistants on all matters of class organization.

It will only be possible after the construction of a defined schedule of exceptions, such as music classes or choir classes where larger numbers may be desirable.

Or, as is currently advocated by the tech association of the B.C. Teachers Federation — which is for shop classes, for woodworking classes or for metalworking classes where students are working with what could be, if used improperly, dangerous equipment…. They're advocating for smaller numbers. Again, that's a discussion we're prepared to have and to try to do something which is fair and reasonable in that circumstance.

Compensation to teachers. Again, this defines the exceptions. Compensation to teachers for classes exceeding 30 students, informed by the values established in the Dorsey arbitrations. We are going to leave it to the individual teacher to decide what they wish to take on in terms of compensation.

They could take, if they wish, their compensation in the form of prep time — additional prep time off to deal with situations. They could take it in enhancement to their professional development fund. They could take it in enhancement to their salary, or they could take it in any combination thereof. Again, as professionals, we believe that teachers are best positioned to make the decisions about what works best for them.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Sorry, did you have a different view of that, Member? Good. Well, I'd love to hear what that is at some point. I'm sure it will invariably be thoughtful, given your views on these things, so we'll look forward to that.

[1510]

So that is the approach on that. I want to speak, as well, to the collective bargaining side of this bill. Again, we will, with this bill, be bringing an end to phase 1 of job action, which has been underway for about six months.

To note, bargaining has been ongoing since March 1, 2011. It's the one-year anniversary of those discussions today. During that period there were 78 face-to-face meetings. The parties, I am told, looked at 1,109 different issues at the table. They have reached a tentative agreement on nine of the 1,109 items which have been brought to the table. They haven't finalized on many of those nine, but that is an indication of the progress, glacial or otherwise, that we have seen over a period of one year at that table.

Teachers have engaged in phase 1 job action since September 6, and that means no fulsome report cards and no collaborative meetings outside of school hours with parents and at any point within school hours with school administrators. As I've said earlier, I believe that at least some students have paid a price for that.

It should also be noted — to the interest, I'm sure, of all members — that as of February 24, BCPSEA had ratified two-year agreements with support staff, including educational assistants, in 18 school districts under net zero mandate, bringing to a total for all of the public sector now of 130 net zero agreements that have been reached since government first laid down the net zero mandate in the throne speech of 2009 — so a lot of agreements. In fact, the BCTF is the last major group left to settle for two years of net zero.

We appointed, as again the House knows, Assistant Deputy Minister Trevor Hughes to be a fact-finder, to look at the possibilities of a negotiated settlement. He reported back on February 23 that that was highly unlikely and indeed, in a timely way, impossible. This Bill 22 responds to that.

What it does, first and foremost, is suspend phase 1 strike action and impose a cooling-off period until the end of August. Secondly, it does not impose a new contract. It extends the previous agreement to cover the mediation period — again, the period to the end of August. It will appoint a mediator to work with the parties on outstanding issues. I'll walk through those issues for the benefit of the House here in a moment.

It establishes the principle of a two-year net zero collective agreement expiring June 30, 2013. In a section which will only be brought into force subject to any illegal strike activity, it does put in place penalties against those, whether it is on the union side or the management side, who might engage in either illegal strike or
[ Page 9643 ]
lockout activity.

Also, and this is important, the mediator's mandate. I know there has been a good deal of controversy in the last two or three days with respect to this point. I found it interesting that even before Assistant Deputy Minister Hughes had reported out on his fact-finding mission, the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation repeatedly and vigorously was calling upon me to appoint a mediator to deal with the federation's dispute with BCPSEA and government. I heard that over and over during the last ten days.

[1515]

I found it very interesting that the affection, the support, the commitment to the notion of a mediator disappeared, effective with the advice that that mediator would continue to be guided by the principle of net zero in any agreement. Again, does that make it impossible to secure agreement? Absolutely not. We have 130 collective agreements with unions across this province and in every sector of this province to demonstrate that net zero is a possibility.

Regrettably, in every case where BCPSEA or government suggested that there were areas where we might explore to try to reach a net zero agreement, those were persistently rebuffed by the union. Whether it was around benefits or around exploration of what could be done in terms of the dollars within the learning improvement fund, it was always rebuffed. That's unfortunate because, again, on 130 occasions groups of public sector workers have agreed to exactly such contracts based on that.

So what is the mandate that we are proposing? First of all, among the matters that the mediator might look at, is manner and consequence of class size and composition. Manner and consequence is really another way of saying the impact of class size and composition issues. Again, we are not returning to full-scope bargaining in that area until 2013, but manner and consequence can be a part of the mediated agreement in this area.

At the request of the union, a local-provincial split of bargaining issues is also within the scope of the mediator's mandate. The next three are ones that the province and the Ministry of Education feel are particularly important, the first of those being effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvements within the teaching profession.

To explain this one, what we have in terms of processes for feedback and evaluation are 60 different models based on 60 different agreements. We believe, as a ministry, that it is vital that we get evaluation on a common track and on a common framework. Again, there is nothing nefarious about this. Something that I think any system would look for is common evaluation processes.

Secondly, alignment of professional development with teaching needs. I know there's been some speculation that somehow this is an attempt to take away professional development opportunities from the BCTF and the teaching profession itself. Not so. We are looking for better alignment in terms of those issues.

Finally, I know there's been much controversy around this, around what's termed here as scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs. This is about a post-and-fill.

I know the president of the Teachers Federation at every turn calls this a strip of the contract, and even though the member in his typical fashion embraces that notion, it is not so. What this proposal means is that when districts are making hires of new teachers, they are in fact trained and experienced in those areas which they propose to teach.

As an example, I had the good fortune to teach political science for 15 years at Okanagan University College, as it was called back then. If I'd had the opportunity to teach math and had been foolish enough, based on seniority, to try to bid on a math position, I would have been an utter disaster in such a teaching position. That's all this is saying.

Again, many districts already have this in place, but we want all districts to have it in place to ensure…. You know, I'll bet you that if you asked 4½ million British Columbians whether they would like to have their child's math teacher or their science teacher or their history teacher, for that matter, actually have the knowledge, experience and training to teach that, they'd say: "Of course I do. Of course I wouldn't want my son's math course to be taught by someone who is a history teacher."

[1520]

It only makes sense, and all we are looking for here is that. It is not a rejection of seniority. It says that in those instances where there is an issue of seniority versus training, experience and knowledge, the training, experience and knowledge trump seniority. Seniority is still a factor, but in those cases where they are comparable, the training and experience trump seniority. I think every British Columbian would expect that, save possibly a few in the leadership of the Teachers Federation.

And I should note this. One day I said to Susan Lambert: "I know you have concerns about this. I will clear off my schedule for a day next week. We can sit down and talk about this. It is important that…. The vacuum of your understanding of what we are proposing to do appears to be filled with a variety of nefarious assumptions about what's intended. Why don't we take the time on a without-prejudice basis to talk about that so you understand where we are going on these important issues?"

I'm afraid I was unsuccessful in that suggestion. The suggestion was: as soon as we put something else on the bargaining table, perhaps that would be possible. But it was never possible otherwise. Again, we need to have that discussion, and we believe it would be useful for the mediator to provide some leadership in a process
[ Page 9644 ]
like that.

Finally, improvements to wages or benefits by looking for trade-offs within the contract, and again, within a net zero mandate.

All of that is, I think, hugely important. I know the dysfunctional relationship between government and the Teachers Federation is not new. It goes back decades. For those, particularly on the other side of the House, who believe that some kind of utopian nirvana existed between the Teachers Federation and the New Democratic Party in the 1990s, they will be disabused of that notion by reading Prof. Thomas Fleming's book, Worlds Apart, which, in a very thoughtful and detailed way, I think, lays out what has been pretty much a 50-year dysfunctional relationship.

We need to turn a corner on that, and that's why I believe that in responding to this with an expansive mediator's mandate, we were trying to create a situation where we could move from the dysfunction of the past and perhaps get on a better footing to discuss these things.

It is certainly the objective that I started out with, and I'm frankly sad and disappointed that I've been unsuccessful in that, that I stand here as a Minister of Education in a long line of B.C. Liberal, NDP, Social Credit — and, God knows, maybe Liberal-Conservative coalition — Education ministers who have had to legislate a contract with the Teachers Federation. Only once in 30 years have we been successful in negotiating a contract with the federation. I'm saddened that, again, I stand here as one in a long line of Ministers of Education who have had to undertake this.

But it is time to move on this. This is not going to resolve itself. I think the class of 2011-2012 has paid a sufficient price with six months of phase 1, and I think it's time to get on with the resolution of these issues.

I'm not the only one, and I'm just going to quote very briefly, as I wind down here, about others who feel the same way. These are from some of the many letters that I have received:

"I'm writing to express my frustration at this ongoing teachers' job action. The communication between teachers and parents is very poor, and I feel so out of the loop with how my children are doing in school. Some teachers post marks on Parent Connect to view, but that doesn't give us the full picture. One teacher I talked to doesn't post any marks as he simply doesn't like the system, so I have no idea how my son is doing."

Another: "I have been trying to find out about my son's mark in one class this winter term and have not been able to get any information from that particular teacher."

[1525]

Another extract from yet another letter: "We have not yet received a report card this year, and I have just been advised by the school that only grade 12 students will receive report cards. This is unacceptable. We deserve to know how our child is doing in his classes. I shouldn't have to make an appointment and take time off work to visit each teacher to gather this information."

From a student to me recently: "Me and my friends would really like the year-end field trip but can't have one because of the strike. I've been looking forward to this for a long time, and now it's not happening. Please help."

From another parent: "Please legislate the teachers back to work. This is now having a direct impact on learning and future educational preparedness."

And another letter from parents: "Our children in high school are now finished their first semester and are beginning the second semester. To date we have not received any report cards or any indication from the teachers how our children are doing in this school. We do not know if they are passing or failing. This is a completely unacceptable situation."

And another, and this will be the final of the extracts that I want to provide for the attention of the House:

"We feel that reporting student grades is an essential service. It has personally affected our children, particularly our son. It is his first year in junior high school. All through elementary he had high grades. We assumed this would continue into junior high.

"We made inquiries in mid-December, three-quarters of the way through his first semester, and were happy that the teacher responded. Unfortunately, he was in position in two of his classes and marginal in the other two. Because of lack of reporting, we were not able to catch and remedy his grades."

Again, that goes to the issue which I mentioned at the outset. The challenge of a phase 1 work-to-rule campaign is that without collaborative meetings, without report cards, parents aren't able to avail themselves of the mechanisms by which for some decades we have been able to tell parents how their kids are doing. I think that has been sad and unfortunate in many cases, and I think it is time for us to give the class of 2011-2012 the opportunity for success.

Now a final note. I'm certain that I will hear many thoughtful submissions from members opposite, including the opposition Education critic. The opposition Education critic has been, I think, quite responsible in his comments on the labour dispute. I cannot say the same thing for the opposition leader.

For example, I am looking at an article in the Vancouver Province yesterday. This is the "In the House" column by Michael Smyth. Near the end of that article there is a reference to the NDP leader. The opposition leader "said the government should send the impasse to 'real mediation.' He said the government should drop its 'net zero mandate' and put more money on the table to get a negotiated settlement."

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: He didn't say that. So it's interesting. The member said he didn't say that.

Now, I know from my reading of today's press accounts that yesterday in a scrum right outside this chamber the Leader of the Opposition had at least seven opportunities to clarify the record.

I see the member is now looking away. Apparently, he
[ Page 9645 ]
doesn't want to engage so much anymore.

He had seven opportunities….

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Oh, he's multi-tasking. I see. He was multi-tasking, but answering questions in the scrum didn't appear to be one of the tasks that he could multi-task at the time.

The Leader of the Opposition and, I know, the opposition Education critic or perhaps this member will have an opportunity next to clarify the record, because I want the record clarified here.

[1530]

If the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the New Democratic Party, didn't say "abandon net zero," I'd like to know what he said. If he didn't say "put more money on the table," then let's hear what he did say. Another thing that the opposition leader has said, and as you may understand, I found this a little bit annoying….

He said we shouldn't be interfering with processes at the bargaining table. Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what the opposition leader's comments do — interfere at the bargaining table. When he says irresponsible things like "abandon net zero" or "put more money on the table," that is precisely what he does — interfere at the bargaining table. So I want these members across the way in this debate to tell us about net zero. If they're opposed to net zero, have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say you're opposed to net zero.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: If you are prepared to put more money on the table, have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and tell the people of British Columbia that you're prepared to put more money on the table. Don't tell the people, "Oh well, maybe the Liberals were wrong to put net zero on" but don't say what your alternative is.

I want this group to come forward and tell us about what they would do. They always pretend that they have more money for education. They had a three-year education plan in their 2009 budget document that said there's going to be this many dollars going to education, and they always said ours wasn't enough. You know what? Their plan had $50 million less dollars in it than our actual plan had in those three years.

If they've got more money to resolve this settlement, I want to hear where those dollars are coming from, and I want to hear from the members opposite. Are we going to get those dollars through taxation, or are we going to get those dollars by taking them away from some other area of government service? That's the challenge, in a very direct way.

I'm going to cede the floor now, because while it's fresh in their minds, I know that they'll be anxious to get up and tell us about what they would do, about whether they support net zero, about whether they're putting more dollars on the table and, if they are, where those dollars are coming from.

We have a great education system in British Columbia. We have great teachers in British Columbia. We've got great administrators in British Columbia. We need to make sure every day that that great education system is available to the students in British Columbia that we serve.

Thank you very much for your rapt attention, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

I'll now recognize the member for Skeena, who I understand is the designated speaker.

R. Austin: Maybe we can start by just bringing the rhetoric back down to the modality of the majority of the minister's comments over the last hour and 15 minutes.

As he mentions, this is a complex bill that tries to do many things. We on this side of the House have stated already that we are going to oppose this bill, not because we think that everything in this bill is bad, but we think that the premise of the bill, the title of the bill — that this is going to improve our education system — is not wholly found out in the actual contents of it.

There are many elements of this bill which are going to, unfortunately, continue to denigrate large portions of our education system, and I'm going to speak to that in greater detail as I make my remarks.

I would like to begin by acknowledging the fact that the minister and his staff did take the time and gave me the courtesy of a briefing prior to this bill being brought before the House. I respect that. I think that is good cooperation, and in a bill that has a lot of complex legalities, it has been certainly useful in terms of the opposition being able to analyze the bill and come up with, hopefully, some thoughtful comments.

[1535]

I'm going to begin my comments by taking us, first of all, to speak about what it is that teachers do in this province each and every day. I think it's important to put on the public record what exactly is involved in teaching. I mean, just this morning I was listening to a radio show, and of course, in the last few days I've been scanning all of the letters that have been coming in to the major newspapers around the province of British Columbia. I find it very troubling that people take to the airwaves and to the opinion columns of this province and make statements that clearly show that, frankly, they know not of what they speak.

I think it's okay for people to make comments one way or the other. Everybody is going to be making comments
[ Page 9646 ]
about a potential teachers' strike action, but I think it's important that when people actually take their opinions to the airwaves, they understand what is involved in our education system and what it is that teachers do on a daily basis. I heard somebody this morning basically alluding to the fact that teachers are essentially overpaid, they don't work hard enough, and they get huge holidays.

Now, I spent about 2½ years working as an educational assistant in my school district, school district 82, and I had a great opportunity to see firsthand what it is that teachers do. Prior to that, my only experience was the typical experience of a parent. I'm going to speak to that later on, as well, because I was a foster parent who shepherded some kids with severe learning disabilities through the system in Terrace. But that, essentially, is what I knew of what it is that teachers do until I had the opportunity to work as an educational assistant.

Let me, first of all, say that the notion that teachers show up for work 20 minutes prior to their day starting, have a cup of coffee in the staff room, talk about the game the Canucks played the night before and then go into the classroom and start to teach is patently ridiculous. In order to teach, in order to spend six hours a day in front of children, an awful lot of work has to take place that doesn't take place during the workday.

Interjection.

R. Austin: I'm glad that the member for Kamloops–South Thompson recognizes that. Teachers spend an inordinate amount of time outside the work schedule that the regular people think of as the teacher's workday.

Think of ourselves in this House. You know, when we have a member's statement to make here to bring up a topic of concern or to share something that's happened in our constituency, we speak for two minutes. Yet in order to prepare that two-minute member's statement, we have to think about what it is that we want to say, we have to collate our thoughts in a way that makes sense, we then have it take the time to write them, and then we come here and present that. That's just for two minutes of work — okay?

Now think about what a teacher does. Every day a teacher isn't preparing stuff for two minutes. A teacher is preparing work and standing up in front of a class and has to keep them engaged — through a variety of topics if they're in elementary school, a variety of classes but maybe specialized topics if they're in secondary school — each and every day for several hours for over 200 days a year.

So the notion that a teacher only works from 8:30 till 3:30 needs to be disavowed. I mean, it needs to be challenged, and I'm challenging it right here, because teachers work very, very hard.

I also want to speak to the notion that somehow…. It's okay for teachers to have a break in the summer while the rest of the world works. I learned something when I was working as an educational assistant. This is very important for people to understand.

When you're teaching, you are not simply exchanging information. You're not just taking information that you know because you're a specialized teacher and sort of forcing it down the throats of kids. You are engaging in an exercise, an act that is essentially giving a little bit of yourself each and every day.

What that does is that… If you are a teacher who cares about the job that you're doing, it is an emotional, vocational act — not simply coming there and repeating some information that you happen to know and you want your children to understand. It's a bit like the social work profession. There are certain jobs where the nature of that job requires more than just the job itself. It actually requires you to give a little bit of yourself, a little bit of your soul.

[1540]

In those kinds of jobs, whether it be social work or whether it be teaching, it is important to have an opportunity to be able to reflect, to be able to recharge your batteries.

So the notion that maybe teachers should teach all year round, 52 weeks of the year, would not necessarily be a very good thing. In fact, it would be disastrous in terms of how they have the ability to be able to go and refresh their batteries.

I also would like to note that in the summertime…. Many teachers in this province spend their summers, after they take some time off for vacation, furthering their own education. Again, the teaching profession isn't one where you go to school when you're young, go to university, and then you know how to teach and carry on teaching for, potentially, 30 or 35 years and never have to go and get further education.

It is a profession that requires constant renewal, constant learning. Yes, we have professional development days for that, but if you looked at most teachers….

We have a very high percentage of teachers in the province of British Columbia who have gone beyond their bachelor of education or PDP. We have a huge percentage of teachers in this province who, in the summer, go back to school, in some cases full-time, to get their master's degrees, or they go on to get specialized as special ed teachers or do other courses that further their education and give them the skills to help our kids. I don't think it's fair for people to just make rash statements about how little teachers work, because that's simply not the case.

I want to now speak for a moment about the history of what has been going on here for a number of years. As the minister pointed out, he is very fond of history. In fact, those of us who have been in this House for a number of years will know that it's not uncommon, when we ask questions here in question period, for the good minister to take us on a historical journey.

I can recall many a time when he was the Minister of
[ Page 9647 ]
Health, and even currently as the Minister of Education, that if one of the members on this side of the House got up to ask a question which they thought was important and pertinent to the relevant ministry that he was in charge of, he would take us down the road of the 1990s — very common.

I want to be fair. Some of that history was revisionist, and some of it was partisan, but that's okay. That's the nature of who we are. We are, after all, politicians. And some of that history was accurate — right?

We need to acknowledge that when you're in government for ten years, or in this case almost 11 years, governments do make poor decisions. That's a fact, and this minister was always wonderful at reminding us of mistakes that we have made.

I want to take us back through a little trip down history, because I think at the root core of all of these problems that the minister has been very challenged with in terms of trying to negotiate with the B.C. Teachers Federation, there has been policy that's been brought in place that has clearly just defied logic, has hurt our educational system and has fundamentally upset teachers to the point where they feel disrespected, not treated as professionals. A lot of that has been dismissed over the years.

Now we have a piece of legislation…. I know the minister didn't choose to bring it in this way. I know that he would have preferred, certainly, for one aspect of this bill to have been more consensual than it has turned out.

I think we need, first of all, to go back and look at what has happened since Bills 27 and 28 came into the Legislature. I think we need to not only understand what happened in terms of stripping out class size and composition from the contracts of the teaching profession. I think we also need to take a very fundamental look at what has resulted in our school system as a result of decisions that were made by the current Premier when she was the Minister of Education early on in her term that fundamentally changed the way we finance our school system.

Without understanding those changes and the consequences that they've had on the school system, we can't understand why it is that we're so challenged here or the why government is so challenged here by this negotiation or lack thereof and the reason why we're now having Bill 22.

[1545]

I'm going to go back and, first of all, start by speaking about the changes to the funding model, because it is critical to everything we're talking about here in terms of having the resources to do the things that the minister hopes could be done as a result of this bill.

My understanding, in speaking to the minister and hearing him talk here, is that essentially what he'd like to happen in the school system is for the people who work in the school system at all levels — the principals, the vice-principals, the teachers, the special ed teachers, the educational assistants, any outside help who are involved with a child — to all sit around and work out in a collaborative manner how to best create classrooms, how to best create a plan for a child if that child is designated with a special need.

That's all well and good. Perhaps in nirvana that would be fantastic, if we could have that happen each and every day.

The unfortunate thing is that the reality of the resources that are in our school system don't allow for the collaborative process to take place. At the end of the day, very often — and I've been in many of these meetings — once you sit down and look at all of these challenges, the solutions require either some special ed help, and maybe there aren't enough special ed teachers, or it might require some EA time. It might require two or three children being taken out of the classroom temporarily by the librarian to teach them something else.

Very often those resources simply aren't in place, so at the end of the day a lot of what we're talking about here, unfortunately, goes down to dollars and cents and resources.

The education system, as the minister will acknowledge, is a complicated system. But here's one thing that we do know about it. It is a system largely driven by the adults and paying the salaries of the adults who work in that system. Unlike other large ministries….

I know that the minister was the Minister of Health. There are many, many large cost drivers in a ministry as huge as the Ministry of Health. You know, when we go to our doctors, we want the latest medication. Maybe we need a surgical thing; we need time in hospital. There are the drivers of technology in the medical system that have hugely increased our cost of delivering health care. There are the cost drivers of new medications that are constantly coming up.

In the education system it's different. Eighty-three cents of every dollar that is expended out of here into the operating budgets of our education system in the K-to-12 system goes to pay one thing, salaries — okay? Why is that? It's because the education system is based on the interaction between adults and children in a classroom setting. That's what it's about.

It's not simply the teachers. Of course, the teachers are the primary factor here. They're the ones who the kids spend the vast majority of their day with. But we also have to pay the principal and the vice-principal. We also have to pay the secretary. We also have to pay the educational assistants. We also have to pay those who make sure that our schools are clean and are safe.

At the end of the day it's all about what resources we're willing to put in to ensure that when our children go to school, they come to a place that is of comfort, a place where every adult they interact with from the time they enter that school property till the time they leave is somebody who gives them a positive sense of them-
[ Page 9648 ]
selves and adds to their learning and to who they are as human beings.

We need to go and take a look at some of the fundamental changes that have happened since the B.C. Liberals took office. I'm going to speak to a document, funnily enough, that was put out by a member of the press several years ago that spoke to the agenda that this government had when it came into office and to the changes that were made at the policy level that have not just helped but have largely created the difficulties and the challenges in our education system.

I want to begin by pointing out that while I'm criticizing these parts of the education system and the challenge that they have, in spite of all of that, we still to this day have an incredible education system here in British Columbia. All I want to do in going through this document is to point out how much better it could have been under the B.C. Liberals had some of these changes not been made.

[1550]

I'm going to quote from this document because it's important for all of us to understand what happened here, and I'm going to make reference to things in here.

After the government came into power in 2001, in their election platform they had assured British Columbians that they were going to protect education spending. Now, there are a couple of things in society which are sacrosanct amongst British Columbians and amongst Canadians. We hold very dearly the notion that public health care and public education are not just a right; it is something that is fundamental to our society, to the values of British Columbians.

Every government, whether it be of the right or the left, tries to always ensure that those two programs are treated with respect. At the end of the day, it's the foundation of who we are as a society, and it accounts for the bulk of spending at the provincial level. I think I'm right in saying that between health care and education, it probably amounts to 70 cents of every dollar that we spend here. So it is critical.

Let me read what was going on at the beginning of this Liberal term.

"Despite their election promise to protect education spending, the B.C. Liberals are actually cutting funding to many B.C. school districts. Some may have to close schools as a result. The Liberals want to shift the blame for underfunding schools away from themselves and onto locally elected school boards.

"Those are the recurring themes in a fascinating nine-page document that I obtained on Friday, the day that the Education Minister" — who is now, of course, the Premier of British Columbia — "announced the government's new funding formula for B.C. schools. It's entitled Cabinet Decision Document, and it's stamped 'confidential,'" and signed by the current Premier of British Columbia.

"The document reveals the reasons behind Friday's move to per-pupil student funding and away from the old system known as program and cost funding. The document" — signed by the current Premier on January 25 of that year — "explains the old formula obligated the government to 'meet or manage each increase in cost or each new service offered by school boards.'

"With a total education funding now frozen or protected, in the language of the B.C. Liberals, the document — this is an internal document — warns the cabinet that 'given government's direction that education funding will be flat over the next three years, the current program and cost-funding formula will not work.'"

It goes on to say:

"The ministry will be called upon to make decisions about which programs to cut or reduce in order to offset unavoidable cost increases. Responsibility for reductions will thus rest with the minister and the ministry, not with the local school boards.

"The document details the political peril of sticking with the old funding formula, and under the heading" — and again, I'm quoting — "'Disadvantages of the Status Quo,' it goes on to say: 'The province will be seen as responsible for funding all costs. With overall flat funding and rising costs, this option would require the minister to decide annually which programs and services should be cut throughout the province.'"

Oh dear. That's not good news for any government, is it? Seriously.

"That would force" — again, the current Premier of the province — "to take responsibility for cutting education programs."

Well, obviously, the last thing the government wants to be doing is taking the responsibility for that.

"So what do they do? Their solution is this. Their solution was to scrap the old system and bring in a new one based on student population. The key was this. Funding is tightly capped, and individual boards decide where to cut, making them the bad guys. Tying school board funding to the number of students in each district means that some boards, count on mainly rural ones, will lose the population lottery.

[1555]

"'Some school districts will be affected by redistribution, and their funding will decrease,' the document reveals. Then there's this little notation of this poison pill. 'If enrolment unexpectedly increases, it might even be necessary to reduce the per-pupil amount. The Liberals realize that this zero-sum game is a pretty flimsy disguise for offloading costs and political damage onto school boards.'"

Now here's the really interesting stuff.

"'Under the disadvantages in this internal document of that new system,' the document says: 'boards' — that's school boards all around the province — 'will criticize government for not adequately funding their costs. Some boards may make poor decisions about how to allocate funds.' One curious line in the document reveals that the government will 'remove caps on spending on administration.'"

Here's the thing, hon. Speaker. We have had this ongoing battle around school funding since 2001. Between 2001 and 2005 there were two hearty, defiant souls on this side of the House speaking out against this change to the funding formula. From 2005 onwards, I'm glad to say, we have had a larger opposition speaking about it. We have had constant debates in this House about things that have resulted from this change to the funding formula.

We have brought into this House, from every district in British Columbia, constant cutbacks that have happened in our school system. Yet the government will stand up, minister after minister — I've seen three or four of them here — and say: "Well, wait a second here. The per-pupil student funding went up from last year, and it was higher than the year before and the year before that."

Here's what happened. By breaking up the envelopes — the directly funded areas of our school system
[ Page 9649 ]
— and going to the per-pupil student funding model, the government was able to say on every occasion that the per-pupil student funding is going up. Yes, it was. The problem is that the amount of funding that was going up by the per-pupil funding level was not comparing to what would have been in the system had we retained the previous formula for funding the school system.

That is at the crux of so many of the disputes that we have had with this B.C. Liberal government. That is what has counted for the fact that while per-pupil student funding went up and the overall level of funding went up, it didn't pay for the increased costs. It didn't pay, particularly for those kids who were designated with special needs.

As the minister pointed out, we have three levels of diagnosis for allocation for special needs. Prior to this there were more levels of designation for kids with special needs. What happened when the funding formula model changed was that some of those envelopes for some of those designations were thrown into the per-pupil funding. As a result of that, what happened?

As a result of that, kids were getting diagnosed. They weren't getting the adequate resources put in because that was now part of the per-pupil student funding model. Of course, there were challenges, naturally, with every single school district trying to figure out how to provide services as the needs were going up while the compensatory amount of resources coming into the school system wasn't happening.

You know, hon. Speaker, what this document shows is that there was a deliberate agenda here. We've heard in this House so many rhetorical things about the teaching profession and about education. There isn't a member in this chamber who stand ups and thinks that having a great public education system isn't a worthy goal.

What our constituents out in the real world expect isn't simply for us to say good things about the public education system and how we value it. What they also expect is that each and every year when government makes decisions, the decisions actually follow the rhetoric of what they say is important to British Columbians.

[1600]

I can tell you that in my discussions when I travel around the province of British Columbia, people speak volumes about how important public education is. Unfortunately, the nature of education compared to health care makes it very difficult for people to get as emotionally tied to it as we do with health care. I think it's largely because health care is instantaneous. We have a challenge, a health challenge. We want to go and see a doctor. We want a fix today. If our child suddenly gets ill, we want a fix today. There's no way that government can say, "Well, I don't have enough money for that" — right?

Education is much more complicated than that, to the extent that education happens over a long period of time. We start in the kindergarten system and it goes all the way through to grade 12. It's a system that needs to be resourced all the way through that child's career.

The learning happens and the resources are given over a long period of time, so we don't notice immediately as we would if we walked into an emergency room with a broken leg and found that there wasn't a doctor available, there wasn't a nurse and there weren't any of the materials to fix that leg. It's been more challenging for those of us, and for everybody, to be able to advocate and to understand what has happened as a result of this change in the funding formula that severely restricted the resources that go into our public education system.

I think that that is a very important factor in many of the discussions we have here. It's the reason why, in part, the relationship between the B.C. Teachers Federation and government has been so challenged. Teachers don't just simply go to work and teach. Part of the responsibility of a teacher, from an ethical point of view, is to be an advocate. It's very similar to people who become social workers.

A teacher is one of the best advocates on behalf of the children they have in their class. The other serious advocate, of course, is the parent, but in many cases — this is not something that any of us should be happy with — and for a variety of reasons, many parents either don't understand the power and the role they play in advocacy, or quite frankly, they don't have the skill sets or the capacity, the wherewithal.

Where I come from in northern B.C., I have a very large population of aboriginal parents. When cuts are made that affect aboriginal children, the notion that many aboriginal parents would go into the school system, meet with their teacher, sit down with the principal and say, "Hey, my child is failing here and needs extra resources," or: "I think my child might have some learning challenges here. Could we get my child assessed…?"

Many First Nations families in particular…. I'm not singling them out. There are plenty of parents in British Columbia who don't appreciate and understand the important role of advocacy that they may have to do. But many people find it very challenging to go into the school system and deal with professionals and have to work in an atmosphere where people have gone to university and have lots of schooling and maybe speak a specialized language. That's very off-putting for them — really off-putting for them.

Many of us in this chamber might think: "Well, that seems a bit odd. I would have no problems going and picking up the phone or walking into my school and saying, 'Hey, I think my kid has got a problem.'" But we should appreciate that's not necessarily the case.

In all those instances of all those children for whom their parents either are unwilling or unable to be the advocate, who else is going to advocate for them, if not the teacher? Who else is going to do that? That is a critical role of every teacher. It's part of their professional learn-
[ Page 9650 ]
ing. It's part of their responsibility. And do you know what, hon. Speaker? In the last 11 years the role of advocacy for teachers has grown exponentially. Why? It's because teachers are at the forefront of everything that is challenging in our society.

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned early today in his budget response that one of the challenges we have to deal with economically in British Columbia is the gap between those who have and those who have not.

[1605]

The reports that came out recently in this province clearly state…. These are statistics that don't come from the basement of the NDP research department. These are statistics that one can get just from B.C. Stats or from federal statistics. The gap between those who have and those have not in this province has grown exponentially over the last 11 years — exponentially — so we have huge levels of poverty not just amongst families but amongst children.

When children are in poverty, they come to school with added challenges, huge challenges. You might think that the main people who have to deal with families or children in poverty might be the Salvation Army. It might be the person's local church. It might be the social workers. It might be the non-profit societies in our society. It might be the health care system. It might be the addictions system or mental health, because all of these challenges become hugely greater as a result of poverty.

I would argue that the single professional group which on a daily basis deals with poverty and child poverty to a greater extent than any other group in our society is the teachers. They're the ones who on a daily basis have children coming into their classrooms, into their schools, that are dealing with huge challenges at home.

Some of them are obvious. Plenty of children — sad to say in British Columbia in 2012 — arrive at school hungry. Plenty of children arrive at school with the emotional scars of things that are going on at home, and there could be a variety of reasons. It is our teachers who have to deal with that.

It's not like these kids could be adults. You know, if you've got a problem and you're an adult, you could somehow switch off from your problem and try and make it through the workday. That is the part of the capacity of skills that we as adults all have to perform when we go to work — right? You leave your problems at home, and you try and focus on your job for the day.

Our children's job for the day is to come to school. That's their job. The teacher's role, as professionals, is to do everything they can to help those children, primarily in their learning but also to help them cope with whatever circumstances that child has got. They can't switch it off. They can't say: "I'm not hungry." They can't arrive at school and pretend that the fact that things were going on in their house the night before that challenged their ability to sleep, their ability, maybe, to do homework…. They come with all of those problems.

It is a huge responsibility for our teachers to be the advocates that they are, and that is why the learning conditions, the classroom conditions, are so fundamental to every debate that we have in this Legislature. This Bill 22 speaks to further changes around class size and composition, some of which aren't changing anything for the worse but some of which are.

I'm going to just quote a little bit here of what the attitude was of our former Minister of Education as a result of the challenges that came about from the changing of the funding formula that she brought in. At the time when there were only two members in this House speaking on behalf of the opposition, she was asked to confirm claims that 46 schools would automatically be shut down. Here's what she said: "Different districts have chosen different priorities which reflect local needs because they are all locally elected. So we're letting them do that. That's the law of the land."

Don't forget that she and her colleagues ran on a platform to protect public education. But as a result of changes to this funding formula, it meant automatically that every school district in the province was going to have to make cuts — huge cuts. Sometimes it led to school closures, and sometimes it led to changes in the number of specialized teachers, but it led to huge cuts.

She went on to say…. The minister at the time, now our current Premier, was asked whether she even knew herself how many schools had been closed, and that's when the buck-passing began. I'm quoting her again: "I can tell you that local school districts have made those decisions across the province, and those are the people that you'll have to speak to."

[1610]

In other words: "Don't blame me if your kid had to travel further. Don't blame me if your schools close. Don't blame me if you lost the library teacher and the librarian. Don't blame me if you don't have a special ed teacher who can assess or give any effective instruction to the regular teacher, to give them some extra advice as to how to change or adapt a child's program."

That's not the minister's fault here. That's now the responsibility of the local school district — right? Go see them. That's why we have locally elected school trustees.

Let's get to the heart of the matter here. School district trustees have a responsibility of governance locally in their school district, but every dollar, every centime of resource that comes to the school system comes through decisions that are made right here in this chamber — okay? Right here in this chamber. So to say to people, "Hey, go speak to the school trustees. These are local decisions. They're obviously taking the best interests of the local community. They know best. They live there. They can make the best choices."

An Hon. Member: Disingenuous.
[ Page 9651 ]

R. Austin: It's beyond disingenuous. It is just…. I don't know.

When I was working in the school system, I used to get angry. Every day I went home feeling pretty angry at what was happening. You see, I worked in the school system when exactly this was happening as a result of changes to this funding formula. I saw it firsthand on the ground, in the classrooms, and I used to go home very angry.

I've now, luckily, done some anger management and got it out of my system, but I can see why teachers haven't, because guess what. Teachers are still in the classrooms. Eleven years on they're still there each and every day battling it out, having to do more with less and trying to stretch and put things together, because they care about the kids in their class.

They're frustrated. Understandably, they're frustrated. That's why we've seen them resort to the action we saw them take last night. Do you know what? First of all, it's a fundamental right for people to make those decisions. It's a democratic organization. But just speaking on a human level, I can understand why, after 11 years, teachers are taking such drastic action to make a point about what has happened in British Columbia in the education system over the last 11 years.

It beggars belief to think that people on the other side of the House will constantly get up and say they want to improve the education system, when clearly policy decisions based on ideological choices were made to underfund the public education system. But to create the atmosphere or to create some notion that somehow we were increasing funding to the public education system, even though the needs were getting greater and they weren't being satisfied…. On the previous model many of those needs would have been satisfied.

Do you know what? The minister was the Minister of Health, and he's now the Minister of Education. I acknowledge fully that there will never be enough money in the world to take care of every need in health care and education. I acknowledge that. I'm not expecting us to suddenly take our revenue levels to that of Sweden and Norway and other countries and create a system…. We're just not there — right?

That may be my personal choice. I don't think it's the choice of British Columbians. What I have to say is that it is incredibly disingenuous to continue this facade that somehow we are improving education while at the same time constantly cutting it.

We've spent the last 11 years…. My colleague here has used this allegory before. It's like photographing kids when they're small. They're one year old, and you're trying to take a photograph, and the photographer is going: "Look up here. Look up here." Meanwhile, all kinds of stuff is happening down here.

That's what's happened here over the last 11 years. It's: "Look up here. We've got high school funding, per-pupil funding that's going on." But the reality was that the per-pupil school funding level was not taking care of all of the needs.

Here's another quote.

"People started to get active. People started to realize that as consequences of these decisions that the B.C. Liberals have made, there would be all kinds of challenges in our school system, so parents started to get organized.

"They started to advocate, not just on an individual basis for their children, but parents who had the skills realized: 'You know what? If we're going to make this a public issue, we have to go and advocate, along with the teachers and along with making this a public issue, so all parents understand what's going on.'

[1615]

"When parents raised concerns about the cuts in real funding to schools, the Education Minister" — who is now the Premier — "dismissed them as 'representatives of unions and other opponents of the government.'

"Now, some probably undoubtedly are, but others are supporters of the government's general direction. They just believe that the B.C. Liberals have messed up by failing to cover increased school costs and want a chance to discuss the policy, and that does not seem like such an unreasonable position for people to take in a functioning democracy."

That was written by somebody in the Vancouver Sun as a result of the educational cuts that started under the current Premier when she was Minister of Education.

This crossed all political boundaries. I can quote here people who were school trustees in the past who are now sitting in this House on the Liberal side. I mean, there's the member for Langley, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. She was a school trustee. I believe she was the chair of the school trustees of the Surrey school district when the current Premier was the Minister of Education.

She put out this statement, being outraged at this change and how it was going to affect the Surrey school district. Plenty of people understood what was going on. Plenty of people on the B.C. Liberal side of the House understood what was going on. I could quote other trustees whose political views we know, because they are out there in their local communities.

In small towns in British Columbia local government and school governance is not a partisan issue. People don't run on slates, for the most part. People run just as community members. But in small towns in British Columbia we all know who we are. We all know which side of the fence we sit on. We all know which philosophical lens we look at the world through. I could quote numerous trustees who thought that these changes were absolutely disastrous.

Here's what the president of the School Trustees Association said at the time these changes were happening. This is Gordon Comeau. He said:

"The province's education budget has been cut by $300 million over the next three years because the government has piled extra costs on the school districts, including the $150 million for the teachers' wage hike that was introduced after this government came in and negotiated right here in Victoria."

He goes on to say:
[ Page 9652 ]

"Cuts are happening. They are happening in the classrooms. Schools are going down. The government should not have imposed a contract on teachers which they did not want to fund. This has left the boards feeling stunned, and if this hadn't happened, school boards would have been able to manage their budgets."

Here you go, once again. The government changes the funding formula that drastically restricts resources that would have come into the school system as a result of the previous model of funding and then, as if to add injury to insult, decides that they are going to not pay for a portion of a salary increase that happened almost ten years ago.

What does that do to school systems? What it does immediately is that every school system has to go and look at how to find the money in their budgets in order to provide those resources that didn't come in. What does that mean? Well, it means that children don't get assessed. It means that class sizes go up. It means that classroom conditions in terms of the number of children with identified special needs would go up. It means that kids didn't go on as many field trips and have experiential learning as well as classroom learning. It meant a whole bunch of things — okay?

This was just another classic example of how the B.C. Liberals have underfunded the school system, and those have spread through over the ten years.

The government argued, of course: "Well, this is all about flexibility and choice. We're going to give you per-pupil student funding. We're not going to tell you how it's going to be paid, how it's going to be allocated. You can go and do that — flexibility and choice."

[1620]

I'm always a bit wary when I hear the words "flexibility and choice." They're nice-sounding words — right? Don't we all like choices? Doesn't everyone in our life like choices? But there are times when choices are good. Like, I like to go through the grocery store and decide what choice of breakfast cereal I want to have. When I'm shopping for an automobile every few years, I like it go through all the Consumer Digest things and figure out what my choice will be on an automobile.

Those are legitimate choices that we make, but when your choice as a school trustee is which school you close down, which resource you cut…. Do you cut the special ed teacher, or do you amalgamate those kids?

Do you take the time that's been allocated for that child and say: "I'm going to take those hours of EA time, and I'm going to spread it out. I'm going to get that EA over there, who's really supposed to be working with those two kids, who really needs to work with those two kids because they're behind in their reading, and I'm going to take two or three other grey-area kids, who haven't been designated because we haven't got the money to even do the assessment…. I'm going to take that, and I'm going to spread it out thinner."

That is what has happened. That is what has happened for 11 years in the province of British Columbia, and it does a disservice to who we are as legislators. We have a responsibility, coming out of this Legislature, to do the right thing, to say to British Columbians: "Yes, your health care matters, and your education matters, and we're going to make sure that it is resourced in a way that not just satisfies our needs but speaks to our values." But that is what has happened — 11 years of spreading things out more thinly.

Things got so bad that in one school district somebody actually went on a hunger strike to protest. This lady — she was an artist; her name was Claire Kujundzic — went on a hunger strike to prevent the closing of the Wells School. "I think what is happening is immoral," she said. "The Education Minister" — now the Premier of the province — "and Gordon Campbell" — the then Premier — "keep saying that because of the new School Act, the decision rests entirely with the local school trustees, but if the legislation allows this is kind of injustice, it's flawed and should be withdrawn."

We turn on our televisions every night, and we see what's going on in the world around us. We see there are many jurisdictions around the world where people feel they have no option but to do things like go on a hunger strike. But we don't think that in a free democracy — in a country like Canada, in a province like British Columbia — in order to fight cuts to the education system, we have to go on a hunger strike here. It's beyond belief that anybody would resort to that — absolutely beyond belief.

But that's what happened. That's the history of this 11 years of the B.C. Liberal government. That's the record on education. It's tragic, and it should never have happened, but it's still going on today.

This act — Bill 22, the Education Improvement Act — in fact continues to denigrate the system a little bit further. To think that all the people have had to come out and advocate and fight and argue with a system that has constantly been underfunded is not right.

I want to speak about what happened in terms of lobbying. Parents decided to get into the act of lobbying after these changes were made. After months of lobbying, the government decided to respond to concerns over school funding. There was a coalition of Vancouver parents. They received a letter from the then Premier, Gordon Campbell, telling them that it would be inappropriate for him or any other member of the Liberal government to personally discuss their concerns.

Until now their lobbying, which included more than 15,000 letters to Premier Gordon Campbell and the Minister of Education, has received a meagre response. Earlier this month the then Minister of Education, now Premier of the province, publicly refused to meet with the group, which boasts a membership of more than 14,000 concerned parents provincewide.

[1625]

She said she believes the organization to be a front for political activists. Seriously, that was the attitude of the Minister of Education when all these cuts were happen-
[ Page 9653 ]
ing as a result of decisions that she made. She's now the Premier of the province of British Columbia. But apparently, in a free, democratic society, when you go to take serious issues of school underfunding and cuts having to be made to a system that was the envy of the world….

Let's understand something here. Our British Columbia school system not only was the envy of the world; it is still a great world-class education system. I'm always very wary when I speak about these issues that I am somehow going to be seen to be undermining a system that I value. That is a challenge for any of us in this House when we speak to challenges — right? But I have been fortunate enough in my life to travel a great deal.

[D. Black in the chair.]

I grew up in Africa, and my mother's from Sri Lanka. I've been all around the world. Absolutely, we have a system here that is great, but it could have been a whole lot better if these changes hadn't been made. It could have been a whole lot better.

To the notion that when people bring this to the attention of the government, somehow they're political activists just doing this in order to agitate. What does that say about our democracy? Seriously. You know, it reminds me of some of the comments that have been coming out of Ottawa recently in terms of people expressing their democratic opinion around big projects that are happening.

In my neck of the woods there's been a large project that is very controversial. People have been coming out expressing concerns about that at public meetings and before the federal Energy Board, and the Prime Minister of our country said something very similar to what the current Premier said when she was Minister of Education. "Well, these are just people agitating. They're political activists." The only thing she didn't add at that time was: "They're funded by foreigners." I guess they weren't funded by foreigners, but good for them.

I want to speak for a second about what our education system means to all of us. It is important for us to understand what the purpose of our education system is. As is often the case with members on the government side, they often make important speeches, not necessarily in front of the group whose interest is in that particular area of government policy, but often they make speeches in other places.

In May of 2002, while addressing the Vancouver Board of Trade, the local MLA and Education Minister, who is now the Premier, spoke about her government working towards a future in which all children "have the opportunities they need to reach their full potential and both students and society have the support of nothing less than a top-notch education system."

These are wonderful words. You often hear them spoken by members on both sides of this House. The weird thing is that as she was saying that — as she was saying those great, valuable things about public education and how important it is — her very own school district at the time, in Coquitlam, was drawing to a close that year.

As the reality of the drastic extent of the Liberal underfunding of the education system set in, it had to be pointed out to her that at that time, while she was making this speech about how valuable education was, her own school district was laying off 213 teachers in Coquitlam. They got layoff notices at the end of May. And to witness the shock, sadness and fear that many exhibited both on that day and subsequently….

It isn't enough to go out there and continue to say positive things about education, to say that we want to help each and every child be the best they can be, and then remove the resources that support those children being the best they can be. That's just not right, and that is what has happened year after year.

I want to take a few minutes now to talk about something that is fundamental to this bill and which the minister spent an inordinate amount of time discussing. That is the whole notion of kids with special needs and being designated and the suggestion that designating a child with special needs or treating that child with their label only is discriminatory.

[1630]

I remember that when I was studying social work, we did a lot of work on the whole notion of labelling. Certainly, there's been lots of academic work done on the notion of labelling and what that can do to a human being in terms of getting a label, being given that label, which can affect their life and the way in which they see themselves, and the consequences of getting a label in terms of how they're treated by society and by every different structure and system that they interact with.

Here's what I would say about it in our public education system. First of all, we acknowledge — and the minister acknowledged in his comments — that in order to find out if a child has a learning disability or a disability of any kind, we need to have them assessed. Inevitably, that assessment takes place by professionals who have gone and studied for years, in various areas of expertise, to spot what that learning disability is and to give it some kind of designation, some kind of diagnosis that enables government to be able to add resources to the overall school budget that help that child.

We can't get away from the notion of labelling, in the sense that we have to designate kids. We have to go and assess them. That is a critical part of our school system — okay? Now, I've spent time in classrooms. Inevitably, if you have a child that has an obvious disability…. Part of the great thing about inclusiveness is that all the children in that class have an opportunity to learn as they are growing up that the world is made up of all kinds of people.
[ Page 9654 ]

Some have disabilities. Some have huge challenges — physical, mental. In those cases it's very obvious, because the disability is one that is visible. It can't be hidden. It's a great thing that we grow up…. We've supported inclusivity for decades in this province. It's a good thing. It's a good thing for teaching children as they become adults that that's the way the world is made up.

There are, of course, many hidden disabilities. I speak, of course, about kids who have been designated with learning disabilities where, to look at them, you would never know that they have any kind of disability. Yes, it's true to say that if there is designated assistance to that child, inevitably that child is going to be seen by the other kids in the class as being different — right? They don't look different, but why is it that every day, five days a week, an adult comes and sits beside little Johnny and helps little Johnny to scribe during a particular class?

You know what? If we try to do as is suggested in this bill — to do away with the notion of having these designations, having these labels, I guess, and then not be willing to confront the reality of being able to help that child and not be willing to recognize that the number of children who have special needs in the class affects that class terribly — then I don't know what we're here for. That is basically throwing the whole notion of composition out of the window, and I don't think we should do that.

I realize that dealing with the idea of being discriminatory is one that is very, very complicated, but I think we need to be aware of a few things. First of all, the notion that we try to impede somebody is wrong. I think there needs to be a system…. The minister used the example of one specific child — this is just one example — and that child is the fourth child with an IEP, an individual education plan, going into a class where there are already three children who have individual education plans.

I think the system that we need to have is one that gives the local school district the ability…. First of all, I would assume that they could have applied for an exemption in this case, because there have been thousands of exemptions applied for and given to allow more than three children with a special need in a class. That's the first thing I would say.

[1635]

Secondly, if we're going to allow this to happen…. If we're going to suggest, "Okay. Well, let's have the local school group — the principal, the vice-principal, the special ed teacher and the teacher — look at this," surely what we need to do is make sure that if the fourth child with a special need is going into a class, the resources are there to put into place whatever is necessary to ensure that that class works and is educationally sound.

The trouble and the challenges with Bill 33 are that it has put the school system in such a position that principals have signed off thousands and thousands of classes since 2005-2006 and signed them to be educationally sound, probably knowing in their own hearts, as former professional teachers, that it wasn't educationally sound. But they were put in a difficult position.

It's not just the school trustees who've been put in a difficult position as a result of the lack of resources in our public education system. It's also principals and also teachers who've been put in difficult situations, because they've had to make decisions, in order to make a class work, that weren't educationally sound, and they probably knew that. But there were only so many resources to go around, so that's why they did that.

I think that in terms of principals, it's doubly difficult. I mean, a teacher was in a difficult position. If they argued with the principal, if they said, "I'm not signing off on that," then the relationship in that school community between the administrator — the principal — and the teachers would have been untenable.

We have to remember something. Our educational system isn't just all about adults working together trying to help improve the lives of our kids. These are all professionals who have to work together on a daily basis, so the ability for them to be able to construct and have constructive, workable relationships is critical to the work they do.

Imagine teachers who have been put in the position of having to have these conversations with their principal, with their administrator, when they knew clearly that the teaching conditions, the learning conditions for our children will be untenable by having more kids in the class with special needs. They wanted to advocate for that, but the principal says: "Look, I'm in a difficult place, so I've got to sign off on this. I'm sorry, but I have to do this."

Why are principals in a difficult place? For one thing, they're not protected by any union. They are all on personalized service contracts. They owe their job and their allegiance to the board — right? They're administrators. So they were caught in this bind between government legislation that brought in Bill 33 and the fact that they had to follow the legislation.

Let's not forget something here. When Bill 33 came in, putting in all these restrictions, it wasn't like they said: "Okay, we're going to bring in these restrictions. We're going to have no more than three kids with special needs. Here's the money. Here are the resources to take care of constructing these classes in a way that is effective."

No, no, no. Bill 33 was passed here saying: "Here's the law. You can take care of it back at the local school district. We're not giving you any extra resources. That's your problem to deal with." Once again: "That's your problem to deal with." So principals were put in an untenable position here.

I know this because I come from a small town. I have coffee with teachers; I have coffee with principals. So you hear all of this, and you know that it's impossible. They were put in a position where they signed off on thousands upon thousands of classrooms which they, as former teachers, knew were not good learning conditions or
[ Page 9655 ]
teaching conditions, but they had to sign off on it.

Again, it's disingenuous for this government to come forward constantly and say, "We are helping. We are improving our public education system. We are making it better somehow," when the whole time they were not putting in the resources to cover even their own legislation.

What's the result of that now? The result isn't to say: "Oh. Well, maybe having three kids in the class was a good idea, or a bad idea."

No. The solution here for the government is to say: "Well, you know what? It was really difficult. It was untenable. James Dorsey had to take care of 10,000 grievances a year, and teachers didn't like doing it. It's endless meetings. Here's the solution. We're just going to scrap them. We're going to scrap the conditions that were there, put in place." Why? They were put in place to make the learning conditions of our children better. "But because it's been a real kerfuffle, a real challenge, and there weren't resources put in place, well, now let's scrap them."

[1640]

Tell me. How is that going to improve the learning conditions of the children of British Columbia? Seriously. Where I live in northwest B.C., there are six police cars that work the roads from Haida Gwaii to Houston and from the Yukon border to Kitimat. You know what the chances are of me getting caught if I speed? Pretty unlikely — really, seriously. In fact, if I was to speed between Kitimat and Terrace, going to my two offices, the chances of me getting caught speeding are literally zero. There simply are not enough resources on the ground.

I don't get in my car every day when I travel and think: "Hey, I know it's the law, but we can't abide by this law. I'll never get caught. Let's just go speed." But this is what is happening here in this bill in regards to taking out the number of special needs kids as a maximum.

The government is essentially saying: "Yeah, we brought in this law. We thought it was going to be good. It hasn't worked out that well, but it's impossible for us to maintain it." Why is it impossible for us to maintain it? Because it required resources to go in to actually make that law and fulfil the mandate of that law. So they're giving up on the law they passed, and it's not in the interests of our school children.

I want to spend a minute to talk about the ruling from Madam Justice Susan Griffin. It's very clear that the government and we on this side of the House have a different opinion as to what was meant in this ruling.

Now, I'm not a constitutional lawyer, and my understanding is, of course, that neither is the Minister of Education. But the Minister of Education, of course, has access to lawyers here who work for the government. If I heard the minister correctly in his remarks to Bill 22, their interpretation of Bills 27 and 28 and the unconstitutional stripping of class size and composition is: "Look, if we had done our due diligence, if we had sat down with teachers and explained to them and consulted with them as to what we were going to do, then that would have been fine. We could have carried on."

His argument, as I saw it, was that it was entirely about the process. It wasn't that what they did was wrong. It wasn't that they stripped long-held rights that had been bargained over a period of many, many years. That wasn't wrong; that wasn't unconstitutional. It was the mere fact that they hadn't sat down with the teachers and done some consultation.

On this side of the House we don't see it that way. We don't see it that way at all. I think that Madam Justice Susan Griffin will, once again, have to do some work on this. Our interpretation is that, yes, she was saying that there needed to be consultation, and yes, she said that resources were removed and that you have to compensate for some of those resources. But she also made rulings about the actual way in which these contracts were stripped.

They had been negotiated in a fair bargaining process. We have a long-held tradition in British Columbia and in Canada of the rights of unions and their employers to sit down together in a room to argue, to go back and forth, to bargain. It's a messy process, but at the end of the day, they come up with an agreement, a contract. That contract has to be honoured in the same way that every other contract has to be honoured in our judicial system.

What happened here was that the government, once again, just as they had changed the entire funding formula…. Just as they had done that, they also had an agenda to take out levels of funding for special needs.

What they saw over time was that it's hugely expensive to take care of all of the kids in our system and add dollars to those who have special needs. As we've learned more and more about learning disabilities and learning challenges, more and more kids are now getting the help that they deserve — or should be getting the help that they deserve.

[1645]

In my day I can remember conversations my parents had around the table when a child had a learning disability. This is going back a long time. Where I come from, if your kid had what we now know is a learning disability and was having struggles in school, I can remember people saying things like: "Oh, isn't he a bit thick? He's missing some grey matter, something not there."

We didn't know 25, 30 years ago that children who took a little bit longer to learn something, children who learned in different ways, children whose brains were wired in a non-normative process, in a different process, had the capacity to learn like everybody else. We didn't know that 25 years ago.

But we know that today. We have got the science behind it. We know how we can diagnose people. We know how we can assess people, and we know that if we put some extra resources in, that child, who in my day would have been considered a little bit thick, can be a star pupil,
[ Page 9656 ]
can be all they want to be.

You know what? It requires not just to have the ability and the expertise to pay for assessments. It then needs the requirements of a government, of a society that says: "We're going to pay for this. We're going to make sure that we don't just have all the kids who succeed in British Columbia and make our PISA scores look so fantastic around the world. We're going to make sure that those kids who on the outside don't seem to have any kind of disability — no physical disability, no mental disability…."

But they have learning challenges that are very complex and can only be understood as soon as a teacher spends a little time with that kid and realizes, "You know what? Johnny here has got a problem processing certain things. Sarah here has a problem when I'm up and speaking for long periods of time. I can tell that this kid is not good at learning in an auditory way. She needs to have things put on paper, into images" — whatever it is.

There are so many different modalities that a teacher has to teach to in a classroom. We know that today, but it requires the ability of a teacher to be able to deal with that. It is very complex being in a classroom in British Columbia in 2012.

I remember when I was a community schools coordinator. One of the schools that I visited was Edmonds Community School down in Burnaby-Edmonds. Actually, I believe that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds made a very interesting statement the other day about Burnaby's Edmonds Community School. I remember going to that school, and I was astonished. It was so different from the schools that I was working with in Terrace.

In Terrace we dealt with a large aboriginal population. We had high poverty rates. But to go to Edmonds was fascinating. There were people from the Sudan and Afghanistan and the Punjab and 30, 40 different countries — people who I never thought had come here. If you think of British Columbia, you think of a huge East Indian population, a large Chinese population. But here was a school taking in Afghan and Sudanese refugees and Ethiopian people.

You know what? Our school system and our teachers have to deal with kids who come into the school system, some of whom have never even been in a school in their lives, some of whom have come from war zones. Think of that. They've come from war zones. They've been traumatized. So we have a system that has to try…. We expect our teachers to try and figure all of this out.

Isn't it correct that if we're going to do this…? If we're going to recognize not just the top 40 percent of kids who would do well anywhere, in any system, just by virtue of who they are and the level of support they have from the home and everything else…. Let's not worry so much about the 40 percent who would do well no matter what system they had. Let's try and figure out what we can do with the 40 percent of kids who struggle in our system for whatever reason.

That is our responsibility as legislators. And both sides of the House speak, at least rhetorically, about wanting to do that. But it is expensive. I'm not doubting that. What has happened over the last few years is that there has been a constant whittling away of the resources necessary to help a child who comes from a war zone. But we still expect our teachers to go ahead and do it.

You know what? Teachers being who they are and wanting to do this job…. Like I said earlier, it is in large part a vocational choice. For anyone who's attending university and deciding what they want to go and study at university and what they want to do for their life's work, to become a teacher is in large part a vocation. As a result of that, teachers will inevitably do whatever they can, under any circumstances, to try and make it work.

[1650]

But it's challenging, and it shouldn't be that way, because at the end of the day we live in a province that is wealthy — wealthy in huge terms. I'm not speaking now simply about the current budgetary situation. Obviously, the budgetary situation if this side of the House would have been in would have been different from what is in now, and we would have had different priorities. So that's where we're at.

What I want to emphasize is that we demand an awful lot of our teachers in the complexity of our classrooms, not just with learning challenges, and it is important that we have those resources in place. It hasn't been for a long period of time.

So why is it that teachers decided yesterday to take a strike vote and have announced that they are not going to be attending work? Well, you know, teachers have reached a point, I think, and this is just my…. I don't speak for them, but my assessment in hearing many teachers is that they have reached a level of frustration over the years, that they are going to what seems to be the last resort to make a statement.

All teachers get math. All teachers understand math. All teachers know exactly where this is going. They know the makeup of the Legislature of British Columbia, and so they will have thought about that before their actions. They know where this is going to end up.

In spite of that, they're making a clear statement. It comes about as a result of the way they have been treated, and it comes about as a result of this bill continuing the actions of Bills 27 and 28. Think of the irony here. Think of the irony, hon. Speaker, where you have a bill that strips out long-held rights of teachers. It's imposed by legislation. It's brought down to the B.C. Supreme Court after many years, is ruled unconstitutional, and now here we are ten years later, using the Legislature to impose a settlement on that piece of legislation — right?

It's recognizing that those bargaining rights on class size and composition have to go back into the contract or have to be put on the table — excuse me — have to be put back on the table and are going to be bargained in
[ Page 9657 ]
the future. But not today.

Teachers have undergone ten years of this unconstitutional action being imposed upon them. The government recognizes that because this piece of legislation says that as of June 30, 2013, those rights are going to be back on the bargaining table — one month after the next election, coincidentally. But for now, of course, we can't bring them back. We're not going to do that — right?

That is the kind of frustration that teachers are dealing with. So it's no wonder that they have become so angry and are taking this kind of action.

I want to speak to a few things that the minister brought up, what he's talking about in terms of Bill 22. He has mentioned something which certainly I am supportive of here. He talked about the notion of class maximums that recognize that in certain instances they need to be far smaller than the 30 maximum that is being brought into this legislation.

I know. I worked as an educational assistant in shop classes. I thought it very bizarre at the time that there would be shop classes with such a high number of kids, some of which also had special needs, without support for those kids in the class. I can remember doing metal work, and I can remember being in shop class where there were saws and all kinds of things.

I think that's something, certainly, that we on this side will support, and I think that is an important part of something that needs to be mediated, to recognize that is taking place.

I wanted to speak for a second about the solution to class sizes that go over 30 and the government's solution as to the kind of compensation that can happen, as a result of things that have come out of James Dorsey and his having to deal with all of these grievances.

[1655]

The minister has suggested that if a class is over 30, there should be compensation for a teacher. First of all, the teachers that I've spoken to have said very clearly to me that they don't want extra compensation for classes over 30. They don't want to be seen to be getting extra money.

What they would like to see is to have classes that make their jobs better, that make the learning outcomes for the children in those classes better. The notion that we should have classes over 30 and somehow give the teacher extra pro-D or prep time or a resource for their classroom…. I think you'd find that most teachers would much rather have smaller class sizes and the assistants in the classroom, if it was required, than to start to go looking at larger class sizes. It is very important.

This whole notion of class size and composition is at the crux of everything that teachers have been arguing about. And it's not just teachers. I think 2½ years ago we brought into this House a letter that was signed by teachers; by CUPE, which represented the educational assistants; by the head of the Principals and Vice-Principals Association; by the B.C. School Trustees Association; by BCCPAC.

All the stakeholders in British Columbia came together to write a letter about two years ago to the then Minister of Education stating clearly that the cuts as a result of budget underfunding and the cuts that were being made in regards to class size and compensation were untenable. It is very rare in this province when you get all the educational stakeholders lining up to speak to one issue, but it happened when people were speaking to the B.C. Liberal government in terms of their educational policy over the 11 years. That's how bad it has been. It has actually made a consensus.

What we're going to see as a result of this bill is more dysfunction, more challenges, and the school trustees are going to have to go back and constantly take the flak for decisions that have been made right here in Victoria.

Just two weeks ago the budget was brought down here. Let's speak to this for a second, because this is also going to impact what's happening with Bill 22. The budget essentially has said that there is not going to be any increase to the K-to-12 education budget for the next year. Now, what does that mean? We already know, anybody who works in government knows, that when you are working in a system as large as education or health care, there are inflationary costs that are built into the system — lots of them.

In addition to those inflationary costs, government sometimes makes decisions that impose other costs that weren't even part of the previous inflationary costs. Think of the increases to MSP premiums that our school districts are going to have to pay for every single adult who works in the school system.

What the government has done in the budget is essentially say to British Columbians: "Well, you know, times are tough. So I'll tell you what. We're not going to increase the K-to-12 system." That is going to result in every single school district, all 60 school districts of the province of British Columbia, having to look to make further cuts to make up for the fact that inflation is probably $100 million in a system as big as that.

So once again, while we're sitting here debating the Education Improvement Act, we're working with a government whose budget is actually going to harm education.

I'm going to wrap up by saying that we are going to oppose this. We are going to ask lots and lots of detailed questions during our time in third reading. I am sure that there are going to be many members on this side of the House who are going to be speaking out and sharing their opinions, speaking about what teachers and parents are telling them in their local constituencies.

But the fundamental reason why we are opposing this bill is because it is further going to strip the contracts. That's what they're asking for here. This is mediation that is going to require further looking at stripping
[ Page 9658 ]
of contracts. It does not address class size and composition. In fact, it makes composition far worse. It is using the legislative sledgehammer here when it was unnecessary to do that.

[1700]

Do you know what, hon. Speaker? It's almost Orwellian even in the description of it — the Education Improvement Act. I guess we've reached a point in our politics where if we use enough communication and if we use enough spin, somehow we can figure out that people will actually think that what it is we say, we believe.

But you know, maybe I'll bring forward an amendment that we can change the name of this act. Maybe we'll think of changing it from the B.C. Education Improvement Act to the "No child left behind, B.C. version."

"No child left behind, B.C. version" might be a good way of describing what is taking place here, because it isn't just a question of a child that is going to be left behind, as hundreds of children have already been left behind. This act is going to leave busloads of children behind, and we've already seen 11 years where lots and lots of children have been left behind and not been adequately supported. Why would I want to support a bill that is going to further reduce those extra resources that are needed?

I'm going to finish up here by talking and just having a quote. There have been so many teachers who have expressed their concerns, so many parents, but I just want to put something into the public record, because I think it speaks to, generally speaking, how teachers feel. This teacher writes to the minister. It's not a long letter, but I think it's good to get on the public record. He says:

"I love to teach. I love the spark that opens up slow at first, then wider and wider, when a grade 8 student sees the wonder of life that teems in a drop of water. I love to watch the distracted and troubled young man, who is always moving and never quiet, find a calm centre as he steps onto the stage in our theatre production. I love the quiet sense of satisfaction that a student gets from finally taming the many-headed beast that is a quadratic equation."

I hated quadratic equations, by the way.

"I love to see the young, shy girl, who has worked so hard to never be noticed, find her voice as she steps into the light to sing in public for the very first time. I love all of these things and so many more about the work that I do. I have the privilege and honour of working with the province's young people, and I am fulfilled and exhausted by it every day.

"I do work that has lasting and significant meaning in the lives of the people around me. I love that I can express my self-creativity as I think, plan and dream about the best way to reach them, to help them, to explain. I don't always succeed. Sometimes I'm so tired, or my patience is not what it should be, or I have not anticipated correctly what it is that my students truly need. But every day, every semester, every year I get to go out there and work hard to make it better.

"In order to make this happen, I need something from the hon. Minister of Education. I need you to listen to me. I need the minister to hear that I cannot connect with 30 students at once in a meaningful way. I need the minister to know that having four students with learning designations — in addition to the one who is living on his own because his parents kicked him out, the three that came to school hungry because their parents live in poverty and the two that are dealing with drug problems — is just too much. I cannot be the teacher I want to be in those circumstances. I cannot be the teacher that my students need me to be in those circumstances.

"I need you to know that I need some professional autonomy. I need you to respect the fact that most of the time I know what I'm doing. When I don't know whom to talk to, I can make my own good decisions about where I need to develop professionally. The kind of atmosphere that allows me to become the best teacher that I possibly can be is one where you respect my skills and allow me to direct the places where I need to sharpen up.

"And yes, hon. Minister, I need to be compensated fairly. I need to know that the best young teachers, young people, that are my own students right now are not going to move away to Alberta or Ontario because there is such a huge disparity.

"I know that that is your job, and it's not an easy one. And I know that there are many demands coming at you from contradictory sources, but please, hon. Minister, these are our children."

I think that letter just about says it all. I remember my early experiences of being an education assistant in Terrace, and I went into a classroom with a teacher very much like this. I remember it because it was very odd. It was in a downtown Terrace school, and it was grade 6. I walked in to help a child who was severely developmentally delayed. Her EA was away for a number of weeks, and I spent a number of weeks with this child.

[1705]

I walked into this classroom, and I noticed that the lights were really low. They were very dim. I thought: "Oh, what's going on with this teacher? I've never been with this teacher before." When he started to teach, he spoke very softly, very quietly — a bit like our Leader of the Opposition does occasionally when he's asking questions. I thought: "Wow, this is odd."

I'm used to teachers who, by the nature of the job they do and the professional training they've done…. Generally speaking, teachers have their voice. They've found their voice. Certainly, in a classroom they're very vocal, and that's the way that I expect when I go into most classrooms. But this teacher had very low lighting, and he spoke very softly.

It was about a week after I'd been working with this child and with this teacher that I realized what was happening. He had many years of teaching experience. He wasn't a new teacher. He's now retired, so I guess he'd probably been teaching for at least 25 years. He had worked in the north all of his working life, and he had become culturally aware.

He figured out something. He figured out that there were a large number of kids in his class who were undiagnosed but probably had different levels of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. They weren't diagnosed, but he recognized that some kids displayed some of the behaviours of kids who had this.

He also recognized that over 50 percent of his class was aboriginal, and he realized that if he lowered the lighting in his classroom and if he spoke softly, the kids' level in terms of the behaviour, the classroom management, changed. He was able to connect to those kids a bit better.
[ Page 9659 ]

I bring this up just as an example of the kinds of teachers we have in British Columbia. We need to support them.

M. Stilwell: I rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill 22, not just as an MLA but, more importantly, because I'm a parent and someone who understands that the prospects and prosperity of this province are going to be determined by our education system.

In addition, like so many others, I'm someone who has benefited personally from the talent and patience and caring of great teachers. In fact, like everyone in this House today and British Columbians across the province, I know the tremendous contribution of great teachers and what they contribute, not just to individual lives but to our province.

You see, I really do believe that whether you're a doctor, a lawyer, a welder, a banker, a plumber or a technology wizard with the next great idea, all of us — every single one of us — are where we are today because somewhere along the way we were fortunate enough to have a teacher who inspired us, a teacher who understood, usually before we did ourselves, that we could be more. Equally important, as our province looks to build its future, we all recognize that we cannot do it without the great teachers and a modernized education system that understand the world of change we are in and the new realities that face us and our children in the months and years ahead.

Like every member — that's right; every member — in this House, I want the best for our children. I want great teachers and a great school system that works. I want an education system that encourages kids to push their boundaries, to stretch their limits and to see just how much more they can be as individuals and as citizens.

It's in our schools that B.C. is building its future, because the students leaving our schools today will be tomorrow's leaders in business, in the arts, in science, in sport and in community service. Whether you are a B.C. Liberal or a New Democrat, whether you are a teacher or a parent or both, whether you live in a big city or a small rural community, all of us want our children and grandchildren to come first, and we have agreed on that.

For me, that fundamental fact should help us transcend our differences. If we do not do right by our children, we will fail them. If we do not prepare them to tackle the future with optimism and the right tools to do the job, we fail them. If we hide from the realities of a competitive and challenging world, we fail them. None of us wants that.

[1710]

As a parent first and a politician second, I worry that when the rhetoric becomes too loud and the discussion that dominates us is about the adults instead of the kids. I worry when the voices are raised because mostly it means we're not listening to each other anymore. At that point, as every husband and wife knows, it's time to dial it down a notch or two. All too often in these volatile situations we say things in the heat of the moment that we can't take back. That's why I support the bill, particularly the cooling-off period this legislation provides.

Our children are watching. They are watching as we adults wrestle with an issue that ultimately impacts all of our children. How we behave, how we debate and how we come to a resolution will stay with them throughout their lives. At home when my children were younger, I used to remind my husband that the walls have ears. That little kitchen truism is just as applicable here in the House as it is in every other house in the province.

In the 2½ years I've been here, both sides have spoken at length about education, but in my opinion, we mostly have not had a real debate on the issues that really matter. It's not enough that we discuss who controls education or how much money we allot to the ministry. I also have to say that today, actually, was the first time that I ever really felt that we talked about education — both the minister and the critic. I must say that I enjoyed the conversation and learned a great deal.

When I look at the world in front of our children, I know that as legislators, parents and children, we really do need to spend this time to get to the bottom of the issue of getting the education system right. That is the real bottom line for every parent in this province.

Talking today and hearing about special needs students, how we have or have not accommodated special needs students well, I think, is a fundamental question. I think that it is a work in progress. I am not sure we will get to where we need to be immediately, but I do think that we are starting to talk about what really matters about it.

I'll just tell you a small story about labelling because I think it's very, very important. Some of the issues that were raised about labelling are fundamental. Every person that has had a personal experience around labelling, either themselves or their child or a sibling or a friend….

I usually don't talk about my children because they'd kill me if I did. But without naming names, I do remember when one of my children got into the car one day in grade school and was especially frustrated and said, "You know, Mom, maybe I'm not gifted; maybe I'm special." At that point I knew that we'd hit the wall, that it's not useful to do things exactly the way we're doing.

So I do hope that as part of this legislation, after the cooling-off period, we can really dig into this important issue more.

No member on either side of the House would argue the importance of teachers or question how hard their job is. For most teachers, their work is not confined at all to the walls of their classroom. Like my mother, their days start in the early hours of the morning drafting lesson plans and end late at night marking a student's work. Their free time is often spent honing their professional skills, developing their skills so they can meet the needs
[ Page 9660 ]
of their students.

Equally important, they play a crucial role in the development of our children. We all know — it's probably even more true for parents in this House — quite often teachers spend as much or more time with our children as we do.

This legislation is about ending, I hope, a stalemate that has unfortunately become a 40-year tradition, regardless of who is in government. The inability for government and the teachers union to negotiate a contract is not a new phenomenon. Nearly every government since the days of W.A.C. Bennett has reached some form of impasse with the teachers union. The NDP legislated teachers back to work twice in the 1990s. We all know this.

After 40 years of mistrust between the BCTF and the government of all political stripes, the ones who continually suffer are the people that we claim to be fighting for. Of course, that's the students. The dysfunctional relationship is reflected in the fact that in working with various unions….

Currently, I would say our government has managed to reach 130 agreements under the current net zero mandate. Yet after more than 75 negotiating sessions, we've not achieved anything close to a compromise.

The Minister of Finance has made it clear that we are not prepared to increase debt for wages in the public sector. I do believe that this is the decision that the majority of British Columbians would make themselves as individuals at this time.

[1715]

It's also clear the paradigm we used to negotiate with the education sector is not working. Collective bargaining is important and has a place in this process. Constructive friction is an important ingredient for systemic change. But after so many bargaining sessions have resulted in an impasse, I do think we have to move forward to preserve what's left of the school year.

You have heard the minister tell stories about negative impacts on individual students. It's already March, so many students will be writing their provincial exams, for example, and are anxious about sending their marks to colleges and universities. It's really imperative that our collective failure to come to a consensus does not affect their ability to complete their studies successfully. This is their future, and right now it is being drowned out by rhetoric, dogma and ideological differences that, frankly, often have nothing or little to do with education or great teaching or learning.

Despite the public relations battle, this legislation is definitely not the worst outcome imaginable, at least not for students. This bill attempts to provide a respectful exit from negotiations for both sides so that we can regroup once the anger and frustration have subsided. It's time for everyone to step back and take a deep breath.

Our country's education system is consistently ranked among the top five in the world. It's a designation we have all worked hard to earn and don't want to lose. What needs to happen now is paramount to B.C.'s future education sector and the great standing we enjoy worldwide.

Everyone has talked about the fact that we do have a good education system, that it's not perfect and that it will always be a work in progress. But the top rankings from the OECD speak to equity, the educational equity that students enjoy in Canada and British Columbia and how fundamental that is to our value as Canadians and our success.

I think we also need to start to talk about, as my colleague across has talked about, how the top 40 percent tend to do well regardless and we need to be watching the bottom 60 percent. That's true. I also think we have to start to talk about the top 5 to 10 percent and putting resources into them.

I've talked about this before, and I know that it sometimes grates against our values about equity and sounds like elitism. But honestly, I do think that the future will be created by our best and brightest and that we do need to think about how we recognize them and help them own the podium, because they will be the creators of our futures and jobs in the future.

Ultimately, I think today what this is about is changing the way both sides bargain and deal with one another. It does not mean that we agree with every demand. It does not mean that we concede every counter-offer. But we really do have to frame our negotiations around respect for all stakeholders, and our mindsets do have to change. For government, the end result always has to be what's best for the students. Finding ways to make sure every student gets the support they need must come first, and negotiations for other things have to come second.

I do want to talk about how difficult I think it is — and I want to recognize it — working in the public sector. Many of the frustrations expressed by teachers are frustrations that I've felt practising medicine. When you feel that you are being unfairly treated and you get into negotiations and actions, the reality is that your actions don't affect the people you want to affect. They don't affect government; they affect students or patients.

This is one of the facts about delivering a public good that puts teachers and health care providers, for example, in an unusual position. I do think it's worth talking about, because other employees have different levers with their employers that people who provide public goods just don't have.

I refer back to the quote from a teacher that he read that talks about: "I need to be listened to." This is one of the things that made me go into politics. I felt I knew something that was worthwhile to the system, and I want to make sure that we think about how teachers, who are outstanding, talk about what they know and how they think things can be better for the students. How do they talk to government? How do they influence decisions?

It's fundamental to what, I hope, this cooling-off per-
[ Page 9661 ]
iod will be and how we can perhaps move forward after the bill is passed and a mediator is passed to facilitate bargaining. I am hopeful the mediator will be able not just to help both parties to a settlement but to help change the tone and tenor of how we talk about education to each other and among ourselves.

[1720]

I believe the talks have to be based around mutual respect, not just for the people negotiating but for the people the negotiations affect.

Today we live in the reality of the 21st century, but when it comes to this negotiation and our relationships in the education world in B.C., it seems we're stuck in the 20th century labour-management model, and unless we adapt to changes around the world and here in B.C. in education and in the development of children, we're going to fall behind.

I believe that although we've started to talk about some important issues, they're still tactics. I believe there will be radical education changes all over the world. How education is viewed, how it's delivered, where it's delivered and by whom is going to be radically altered in the next ten or 15 years. We have to start talking about outcomes, because the truth is there are new ways of teaching. We are discovering new ways about learning, and we have got to be prepared to move from what I think is still ultimately very traditional ways of learning. I think we can surprise ourselves.

Finally, I think how I view that education will have to be reorganized has to do with what we have learned about people and educational techniques. I think that this government has done some good and progressive things around education that start to regroup how we think about it. I think that K-to-12 is a completely outdated view of education. The fact is that we need to look at it from pre-zero, pre-birth, to 16 or 24 if we're going to remain a First World country.

We've learned about the importance of brain development, and I do think that the policies we've brought in, including StrongStart, including all-day kindergarten, acknowledge that we understand the importance of the science of brain development and how fundamentally front-end-loading brain development is essential for success. Secondly, I think the next stage from grade 4 to grade 8 is about life skills and vocation. And finally, the last four to eight years is about learning a vocation that will help you make money and support yourselves and contribute to society.

I think those ideas are things that have come and are in the public arena now, and when we come here and talk about K-to-12 and class size and composition, we are very much talking about an old paradigm. I'm hopeful that once the bill is passed and a mediator is appointed, we'll, as I say, begin to change the conversation in ways that can excite teachers and students — including us.

So I am supporting Bill 22. It does extend the previous collective agreement to cover the mediation period. I believe that's the most responsible way to address the situation we find ourselves in. It does not mark the end of talks. The government is committed to our education system, and it is committed to system change. That's why we have put in the $165 million learning improvement fund to make a noticeable improvement in teachers' working conditions.

I do not believe there would be support for increases in the range of 15 percent in the current climate, especially since teachers are coming off a larger increase during a period when other public sectors did not receive the same lift. The reality is, again, that under the 2010 net zero mandate, agreements have been made with 75 percent of the 300,000 unionized public sector employees in our province.

People do understand, despite the rhetoric, that we are in unique times, and as I said, I do believe the majority of British Columbians accept this in these times. This fact shows that contracts can be accomplished. I do believe that the leadership of the teachers' unions have to know this and that their union is not immune from this reality.

When I stand back and put on my parent hat, I'm disappointed by what I've seen over the past few weeks and months. The fact is that in recent years the single biggest topic of conversation around education is often not about education at all.

I do believe we can rearrange our priorities. If we spent this much time talking about how to make our education system better, more effective, more proactive, more successful and more relevant to the 21st century, we would all be better off and our kids would be the big winners.

[1725]

I will wind up, and I want to end by repeating my comment: the walls have ears. Across British Columbia, students are watching and waiting to see what we will do. In our school yards we preach patience and inclusion and working things out with our heads and not our fists. Students and parents are waiting to see how government and the teachers' union will resolve this stalemate that risks the education of our children.

The walls do have ears, and both sides will be judged by what we do next. That's why I believe this bill can work to turn down the rhetoric that has become a substitute for reasoned debate and discussion. Step back, and as your kids and my kids say: "Chill out." Take the time that's needed to put students and their parents first.

Someone has to be the adult in the room, and this bill does that by turning down the heat and exposing the daily drama for what it is, all in the hope that cooler heads will prevail at a time when so much is at stake.

N. Macdonald: The previous speaker touched on the need to cool things down. I think that one would accept that she is sincere in saying that, but it's pretty clear from what we saw earlier in the week that that's not the
[ Page 9662 ]
Premier's game plan — right?

We were here in question period where the whole premise of her participation in question period was to ratchet up and make this issue more divisive. While it may be that member's intention — I don't doubt it — it is certainly not the official intention of the Premier or government. I mean, there is a tremendous amount of politics that overlays what is going on here.

Look, ultimately we have to be clear. The responsibility for stability in the B.C. education system sits with this government, with the B.C. Liberals. That is their responsibility. There are predictable consequences to government actions.

The genesis of this bill sits with Bills 28 and 27. That was back in 2002 when the current Premier was Minister of Education. We saw, over what I believe was a weekend, the breaking of contracts that have led us to this place. The previous speaker and the minister and others have spoken about respect, but at its core this government began its term, its decade in office, with anything put respect for teachers.

There was a promise before 2001 that this government would retain funding for education, that it would honour contracts, but given the first opportunity they did the exact opposite. So they promised they would not break contracts, and in 2002 you have Bills 27 and 28 where contracts are stripped. Then they come here and say: "Well, we have to have respect now." Well, respect begins with this government acting in a respectful way. Over the past ten years, repeatedly, they have chosen not to do that.

Bill 22, then, is essentially government's response to a B.C. Supreme Court ruling in April of 2011 that went against the B.C. Liberals. It said that Bill 28 from 2002 was unconstitutional. They ruled in favour of the teachers' position that the stripping of their contracts was something that government did not have the right to do. It took a long time to get that ruling, tremendous effort. At every juncture of that journey, this government fought them. So to come here and talk about respect…. Well, you'd have to give some evidence of respect, and certainly, we haven't seen it.

It's my intention to vote against this bill. There is no question. Bill 22 makes classroom conditions and learning conditions even worse. That's wrong. That should not be supported by members of this House. Bill 22 undermines collective bargaining again, and I reject that. So I'm going to vote against it.

I think first I'll give a context for what I am going to be speaking about. I represent an area that lost nine neighbourhood schools under the B.C. Liberals. Nine schools were closed in those first years that the B.C. Liberals took over.

[1730]

I taught for well over a decade at Golden Secondary School, so when teachers are discussed I personalize it. These are colleagues that were tremendously dedicated. And while members on the B.C. Liberal side may stand up and say nice things — and I don't doubt they're sincere — the fact is that it is actions that actually have impact on people's lives. The actions from this government have been consistently disrespectful.

As well, I was a principal at Nicholson Elementary School, so I have a view about what we ask of teachers, and I taught in Africa six years, so I know what education represents in terms of the opportunity that it can provide.

Finally, I also know the BCTF well. I was proud to be a local teacher union activist. I was a teacher's president. I was really proud of that. They provided good training.

In 2002, with Bill 28, there was actually a government member who voted against the bill because it was wrong to him. It transgressed his principles, and I still admire that. It reminds us, I think, that every vote is an individual choice, ultimately. I'm going to vote no because this, again, transgresses things that I hold dear. It is an attack, in my view, on education again.

There are three main points that I'm going to focus on. The first I have alluded to. I think Bill 22 is disrespectful to those that we entrust with our children, our teachers. I believe that we need to respect and support teachers. I actually think that all of the jobs that are done…. People need to respect what others do. Part of that respect is listening, listening to what their concerns are, and making sure that the rhetoric that we use about the importance of education is matched by action and by resources.

The second thing that I'm going to focus on is that Bill 22 degrades, further, learning conditions in our classrooms. I believe that we must do our best to give children the chance to reach their potential.

The third thing that I'll talk about is that Bill 22 undermines, again, our ability in the province to collectively negotiate wages and working conditions. I believe the right to collective bargaining and the importance of respecting contracts is critically important. That's a core belief that I have.

Those three things will be the focus for what I want to talk about. The first one is, then, respect for teachers.

I remember coming back from Africa in 2003 and going as a principal into Nicholson Elementary School. We were in the midst of the reign of the current Premier's tenure as the Minister of Education. I can tell you that from that time on, really over the past 11 years, there has been a consistent pattern of provoking teachers. They have broken contracts. They have introduced a number of half-thought-through programs that they asked teachers to try to sort out. They have failed to keep classroom learning conditions at an adequate level, and Bill 22 is another sign of that.

In spite of all that, as the critic pointed out, some great things still happen in classrooms. I mean, it is still an exceptional system — that's the truth of it — but you cannot have a government that continuously degrades the system. You cannot have a government that disregards
[ Page 9663 ]
constantly what teachers have to say. I've seen this again and again.

There was a study done recently — and I'll just digress for a moment — on BCeSIS, which was a computer system that was imposed on the education system. From the beginning teachers were pointing out the shortcomings of that system, but year after year after year that was ignored, at tremendous cost and imposing an incredible amount of work on teachers. But the government would not listen. Just like on so many other issues, they cannot listen because they do not respect the people that are actually on the ground doing the work, such as teachers.

Now, I have received a lot of e-mails lately, as many others have here. Over the years, even as an MLA, I'm at schools regularly, and of course, I was a principal as the B.C. Liberals came to power. When I became a principal — we were in school district 6 — we were assigned a mentor, an experienced principal, somebody who will provide guidance.

[1735]

I remember well the first meeting that I had with Ian Robinson. He was a friend from before, but as I became a principal, I met him in the summer. We sat, and we talked. He's a very experienced principal, very well thought of.

He asked me the question: "So what's the most important thing you think your job is? What's the most important thing?" I said: "Well, I guess, the kids — looking after the kids." He said: "No, your most important job is to look after the teachers. You look after the teachers. You make sure that they have the resources they need to do their job, and they will look after the kids. So your job, as the person who is responsible for the school, is to make sure that the teachers are resourced, that the teachers are given the opportunity to do what they do best."

It was an extremely respectful attitude towards how to be an administrator. In my experience, the organizations that have worked well have management that has that basic principle, that respect. Respect for the job that people are doing that you're responsible for is a key part of making sure that you're successful. It is a big part of why this B.C. Liberal government has been so lacking in success in education. There is a fundamental lack of respect, and that continues to this very day.

The politics behind this we saw on full display when the Premier got up in question period to an unrelated question and put in full view the political opportunism that she sees with this dispute. Respect sits at the core, and Bill 22 undermines that respect.

Look, education is incredibly important. You know, the years I spent overseas, the years that I've spent here…. I know, as the previous speaker said, that it provides the opportunity to enrich lives. It empowers people. It creates healthy societies. We all benefit from the work that has been done in the past to create a public education system that often can be the envy of the world, so education is something that we must do right.

We have to respect those that teach. That should be the starting point. The government ultimately has responsibility for doing its share in that relationship, and it has not. It has failed dramatically. Bill 22 is one more step in that failure, and it is one of the three reasons that I will vote against it.

The second is that it degrades learning conditions. Bill 28 ten years ago gutted contractual obligations related to class size and composition. Then the government used that opportunity that it provided…. This was a deliberate plan by the B.C. Liberals. They first gutted the contractual obligations, and then the funding for special education was squeezed. It was a deliberate, thought-through decision to degrade the classroom.

I look back at the debate from that period, from 2002, and the promise at the time was that there would be legislated limits. But Bill 33, which we debated in this House — it came in later — was a failure. Let's be clear. I think 12,000 or 16,000 classes that did not follow the legislated standards for classrooms in this province is a profound failure — right? Bill 33 did not work.

Now what we have with Bill 22 is that they dump the limits altogether. With special education, you have a cut in the criteria for financial support for special needs. It meant less funding, dramatically less. It meant reduced evaluations of students. You need evaluations to get the funding. You can wait a year or a year and a half for evaluations now, so that has profound impacts. And you have, with Bill 22, getting rid of any limits on class composition.

[1740]

For those that haven't taught, it might seem strange why teachers are talking about class size and composition so often, but it is a key to making sure that you are educating children properly. You have to get the right class makeup.

You have to make sure that you're doing inclusion properly. I believe in inclusion. I believe that it's incredibly important to have the full mix of society in a classroom. I think that it's good for kids. I think that if you're with children that have gone into a school system where the classes are inclusive, you will see that they have adapted tremendously to the makeup of the class. They can adapt, but to be fair to all students, you have to do inclusion properly.

Classes are complex enough on their own. You always have mixed abilities, even if you have no special needs students. You often have different language abilities. Very often second languages are a factor in British Columbia. And you have hunger issues. You do have poverty issues that you ask teachers to deal with. Even classes that are of a regular size or a functional size, even classes that have no special needs students still have incredible complexities that we ask the teacher to deal with.

Now, when a student is identified as a special needs student, which is the term that is used, it requires, then,
[ Page 9664 ]
an individualized education plan, an IEP. If a student is identified, there is funding that comes with that student to the school, and the expectation is — and it does happen — that there will be an individualized education plan.

Let's just make sure that members understand what that means. Remember, what this legislation proposes is that there can be an unlimited number of identified special needs students in a classroom. So when you come into the classroom and you prepare, you are doing a lesson plan for the class as a whole. That means that you're writing out for that hour, if you're a secondary teacher, in detail what your objectives are, a list of the materials you need and then how you're going to evaluate. So you lay out the hour, and you better have it organized.

My father was a teacher, but even the most experienced teacher does not go into a class without a lesson plan. So you've prepared that, and you've also done your work getting the materials ready. Then following that, if you have students that need special preparation, you have an individualized lesson plan for the one special needs student. If you have two, then you have another one. When you have three, you could be planning three or four different modifications of a lesson.

All of that preparation needs to be done — right? It all takes time, and there are physical limitations on how much that you can do. It is dependent, as well, on support. I can remember teaching a student with Asperger's. It is a complex thing to teach somebody with that special need, so you need the support. Otherwise, to try to teach the whole class and meaningfully teach everyone in it, you need to have planned for it. You need to make sure that you have the support.

Too often we put teachers in an impossible situation. Like, in a secondary school you can go from law 12 to English 9 to socials 8 to socials 10 and back to socials 9. That's your day. Those are the five classes of the day, each of those with the same level of preparation. If even one of those classes is unmanageable….

When you get your letters…. Look at the e-mails. If one of those classes is unmanageable or you walk out feeling that you haven't done a good job, it is brutal. It is demoralizing. You feel that you've let kids down.

[1745]

There was a teacher here that I introduced just on Tuesday, I guess it was — seven special needs children in a class of 30. Now, that's not every class where she's doing that, but that is a tremendously complex job that you're asking somebody to do. We shouldn't fool ourselves that we are meeting the needs of those children when we set up that scenario.

When the minister talks about his justification for getting rid of special needs limits, he characterizes it in a way that makes no sense at all. What usually happens when you have a limit is that it gives the teacher some power to start the discussion about what the class is going to look like, so that the teacher can insist that it is a workable class.

It doesn't mean that there are not going to be seven special needs students in a class, necessarily. Maybe if you're doing choir, that's what you want — right? Maybe if you're doing art, you can do it, but you get to work out: "How am I going to be supported? How do I make sure that that class is going to work?"

What Bill 22 does is gets rid of that. I guarantee you that what this will do is make it more difficult for teachers to properly teach their kids. It will make their job more miserable, but more important than that, it will rob students of the opportunity to learn and to meet their potential in the way that they should.

I had a letter from an elementary teacher. This was a primary teacher of all-day kindergarten, which is a great idea. I'm fully supportive of it. This teacher was looking forward to it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

"We wait, because of funding, for the opportunity to test. We wait for that opportunity." What happens is that…. The letter from the teacher speaks about it. You had a very experienced teacher doing all-day kindergarten where they had five special needs students. She actually uses the term "students with special rights," which I like. I've only recently heard it, but it speaks to how she feels about teaching.

You had a whole year where a brilliant teacher was made to feel inadequate because of the lack of testing and the lack of resources. She feels that she failed, when that's not at all true.

The bill says that class size and composition can be negotiated after the election in 2013. Well, if the people of B.C. place their trust in the NDP in the next election, it will not only be teachers and parents fighting for excellent learning conditions for our children, but they will be matched in commitment by an NDP Premier and an NDP government that are going to put education and skills training at the core of government priorities. I guarantee you that.

The third item is around the undermining of our rights to collectively negotiate our wages and working conditions. I referred in Bill 28 to where a member from the Liberal side stood up and recognized that that's a core value. This government's continuous undermining of that principle is something that's wrong and doesn't fit with Canadian and British Columbian values.

I've worked with unionized staff as a mayor, as a principal and now as an MLA. My constituency and legislative staff are unionized. I have been on the other side, of course. I was a local BCTF president — very proud of that — and I've benefited, as many have, from union membership.

I can tell you that collective bargaining and respect for contracts is really the main power that unionized labour
[ Page 9665 ]
has, and Bill 22 attacks that. In so doing, it attacks a lot of things that we have gained in this society because we were able to operate collectively.

[1750]

Unions have and do give individuals a voice and a standing that they wouldn't otherwise have. To be able to go with like-minded people united empowers people that otherwise would not be empowered. Unions have given us safe worksites. Unions give us fair wages. Unions push for progressive political ideas, and I think the history of Canada, the history of B.C. speaks to that.

Bill 22 takes away an important tool. That happens from time to time, but here it's done in such a cavalier and constant way. It's a pattern of behaviour, and we see it again with Bill 22.

I understood, in management positions, that I had to deal with unionized labour, and I found consistently that having to do that created balance and mutual respect. If you are entering that relationship with respect and with a search for balance, you can solve these things almost every time.

When you talk about the problems that are in the education system, you cannot avoid what happened in 2002. You cannot avoid what happened again and again over the past decade. You cannot avoid the fact that again, with this bill, we are going to make conditions in our classrooms worse, that we are again, with this bill, showing disrespect for teachers.

Now, I know that with this going on, there's a lot of attention. I had the pleasure today of being phoned by a couple of people who I tremendously respect. This House will know David Chudnovsky. It was wonderful to speak to him. He's following this. He was a former member here and a president of the BCTF. His passion for education is incredible.

Another gentleman, who some in this House may not know, is Bill King, a former Labour Minister here. What he was saying to me was that from his experience, you cannot call what this government is doing proper bargaining. He says that in the Labour Code there is an obligation for government to bargain in good faith. With Bill 22, he contends — and I think he makes a good argument for it — that there's no attempt to bargain in good faith here.

The mediation that is suggested is not mediation that in any way would be accepted in the traditional sense. When you set parameters like you set, you're not really serious about mediation; you're only serious about a spin that you can put on things, which is how this bill is constructed. Let's be honest.

I know that we're reaching the time where we need to do other business before we finish the debate. I would like to reserve my place to finish what I have to say, and I would allow the House to move to the next order of business.

Mr. Speaker: Member, you've only got three minutes left, so if you want to finish.

N. Macdonald: Well, if you'd like me to, I'd be very happy to, because what I would like to say….

Interjections.

N. Macdonald: Maybe I'll follow the example of the Minister of Education. In my final three minutes I would say this. Bill 22 is a bad piece of legislation. I intend to proudly oppose it. I intend to stand with our leader and with my fellow caucus mates and do our best to make sure that this legislation is defeated.

I think that the B.C. Liberals are clearly provoking a fight. I very much doubt their political acumen. It hasn't been very sharp in the past number of weeks, in the past number of months. But they are a desperate lot, as we saw by the Premier's performance on Tuesday.

It offends people, I think, that our public school system should be used in the way that this government is using it. It is being used as a pawn. It is a desperate time for the government. I understand that, but to use public education in this way is fundamentally wrong. A poor piece of legislation. It makes the school system worse, is disrespectful to teachers, and it undermines the core principles of the ability to collectively negotiate contracts.

N. Macdonald moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY, SPORT AND
CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.
[ Page 9666 ]

On Vote 17: ministry operations, $300,265,000.

The Chair: We are currently debating the budget estimates of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.

Do you have an opening statement, Minister?

Hon. I. Chong: With that, I would like to first of all make some introductions and, then, some opening remarks.

Firstly, to introduce my deputy minister, to my right, Don Fast; my assistant deputy minister, to my left, for local government division, Julian Paine; behind me on my left, Dave Galbraith, assistant deputy minister, arts, culture, gaming grants and sport division; and behind me to my right, George Farkas, executive financial officer and assistant deputy minister, management services division.

From time to time when we move into various parts of the ministry, if we need staff, I will ask the patience and indulgence of the committee to bring them up and introduce them at that time.

With that, I'd like to begin by saying how pleased I am to begin the Budget 2012 estimates debate for the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. I think it's fair to say, hon. Chair, that this is an important ministry, a ministry that I believe touches the entire province in that the programs and services we provide within this ministry certainly affect every community. In fact, families and communities, which are at the very heart of our economic and social health in British Columbia, will be touched by this ministry at some point, perhaps not every single month but at some point during the year.

We are concerned, of course, with creating and protecting jobs for those families that live in these communities and ensuring that those communities have strong, supporting infrastructure and effective governance. These are crucial elements for provincial sustainability. Our ministry's role is to support all British Columbians and their respective local governments in making their communities the very best possible places to live, to work and to raise a family.

Our ministry, of course, works cooperatively with local governments to meet the emerging needs of B.C.'s communities in an open and a transparent fashion. This ministry continues to focus on community infrastructure. In fact, this past year the Premier announced a $30 million community recreation program to strengthen recreational infrastructure for communities in British Columbia.

There has been tremendous response to this program, I'm happy to say, and we are looking very forward to announcing these successful projects and watching them come to fruition. This important program will support families in enjoying a more active and a more healthy lifestyle, something that I'm sure all members advocate for, and it really will help provide shared spaces in which our communities can come together.

[1435]

Our ministry is also working closely with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and with the federal government to secure ongoing infrastructure funding for local governments. In the meantime, we do continue to provide eligible local governments with accelerated small community and regional district grants, as well as the traffic fine revenue-sharing grants through our strategic community investment fund, commonly and fondly known as SCIF. SCIF, which will now continue through to 2014, allows communities to have more financial flexibility and certainty, helping to create jobs and boost the economy.

Through the distribution of community gaming grants, our ministry continues to focus on helping non-profits do the valuable work that they do to support and strengthen every community in British Columbia. This past year the Premier appointed Skip Triplett to conduct the independent community gaming grant review. I want to say that it was a review that was considered by many as an important process. It was a highly inclusive process.

With that, government was able to recently announce that we are in fact increasing permanently the annual gaming grant funding to $135 million, thereby allowing us to restore eligibility to a number of community sectors and exploring ways to streamline the application process to save community groups time and money while providing them with more certainty on which to operate.

We all know that there is only one taxpayer, and our government is committed to ensuring that that taxpayers dollars are spent in the most efficient and the most effective way possible. That is one of the reasons why we introduced last fall and will continue on to debate legislation to create and fully fund an office of the auditor general for local government.

This office will support existing open and transparent processes, act as a resource for local governments, promote best practices and, through targeted audits, encourage local governments to get value for money. As I understand it, while the legislation is still in debate, we'll be somewhat restricted in what we're able to canvass during these budget estimates.

The province continues to support both high-performance sport and participation. In fact, British Columbia was host to a number of successful sporting events in 2011, including the Western Canada Summer Games in Kamloops, which they often refer to as Canada's tournament capital, as well as the B.C. Seniors Games in the West Kootenays. Again, I was very pleased to be able to be there, in part to help celebrate those very highly successful sporting events.

In addition, the province is solidly behind Prince George as it prepares to host the Canada Winter Games in 2015. Such events promote active lifestyles and provide economic benefits to the host communities.

In 2012-13 the province will again provide more than
[ Page 9667 ]
$50 million in sport funding. In fact, since 2001 this government has invested more than $1 billion to support sport in British Columbia.

I want to, as well, speak briefly on the film and screen-based industry that our ministry has responsibility for. We continue to nurture and support British Columbia as a centre for film and television production as well as a growing hub of screen-based industry in general.

I am proud to say that our efforts have helped B.C. remain one of the leading production centres in North America. British Columbia's film production industry annually attracts hundreds of millions of dollars in investments to our economy and directly and indirectly employs more than 25,000 people. We are partnering with other provincial ministries to build new opportunities for B.C.'s screen-based businesses and services in growing markets such as Asia.

Despite challenging economic times, arts and culture funding continues to be well supported by our government through this ministry. In 2012-13 we will again spend more than $53 million on artists and arts and cultural organizations.

The B.C. Arts Council's core funding has been maintained at the second-highest level ever, helping fund arts and cultural groups, which means that British Columbia's story can be told. Therefore, we can showcase, as well, British Columbians' diverse heritage to the world. I am proud to say that as well, since 2001 our government's support for arts and culture has totalled more than $2½ billion.

The staff in our ministry work diligently to ensure that communities are well governed, with empowering, up-to-date legislation that adheres to the highest democratic principles. I'd also like to take this time to encourage those in local government, who every year amaze me with their dedication to their communities.

[1440]

I am talking about our local mayors, our councillors, regional district directors, electoral area directors and the staff who support them. Truly, they deserve recognition for their work and the dedication they have to their communities.

As members might well be aware, I too got my political start in local government — again, always well aware of the challenges faced by locally elected officials each and every day. Our ministry appreciates the tremendous work and the commitment they show to help make British Columbia a truly amazing place.

With that, I want to thank the members opposite for allowing me to provide opening remarks. I know that they have a number of questions ready for me, which I will do my certain best to answer. If there is additional information they need, as members will know, we will do our best to get that information to them.

In the event we're not able to answer absolutely everything during this session, I will commit to responding back in writing, as has been the past practice. Again, suffice to say, I'm very proud to be a part of this ministry, and I look forward to the hours of debate that are about to take place now.

H. Lali: I want to thank the minister for her introduction and her remarks that she's made. This is, since 2005, year 7 that the minister and I will be kind of softly duelling it out here. I know that the minister has had a number of responsibilities, different ministries, over the last seven years. She's probably thinking I'm following her around, but that's how the dice is rolled, actually. I end up being the critic for the minister.

I want to also thank the minister for her kind words about staff that work, actually, not only at the local government level but also her own staff, which she introduced earlier. I know they do a fine job for the public service on behalf of the people of British Columbia to make sure that their dollars are going to be spent in the most efficient way possible. So I, too, want to join the minister in thanking all of the staff.

At the same time, I want to also recognize the hard work that mayors, councillors, regional district reps and regional chairs do — and their staff, obviously. I want to thank them.

All politics are local, as the minister knows, and they are the front line in terms of representing constituents that we all share in common. It's very easy to catch a regional district rep, a mayor or a councillor in their towns. They shop at the same grocery stores and the same places to buy their clothes and the restaurants. It's very easy to get hold of local mayors, councillors and regional district reps, and they also tend to be the most accountable because of the access that people have on a day-to-day level.

I want to thank all of those folks who put forward their names. Some are successful, others are not, but everybody should be thanked for having the courage to put their name on a ballot.

As critic for community and rural development, it's my job to also keep an eye on things in terms of how the government is spending, and the minister and the ministry — the tax dollars that people send to Victoria. At the same time, if there are any areas that we can propose some alternate solutions for, that's also a role of the critic. We can do that, and we'll probably do that in the next day or two. I don't think we'll be going for more than a few hours today and then on Monday.

For the minister's benefit and the staff that are sitting here, I just want to point out that my hon. colleague from Vancouver–West End is going to start off with the tourism, culture and arts file. I imagine the staff are here? The gentle nod. Yes.

Then afterwards my colleague from Delta North will talk about the support file that he has — the critic area. Then we'll proceed after that to general ministry ques-
[ Page 9668 ]
tions regarding budgets, audits, contracts, advertising consultants, and Crowns and public agencies within the realm of the ministry. Then local government grants. Then taxation reviews. Then auditor general for local government, and we'll finish off with gaming grants as well. There's also the Provincial Capital Commission.

[1445]

We'll have some other members who will follow suit after us. They'll take their turn on behalf of their constituents, but I would like at this point to turn the microphone over to my colleague from Vancouver–West End, who is the critic for tourism, culture and arts.

S. Chandra Herbert: I had hoped to address a small city issue — I think there was a slight change there; University Endowment Lands — before I get into tourism, culture and the arts. It's a smaller file, and the flow will be better if I can do this local government issue first, if that's okay with the minister. I understand there may have been some shuffling of chairs over there.

I will try to approach these estimates without giving long speeches. The minister knows where I stand on arts and culture and the need to invest in it. I don't think our province has properly understood the role of the creative economy. But I'll try to get to those points through questions as opposed to just long speeches. And I understand the minister, through previous estimates, likes to give concise answers, too, so that we can get through these in a faster way and get to more questions so the people of our province get more information.

On the University Endowment Lands, electoral area A, I understand that the minister has been written about this issue as far back as last June and was written about this again in January by the area's representative Maria Harris as well from constituents in that area, constituents of the member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

It falls in the rubric here of questioning about legislation, about what the minister is doing to ensure that those residents, the 12,000 residents of that area, are no longer in the position of taxation without representation as it pertains to TransLink. My question to the minister is: within this budget year, is the minister going to follow through on the request for a voice and vote at the Mayors Council in the region of Metro Vancouver?

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to quickly introduce Gary Paget, senior adviser, local government, who has joined me here with this particular question.

For the benefit of the member, it was about 2010, and that was the brief time that I wasn't minister. I understand that there were discussions that did take place in the fall of 2010. They were conducted by the then deputy minister Dale Wall as well as with Grant Main, who was also deputy minister for a short time.

There were, I guess, discussions, meetings that were held with the University Neighbourhoods Association. There were also some meetings held with the students, the Alma Mater Society, as I understand it, the UEL Community Advisory Council and the UBC board of governors.

The conclusion was, at that time, perhaps…. It may not have been unanimous, but I guess, as a result of a number of discussions, that there was generally satisfaction with respect to the status quo and recognition of certain issues. I'm sure the member has been apprised of those issues. But at that time there appeared to be no urgency with respect to governance, in terms of making a direct decision.

[1450]

As a result, the commitment was to continue to work with the ministry with respect to self-government, if that were to continue on. Because all the groups, as I have indicated, as I understand it, had some good discussions — but again, no urgency to it — the ministry advised that we would not be imposing solutions if they came to an agreement. Obviously, with respect to the residents of UBC and UEL, we would certainly, as the ministry, work with them on that. So it's not a question of not listening or hearing.

There have been meetings — perhaps just have not progressed to a point where the majority of all the representative groups have came to a conclusion on what they would like to do. I can tell the member that in my previous time in this ministry I have had meetings, as well, and I know it comes up from time to time. But after meetings it always goes back, and everyone is still not exactly sure what they want as the ultimate decision.

S. Chandra Herbert: I thank the minister for her answer. I think she may have been answering a question that I didn't quite ask, and maybe I wasn't clear enough in the question I asked. I understand Metro Vancouver is undergoing potential consultation, potential work in the area of self-government for that area, for the University Endowment Lands and for UBC.

The specific question I had was regarding TransLink. These folks pay taxes. They pay taxes that go to transit. The Mayors Council, which is made up, as the minister knows, of mayors throughout the region — from very tiny communities like Anmore and Belcarra to Bowen Island to a larger area which actually does not have vote, which is University Endowment Lands and UBC.

The Mayors Council, I'm told — I think it was unanimous — invited the electoral area A representative to be on the Mayors Council, but they were not able to actually allow her to have vote. She could speak, but she could not actually have a vote to represent those people on crucial decisions that affect them regarding transportation.

Of course, the minister will know that this is a big question right now, with questions of expanding down Broadway. The transit system out there is oversubscribed and then some. A letter was written to the minister in June last year. There was no real response. There was an-
[ Page 9669 ]
other letter sent in January of this year. So far, the minister, to my knowledge, has not responded.

It would require a legislative change. The minister did bring a miscellaneous bill to the House last fall, which is made up of amendments to a number of acts. My understanding is that bill could have included that change so that those 12,000 residents actually have representation when they have taxation placed on them.

My question is: what is the holdup? You know, I have personal concerns with how TransLink and the Mayors Council is set up currently, but in the meantime, while those wider conversations happen, would the minister agree that those area residents deserve representation when they are taxed in relation to transit?

Hon. I. Chong: I apologize if I misunderstand the direct question that the member was asking. He is requesting, as I understand it, to have a representative from the electoral area A, the endowment lands, on the board of TransLink.

TransLink has its own piece of legislation that I understand makes a determination, but the TransLink legislation dealing with Mayors Council is under the authority of the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, and if there were to be legislative changes, that would be the minister he would need to canvass this with.

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate the answer. I had assumed, given it was around local democracy, that it would come to this minister, who represents that concern. But I understand that this is a transportation issue.

Will the minister raise this issue with the Minister of Transportation for a solution, given that it is about local democracy and people having representation when they face taxation?

Hon. I. Chong: No problem with respect to ensuring that the Ministry of Transportation is aware. I'm certain his staff, who monitor estimates, will know that this issue has arisen and be prepared for the question. But again, sometimes I know it's confusing.

[1455]

You have responsibility for local governments, but not every piece of legislation that affects local government is with the minister of local governments. This is one of those situations where the authority that he is looking for does rest in another minister's area of responsibility. Certainly, I have no qualms about providing the minister with the information that the member is looking for, for consideration.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thanks to the minister for that question. For that answer. There is an actual answer period in the Legislature too.

My next question is in relation to election financing. There has been a concern raised from my city council, Vancouver city council, for a number of years now requesting that the minister give it, through the Vancouver Charter, I would assume, the power to set its own electoral finance scheme.

They want to ban corporate and union donations from Vancouver elections, as well as donations from foreign parties. I understand it was not in the report the minister and the elections committee that studied this issue looked at. It is a very big issue in Vancouver. It receives widespread support.

My question to the minister is: what were the reasons why they chose not to do that? Would she reconsider, given that this is such a big issue in Vancouver?

Hon. I. Chong: Thank you to the member. He will recall and, I know, other members will recall that there was fairly extensive work done by the Local Government Elections Task Force. A number of recommendations that came forward, we had hoped, would be available for the 2011 local government elections.

Unfortunately, due to timing we were not able to bring those forward — not timing, for lack of it, but because so many of the changes were going to affect the Elections B.C. office. Because they were going to have a greater role, we were advised that Elections B.C. was just not able to accommodate looking at legislative changes.

As the member will know, they were in the midst of something that we call recall a little while ago, and I was very much engaged in that process. They advised, as I said, that their time had been consumed by that, and they could not entertain looking at new legislation that they would be involved in.

As a consequence — I know it was a disappointment to many — we were not able to bring those changes in. But the commitment has been and will continue to be that we will bring in the changes that the task force had recommended in time for the 2014 local government elections. In 2014 those local government election changes will include things that pertain to campaign finances and the role that takes.

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

My understanding is that during the discussions that the task force had, they talked about limits, they talked about disclosure and a number of things. They did not get specifically into what it constitutes or what is necessarily eligible or should not be eligible. That was not a direct part of the recommendation, as I understand it. And again, I apologize. I was not part of those discussions, as I don't know whether the member had heard directly. That's the first part of the clarification I want to make.

Secondly, while Vancouver has its own charter and may feel that whatever changes we'd put in place could be specifically for Vancouver, this is not necessarily the best route to take. The objective of having local elections
[ Page 9670 ]
be consistent, fairly and equitably applied around the province, is what we would like to maintain. The mere fact that a municipality has its own charter doesn't automatically provide that municipality with having other rights, other changes that every other municipality does not have.

So while I can appreciate that a member representing Vancouver would like to bring those forward, for the charter in particular, it would not be wise or fair and equitable in particular to allow Vancouver to have more say in how local elections are held, versus other municipalities around the province.

[1500]

S. Chandra Herbert: I thank the minister for her answer. It will obviously come as a disappointment to Vancouver, given that Vancouver elections are very different than elections that might take place in Oak Bay or Sooke or any other part of the community, in the sense of money.

They are very expensive elections, as we saw in this last election. Huge amounts of corporate and union donations go into them. Our citizens feel very concerned that their voices and their ability to change things can be overly influenced by people with large amounts of money or, I guess I should say, by businesses and unions with large amounts of money. I share that concern.

When a local election in Vancouver can get close to the cost of a provincial election, which is what we see in terms of the costs of donations, the amount of donations and the amount of expenses, I think that should all give us pause and cause for concern. I will continue to see what can be done about this issue, and I thank the minister for her answer on that question.

If I could move now to the film file, that would be great. I don't know if any rearrangements are required over there.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: Okay, thank you. Then I will continue on.

I know there have been a great number of shifts of ministers, so I appreciate the minister's attention and focus on this and that she did refer to the industry in her remarks. I think it's four, maybe five ministers in the time that I've been critic, which is actually a short time, so it is a challenge.

I know the minister referred to the film industry and pride in the industry as still being one of the great industries in B.C. and one of the great film centres in all of North America. The latest figures out of Ontario seem to confirm that we have now gone from the third-biggest film centre in North America to the fourth, as growth in Ontario has increased and as we have had declines in a number of sectors here in B.C.

My specific question is on the domestic film industry in B.C., so local producers. We used to get somewhere in the ballpark of about $400 million worth of business. That was in 2007-2008. We're now down to maybe $250 million, approximately. I'm not going to quote the exact statistics, but an approximate decline of $150 million.

My question to the minister is: what is her government doing to turn that around, given that those are losses in local jobs and that it makes the industry less sustainable?

Hon. I. Chong: I would just like to acknowledge to the member for Vancouver–West End that I appreciate his patience in having dealt with a number of ministers responsible for this file. I know it has been quite a challenging process.

[1505]

Having said that, I don't want him or his colleagues to feel that the film industry is not an important sector, not an important industry for British Columbia. It always has been and will continue to be because of the value-added aspects of it.

I want to say, as well, that I've had an opportunity to visit a number of film productions that took place in Vancouver — in particular, a number of sets. I've gone to the post-production studios, making a very concerted effort to understand some of the challenges they have and the additional indirect services they supply in our communities, which sometimes we do forget about. I know the member is well aware of that. I understand from his background that he was very engaged with it and has very close friends in the film industry.

Having said that, I do want to say that we provide $1 million annually to the B.C. Film and Media group where they specifically use those dollars to help market and deal with our domestic film.

The tax credits that we offer. Of about $200 million of tax credits that are offered, I would say about a quarter of that, over $50 million of that, does relate directly to the domestic film industry.

I know that it's difficult when you see Ontario pulling ahead. We were able to, for quite a long period of time, make the claim that we were only behind New York and Los Angeles, but at the same time Ontario was really on our heels. It was only a matter of time, whether just by virtue of its location or the contacts or the people that it has, that it was going to either equal or surpass us. That is happening, I know, but that's not to say that they have surpassed us by much. I am hopeful that we are going to be edging ahead of each other over the next little while.

They traditionally do well in Ontario because that is where the broadcasters are located. That's why it will always be difficult to compete. Having said that, we will always try to compete to get those dollars here in British Columbia.

We do better and fare better on the foreign side. Again, we have maintained our tax credits. That is an import-
[ Page 9671 ]
ant aspect. We do provide, as I say, $1 million funding to B.C. Film and Media. We will continue to work with the industry.

My involvement and my presence at a number of their sites and locations, I hope, is a very strong indication to them, as a minister, that we do take their industry very seriously. I know there is more we can do, which I will be doing over the course of the next year.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate the personal care that she's expressed for the industry and that she is touring sites. It's not her fault that I've asked the same question to all of her previous ministers and received pretty much the same answer, while the industry for the domestic side has gone down. So it is a concern that the same response is being given to a problem, and that same response has not worked.

I've put forward a couple of ideas previously, and I know the industry has as well, around the possibility of an intellectual property development fund, which could be repayable. It could be in a loan form if that was something that the minister would consider. It's certainly something that the industry is interested in, so they can retain the royalties that often are created through their intellectual property.

Unfortunately, the situation exists in a number of cases where they will come up with a great idea, a great concept, and then in order to get it to market they have to sell all rights to that product. They do not retain those rights, so they do not get the royalties. They are not able to build up their own stake. They're not able to grow their own company, and somebody from somewhere else gets to profit off those ideas, and that continues. So we're not able to build up the sustainability of that domestic sector.

I also hear that impacts our post-production facilities, which the minister said she has toured, and they, too, have concerns given how hard hit our domestic sector has been.

Are there any ideas around an intellectual property development fund? Maybe a tax break for TV pilots, or other concepts like that, that might better support the domestic sector?

[1510]

Hon. I. Chong: As well, in my response I should have expressed the fact that government does provide funding still to a number of regional film commissions — about $275,000 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but because it is dispersed through a number — I think over a dozen of these film commissions…. I have met with a number of them. They do an incredible amount of work, again, trying to secure more production, whether foreign or domestic. That is still available and, I believe, working well.

The member raises an interesting concept. I apologize, as well, that he has had to bring it forward to a number of ministers in the past with respect to looking at royalties and such. The member will know that oftentimes where there are those ideas, where there are cost associations and fiscal impact, they do need to be taken into consideration with respect to the entire fiscal plan.

The Ministry of Finance would be the lead ministry in that regard, as to whether or not there is fiscal room to provide for yet another form of tax credit. I mentioned that we already have our $200 million tax credit allowed for the film industry. That is, at least, still in place as opposed to having changes made to that.

The issue, though, that I think he does raise, which is an important one and which I would say is something that is not lost on this side of the House, is with regard to the intellectual property aspect, the intellectual property fund. That, too, it's my understanding, has been raised with the Ministry of Finance officials. Again, it is another one of those ideas that is being looked at, at this time. As a result of the budget that was just tabled, it was not able to be included.

I don't believe that those conversations are over. They continue. Our staff continue to have them with the Finance Ministry staff and analysts. We will continue to do that. I can assure the member of that. Should that be a possibility, certainly we would see it in a future budget. But as he knows, the budget just tabled did not have the fiscal room for that.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess the question coming out of that answer is the $200 million or the tax credits that the minister cited as a cost. The industry sees that not as a cost, in the sense that that money wouldn't be spent if there were no jobs. That money wouldn't be spent, so to speak, if the industry didn't exist.

The argument they make is that that is a tax credit in the sense that if they spend money on jobs, they get a bit of it back. It's not in the sense of a direct investment, giving them $200 million so they can create jobs. They have to create jobs. They have to pay those people salaries, pay taxes and those kinds of things, and then they get a tax credit back.

I'm just wondering if the minister might be able to explain if the government sees that as a direct cost. Or is that, in fact, a rebate of paid taxes?

Hon. I. Chong: I think the member will know that anytime we take a look at initiatives such as tax credits, tax rebates, oftentimes they are designed to be so that, as a result of dollars invested by particular industries and sectors, there is a return. So in that respect, it is a refundable tax credit. There are dollars that are provided back. I would say it's a partnership more than anything, in terms of cost-sharing, to ensure that an industry such as the film industry can continue on.

While I, again, can appreciate the member's enthusiasm to see that perhaps grow or be more significant, I'm very pleased with the fact that we are still able to offer that
[ Page 9672 ]
tax credit. I can assure the member that there is no end of requests from various sectors that would also like new kinds of credits offered to them, regardless of what other industry they are. The fact that we were able to maintain it I do see as a good sign. Again, I would characterize it as a partnership of investment dollars — a good partnership that works well with the industry.

S. Chandra Herbert: I think a partnership also requires us to look long term to study the partnership, to study incentives. As the minister will know, given her background, sometimes when you put a little bit out, you get a lot more back in return, which then allows us to pay for health care, education, etc.

[1515]

I would argue that the creative sector — we have not done that effectively in government. That has not been a priority for a number of years. I think it does need to be looked at with a much bigger focus. We can dig stuff out of the ground, and we can chop stuff down. That has provided, certainly, a lot of jobs and resources for the provincial treasury.

I think we need to use our creativity and what's in our heads more often. Certainly, the film sector, digital media, B.C. Film — which has had budget cuts over years which, I think, has made it more difficult for it to do its job, arguably. I don't think it has really been studied under any long-term vision. It's been a kind of reactive strategy for culture and creativity for a number of years.

On the film side, I think the minister will note, where I'm interested in is: we need to find that spot where we can be competitive, where we can attract more business but grow our own domestic industry as well.

A question that I've asked a number of ministers is…. There is often a fight between provinces to attract business. Increase tax incentives, and somebody else increases theirs, and on and on you go. I've often wondered why we don't approach this from a more national approach in terms of communicating with other provinces and saying: "Listen, we don't need to cut each other's throats to get the business here."

Why don't we approach this in terms of a national approach too? Does the minister have any thoughts on that? Is that something she will bring up with her colleagues across the country?

Hon. I. Chong: I think you will be pleased to hear that in fact there is a discussion that is taking place with my staff in terms of a national dialogue. That is occurring. Once that takes place, I'll know whether that produces any opportunity to then meet with ministers. I think that dialogue is currently happening at the staff level.

I want to, though, share with the member that…. He referenced Ontario, and of course, they're the ones that are clamouring to get the lion's share of business. While they have exceeded British Columbia in terms of where they are in terms of production, I do want to say that British Columbia has still increased the sector over last year.

Both British Columbia and Ontario have seen an increase over last year. It's just that Ontario's increase was larger, which is what allowed them to gain ground on us. What we hope to achieve, though, is to not be chasing each other on a constant basis.

I've met with people in the film industry, had a very honest and open discussion with them and very clearly said: "Is the best solution to rush to the bottom line? Because then we're chasing each other all the time." They would argue that that is not the best solution. So a national dialogue, absolutely, I think would be a good way to start. I'm pleased to hear that staff is having that conversation.

At the end of the day, if we can just say that Canada is a good place to have film and share that amongst the provinces…. As long as each year we all agree and see increases, whether we're first or second spot should not matter as much as the fact that we're all increasing. From that perspective, I'm happy that British Columbia has seen an increase over last year. If we can continue to do that, I think Canada will continue to be recognized as a good place for film.

S. Chandra Herbert: Just back to the B.C. base, the domestic producers. I know Ontario has the lion's share of that and has for a number of years. It has certainly increased, over the last four or five years, quite dramatically.

My question is…. I know it is argued sometimes that's where all the buyers are — the federal government, Toronto. They're all there and in Quebec. We used to have buyers in B.C. There used to be more of them here, more of their offices here, more of that there.

[1520]

I've tried to connect with the federal minister on this issue to say that we're not getting our fair share here in B.C. of the domestic market. There are Telefilm dollars. There are Canada Media Fund dollars. Ontario's share has shot up; B.C.'s share has declined. So we're not getting our appropriate resources, given our size, given our interest, given our population.

Has the minister approached the federal minister to address this issue?

Hon. I. Chong: I think, perhaps, what's important to note is the dialogue that staff are currently having. I expect that will lead to myself having a more fruitful discussion with the minister responsible — I believe it is Minister Moore — with respect to the film and the creative industry.

I think it is important to note that obviously British Columbia…. We are always at the table. Whenever there are dollars that are to be had or distributed, we're always looking to get British Columbia's fair share. That's what
[ Page 9673 ]
I will obviously continue to do.

The difficulty, as well, with different initiatives — and different schemes, I guess — developed by various jurisdictions across the country. The member raises a good point.

The time is now to have a look at what is occurring nationally and perhaps have something that is more consistent so that we are all playing from the same field, that everyone is able to, in trying to procure their relative share, do so based on things that are more obvious in terms of time zones and things like our natural viewscapes, as opposed to chasing the dollar, which is, I think, not necessarily the most productive or the most successful approach to take.

I will commit, after we receive more information back from staff in terms of the dialogue taking place nationally — where we're able to take that at a future federal-provincial-territorial ministers meeting. I'm sure it would be an issue that we could raise to see if we can get to a more logical, regional and national perspective, to allow every province to find its way to receive what they feel is their fair share. Obviously, there will be disagreement on that as well.

Currently I know that there is fluctuation. Some years we do better than others. It is important to be able to not focus our energy on, as I say, chasing each other but actually having an initiative in place that works well with all provinces to, again, as I said, make Canada a great place for film.

S. Chandra Herbert: I think B.C. should do better than we are. I understand there are fluctuations, obviously, but the trend map over the last four years has been, on the domestic side, for us to go down — quite dramatically.

I think the challenge is that that puts great stress on the post-production facilities, on the infrastructure that has been created by the private sector to support the industry. If things continue this way, a number of the folks in post-production, sound, etc., are saying that they will either go out of business or they will be forced to move. We've seen a number of B.C.-based companies already move to Ontario, and once you lose them, it is pretty hard to get them back.

[1525]

I'm questioning what the timeline is on this. I know a minister — I guess two ministers ago — said that his great focus was going to be on the domestic industry. A previous minister said it that was going to be on the domestic industry. Another minister said that it was going to be on the domestic industry. But so far, no action has been taken.

So what is the timeline? These business folks need to know if we're going to act in their best interests and the best interests of our communities who have film jobs, because Ontario is working overtime to bring them there with the Ontario Media Development Corporation.

Hon. I. Chong: I want to be somewhat cautious in not expressing the view, again, that we need to be chasing another province and everybody running to the bottom line trying to one-up each other's jurisdiction. Clearly, different provinces, different jurisdictions have different approaches.

What I want to say is that while the member raises what he believes are concerns with the domestic film market, we are doing well in another part of our creative industry, the digital media. The game and video — what we call the screen-based entertainment — is doing incredibly well.

If you take a look at the creative industry as a whole, there are some areas that we may be behind Ontario and other areas that we surpass Ontario. Yes, I would say that it would be great if we were number one in every area. But I know what's important is to continue to make improvements on where we are. That's one of the reasons why I appreciate the dialogue that my staff is having with others.

In addition to that, we may think that the B.C. jobs plan relates more to natural resource industries — like forestry, mining and agriculture. But I want to share with the member that in fact, there are opportunities in Asia as well with the film industry — an area, an opportunity, that we should not overlook or undervalue or underestimate. Even some very brief discussions I've had with people in the creative industry in Vancouver have indicated that they were very optimistically looking towards Asia as an area. So the importance is to diversify, to find where our dollars can do the very best to create jobs back home here in B.C.

The member will know that we've recently opened a new film studio and school at Capilano University. We want to take advantage of the fact that we will be having people being educated, skilled and trained through that university and staying in Canada — obviously, in British Columbia — to help this industry grow.

I again say that we will work with our counterparts to ensure that British Columbia can get a good portion of the film industry's productivity here in British Columbia. Will we always be number one? We would hope so. But if not, we have to take a look at all the advantages we have, all the areas that we have in the creative industry and make sure that we continue to maintain a good standing and maintain the ability for people to have good jobs, particularly not in Vancouver but through the entire province. But I know he represents Vancouver.

I just want to say that absolutely, we are going to continue to work on that. Timelines are difficult to provide because these are ongoing dialogues, and while these are happening, we continue to take a look at other opportunities, certainly beyond our borders.

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate the reference to Capilano, and I think it's certainly a place that I've heard
[ Page 9674 ]
the students are excited about and the industry is interested in.

[1530]

However, the concern that I've heard from film studio heads, from small film company heads, from digital media company heads is that we will train the people, subsidize their education, ensure they get a good education, as we do, but then, given the lack of opportunity and the challenges in B.C. and the growth in other areas like Los Angeles and Ontario, they will get educated here, and they will go there.

Certainly, I have talked to a number of people out in the industry who say, "I'd love to stay in B.C.; I'd love to stay in Vancouver" or Victoria or wherever they might live, but they can't get work. So they leave the province after being educated here and go and work in Los Angeles, go and work in Toronto. I think we've seen that happening in the industry. It is a concern, and I hope that the minister will act quickly, the ministry will act quickly.

I certainly agree there are opportunities in Asia, and that's certainly an area we do need to pay attention to, whether it's India or China or other countries there. There is opportunity for growth there, but we haven't been paying attention, I don't think, to our local industry — the B.C.-based producers, who are often the ones that sustain us when the dollar goes high or the dollar goes low or other industries, other areas increase their tax incentives.

I think we've canvassed that area fairly closely, but I guess the final question I would ask is…. Ontario has a very aggressive agency to bring film, bring digital media, bring TV to their province — the Ontario Media Development Corporation. Anybody you talk to in the film industry talks about how they are everywhere, how they are working overtime and how they feel that, given a number of years of cuts to B.C. Film — now B.C. Film and Media — as well to the film commissions, we are out-gunned, so to speak, in a big way.

My question to the minister is: does she feel this is a concern? Is this an area that we do need to pay more attention to? Or are we just going to let Ontario do what it does and just hope for the best?

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated, there are parts of our creative industry that we do far better than what Ontario does. You know, while it's easy to only pick out the slices of the pie that don't do as well and continually focus on that, I don't think that serves the creative industry well.

As a whole, British Columbia is faring reasonably well. Are we going to continue to work with the industry and do more? Absolutely. I have, as I indicated to the member, spent a great deal of time understanding what some of those concerns are and where we can go, asking for ideas and solutions that they think of. I can tell you that they don't always think that the industry…. They don't always think that the best thing we can do is absolutely match everything that Ontario is doing.

So with that, I think it's important that we take a look at what we have as our assets here in British Columbia, ensure that we have a sustainable industry with respect to the incentives that we do have, such as our tax credits, such as providing funding to our B.C. Film and Media commission, to providing our regional film commissions some dollars so that they can still have fresh product that they can showcase to people — in addition to looking at those markets elsewhere. That's what this ministry will continue to do.

I will continue to advance on that, and obviously, I would share that member's concern. When you train people in your province, you want them to stay here. That is something that I'm very, very mindful of. I saw all too often in the '90s where people were trained here and they left. That's not something we want to return to. That's something we want to ensure that we are well ahead of, in terms of having jobs that are available to people when they complete their education and in the field of endeavour that they have.

This is an important industry. As I have stated at the beginning, we'll continue to work with them. When I have the ability to speak to my counterparts, I will do so to find out whether what we're doing provincially couldn't be better served on a national basis.

S. Chandra Herbert: Certainly, it's not my intention to say we should match everything Ontario's done, and that's not what I've said. I think we need a made-in-B.C. solution. I think the industry has been saying that now for years. However, the action at the ministry level has not occurred. It has not been engaged in that dialogue. Meanwhile, they continue to produce reports continuing to make suggestions, and it hasn't happened.

As for outward migration, I know that since the current Premier has taken her place, B.C. has seen a net outward migration, which the minister referred to as happening in the '90s. She may want to talk to her colleagues about that as well, given her stated concern.

[1535]

To move on to another area in the industry — I know the minister said, "Don't focus on just one area" — I'd like to talk about our non-profit arts and culture sector. As the minister will know, Statistics Canada reports suggest that B.C. is last in all of Canada in terms of per-capita investment in the arts. I know the minister has responded that that does not include the tax credits given to the film industry. That would be the case across Canada, if she's making that reference, so the statistics still seem to suggest we are last in all of Canada.

Is that a concern of the minister's? Does she feel that it's acceptable that B.C. made the deepest cuts to arts in Canadian history and, indeed, in B.C. history? That's made it very challenging for our non-profit sector, with a number of people leaving the province. Is that a concern,
[ Page 9675 ]
or do the statistics not concern the minister?

Hon. I. Chong: Before I respond to the more recent question, the member made comments about the film industry and about listening to the concerns that the industry has had. I just want to say that I do believe, and I want to pay respect and recognition to past ministers before me, because some of the things…. We don't always see the conversations that have been had and the suggestions that have taken place and then the results that occur which people related directly to those conversations.

I would have to say that it was a result, I think, of conversations that the previous ministers have had with the industry that perhaps led, in part, to how a new film industry was established for Capilano. I mean, that wouldn't have just come out of the blue. With respect, I would have to say that those kinds of discussions, that dialogue — I wasn't there at the time — would have had to have occurred, I would imagine, with previous ministers and the industry.

Again, I would just say that as I move forward, I will continue to have those conversations. If the member is interested in giving me some thoughts and ideas, I certainly would welcome them, because I know of his passion for the industry.

With respect to his question on per-capita spending in arts and culture, he's probably seen the comments I have made and will know that I have indicated I do not feel that the comparisons that are often made with respect to the per capita is one that is…. Well, it isn't a fair comparison, I guess is the best way to describe it.

Every province across the country has a different approach, and not all facets are considered. There are multiple funding areas that occur when the arts and culture are lumped in. For example, museum and parks as well, even, are sometimes included in some of these per-capita calculations.

For example, our film tax credit, I do believe, is a part of funding, because it is an investment we're making. It's not included. As well, populations do vary greatly, and therefore, that impacts the ratio. The population, just based on the kinds of industries that are in one province versus another…. Those that have more natural resources than others can also make a difference as to where the population would necessarily gravitate towards in terms of the industries that they wish to grow.

I want to say, though, that we do have great outcomes. Given the dollars we spend and are able to invest in the arts and culture community, we have some amazing outcomes. That I think the member would be very proud of, as I am.

Some of our institutions, as well, when they are included in the per capita versus other jurisdictions…. Why I say that it is very hard to make a rational comparison at times is that some of the institutions are municipal, whereas elsewhere they could be provincial. As a result, there are so many different approaches, so many pieces that are put together, that to use a per-capita ratio I don't think is always reflective of what is happening in a jurisdiction.

What is obvious that I see are the outcomes that we have here in British Columbia, and I do believe the outcomes have been fairly significant, given the fiscal challenges that we have all faced.

[1540]

S. Chandra Herbert: This was a question that I have asked previous ministers, and I know on this file that there have been a number. A previous minister said it was unfair to use per-capita numbers when it came to arts, but when talking about transportation, he felt that per-capita numbers, in terms of provincial investment, were completely appropriate.

The question I asked then, and I'll ask it again, would be: if the minister feels that those numbers are unfair and reflect badly on the province, unfairly, would the minister request, either through her staff or maybe for a university or somebody who does these kinds of studies, to do another study to reflect the minister's concerns?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, I think what would be useful or helpful is to take a look at the outcomes that we're achieving. I believe that is a constructive approach.

So I just want to share with the member that we are the only province where artists make up more than 1 percent of the labour force. It's not a large amount, but in fact it's larger than what other provinces are doing. We are enjoying the fastest growth in the number of artists here in British Columbia, and 3.6 percent of our population volunteer in arts and culture, which again shows the, I guess, incredible value that British Columbians place on that. And that's more than other provinces.

Our British Columbia consumers spend $3.6 billion a year on cultural activities and on goods and equipment as well. The creative sector employs more than 78,000 people, contributing $5.2 billion to our provincial economy.

I think those are important outcomes. That's what I believe is constructive. I do want to, again, share with the member that since 2001, taking a look at a number of areas that we have spent on arts and culture, whether it's on operations, whether it's on grants, major events, special events, infrastructure — $2.6 billion, not a small amount. Sometimes we forget to say that that is a good, sizeable amount that we are providing to the arts and culture community.

While I can appreciate that the member would like to see increases, I am pleased that we do have a regime in place that allows for maintaining the second-highest level of funding for the B.C. Arts Council. I appreciate the fact that the Premier in her announcement in January allowed us to restore eligibility for some of the adult art
[ Page 9676 ]
groups, as well, through the gaming grant distribution.

Again, we'll continue to work with a variety of our museums and our fairs, which provide, I believe, a good part of our cultural activity and our industry — work with them to see where and how we can expand that for the benefit of British Columbians.

We may agree to disagree on this. I don't believe dollars are always the best measure, but I do believe it's important to take a look constructively at what this province is achieving, and I do believe we are achieving some great things.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'll turn to the resource summary of the ministry's service plan and just ask a quick question. If the minister could break out the funding under the line item "Arts, culture and sport." That $20.897 million in purchases — what does that entail?

[1545]

If the minister or the ministry staff need a few moments to collect that information, we could do that. Then I could do some other questions while you do that, if that would save us some time.

While that question is being looked at, maybe I'll ask a question around the B.C. arts and culture endowment special account. My understanding is that it is still in the minister's purview of where that money is spent. Can the minister tell me how that money is being spent in this year, the 2012-2013 year, and what the plan is for 2013-2014?

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps it would have been easier just to share with the member the blue book. Maybe if I reference this and he is able to take a look later with respect to the pages there.

The member was referring, I believe, to the B.C. arts and culture endowment special account. In the blue book on page 56, we'll see $2.5 million. That is derived from, if he goes to page 60, the B.C. arts and culture endowment special account, which has the BC150 fund, which is something new that our government introduced when we celebrated our sesquicentennial.

The $2.5 million is the anticipated interest revenue that is gained from that. Of that $2.5 million, $2.15 million actually goes directly to the B.C. Arts Council, and this is how we're able to provide funding to them. The other balance of approximately $350,000 is maintained within the ministry to deal with other arts and cultural funding requests, very small amounts to allow us to manage some of those pressures that arise that we aren't always able to anticipate at the beginning of the year.

Going back to the previous question — and I'm just wanting to make sure — the member was asking about arts, culture and sport in the resource summary of $20.897 million.

If the member looks in the book on page 56 again, I think he'll see that there. Of that amount, of approximately…. If you take a look at page 58, you will see how the appropriation is. For sport, it represents about $10.83 million, and for the arts and culture, $10.066 million, but it is on page 58 for the dollars. I know it's a little confusing. Sometimes you're looking at the resource summary, but when you go through the blue book, strangely enough, you can actually find it.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess the question on the arts side would be: is that money going directly to the B.C. Arts Council to help get it to its roughly $16 million? I see the minister shaking her head, but I'll just let her answer.

[1550]

Hon. I. Chong: The member is correct. The $2.15 million does go directly to the B.C. Arts Council, in addition to an amount we fund them. So this is how we are able to provide $16.8 million a year to the B.C. Arts Council.

I just want to let the member know — seeing that we are the first ministry up for estimates debate, and we'll be here for a number of months through to May — that if the member wishes to have a more thorough breakdown and understanding of how the funding relate to arts and culture, my staff would be more than happy to provide him with a more detailed briefing, at his convenience, to ensure that he knows where the dollars are.

It's all available, so it's not a problem to have a briefing, if he would like.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, I've done that in the past with the ministry, and I would appreciate doing that again.

I know it has come up rather fast this year. It was a surprise to me, but thankfully, I have been watching the file for a while, so I had my questions ready.

If I could, I guess, just do a quick pivot to…. I will do a fuller briefing on this. I read the service plan. I looked at the blue book. It was just a question of how the money was being spent. I also know there is….

Before I do that pivot, I'll do one more question. I understand there are a few other small endowment funds that relate to arts and culture within the ministry. I'm just curious if the ministry will be able to help me understand where those funds are going.

Hon. I. Chong: I believe the member may be referring to the sport and arts legacy fund that was announced in Budget 2010, where $20 million a year, so $60 million over three years, was the commitment that was made — $10 million to sports and $10 million to arts and culture. Of that $10 million, some of those dollars are being used to fund the B.C. Arts Council.

Just for the benefit of the member, if he's looking to determine where the B.C. Arts Council funding comes from, through our appropriation last year, $7.931 million came from the ministry; $2.15 million from that special
[ Page 9677 ]
endowment — the interest earned on the 150 fund going forward; and $6.75 million came from the 2010 sport and arts legacy fund. That's how the $16.831 million was calculated.

Again, we can provide that as a briefing, and the member could ask additional questions on that at that time if he wishes.

S. Chandra Herbert: Just doing the math, I guess, on the sport and arts legacy, the $10 million…. If I did the math correctly, about $6.7 million is going to the Arts Council. Where is the rest of that money going?

Hon. I. Chong: When the fund was established in 2010, the member may recall, the objective was to ensure that we had an ability to provide for some of the demands of the arts and culture sector. So with $6.75 million being provided to the B.C. Arts Council, it left approximately $3.25 million for other demands throughout the province.

My recollection…. I was Minister of Sport and not the one for arts and culture at the time. It was split. There was a year that dollars were used around the province to support festivals, Spirit Festivals and celebrations, as a result of the one-year anniversary of the Olympics, because, in part, we had had such a successful Olympics. The previous Premier believed that we should continue to build on the cultural side of that. I think the member would agree that the Cultural Olympiad was just a fantastic showcase that we had here that no other Olympics ever had.

[1555]

What I can say is that it was not deemed that it would be as effective to have a second year of celebration. So what we have been able to do is take a look at the requests, pressures, that come from arts and culture groups that from time to time need some assistance and are not what we would say are normally required.

We have not concluded the distribution, or I don't have the list of this year's, because we're just coming to this fiscal year-end for the second year. Again, the objective is to ensure that these are regional in nature, that arts and culture is celebrated. That's what the criteria are when we get a request that comes to the ministry. But it is designed to assist, as I say, to celebrate arts and culture in as many forms as we can and in as many regions around the province as we can.

It's not like the Arts Council, where we've dedicated a fixed amount. This does provide some flexibility to deal with those pressures and demands as they come forward to the ministry.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess we're near the end of the budget. So $3.3 million, I guess, is the coming year. There's an approximate number somewhere in that range for this last year. The question I have is maybe a two-parter. The minister can knock them both out of the park, I hope.

Who decides on where that money goes? Is it a cabinet committee? Is it just staff? Who has influence over that process?

As we're likely to go into these estimates on Monday, will the minister be able to provide me with a full list of all the allocations to date? I know there may be a few more as March madness sets in or as political needs are coming forward. I'm just interested if the minister can provide that list to date. And who decides how that money is allocated?

Hon. I. Chong: The member is correct. Not having come to our fiscal year-end, we still have literally 30 days to go. We do have some ideas in mind, and because we have had requests…. Again, we're trying to ensure that the dollars are spent regionally and not in any one sector of the province, as he can appreciate, I'm sure.

The requests that we receive from the Lower Mainland, Vancouver, always outweigh all the requests from around the province. So we have to be very diligent about ensuring that not all the requests that we receive from Vancouver are fulfilled.

This amount, as I say, was provided to this ministry to make a determination on how best to celebrate arts and culture around the province. The short answer is that the minister does have that ability to make that determination, not through a committee of any sort, but I do so on the advice of staff and the numerous requests and letters they receive.

That's what we will do from time to time. We'll sit down and see where those requests are — what the timelines are, what other kinds of partnerships or investments, what the engagement of the community is — prior to making those decisions.

Obviously, not everybody is satisfied with that approach, but it is one that we have to be mindful of, especially when we are distributing some very limited dollars.

S. Chandra Herbert: As the minister will likely remember, the chair of the B.C. Arts Council quit over concerns of how the $10 million was being spent. There were concerns around the Spirit fund, the Spirit fests.

Certainly, the wider arts community had great concerns around politicization of arts funding, given that the B.C. Arts Council was getting cut quite drastically, yet a miraculous Spirit fund was created. Given the concerns, the new minister did the right thing, I believe, and put the money towards the Arts Council for the most part. However, there was this extra money which is still out there.

[1600]

I have a hard time believing that we have 30 days until the end of the budget year, and there is still $3.3 million, approximately, floating out there, that the minister has yet to decide on. Now maybe the minister has decided,
[ Page 9678 ]
and much of that money is already out the door. If that's the case, will the minister provide me the list of where that money has gone?

Hon. I. Chong: I do want to speak to some of the remarks that the member made, with respect to the B.C. Arts Council in particular. I am very, very familiar with the previous chair of the Arts Council, and I wouldn't agree with his characterization as to the reasons that precipitated her departure. Certainly, there would have been some disappointment that she expressed with respect to the funding.

We had gone through a very difficult period, where we had to make some determinations as to what the funding would be. But the issue of the Spirit dollars that came in, in that particular year…. It was designed to provide for, as I say, the celebration, the one-year anniversary of our Olympics.

The current chair, I can tell you, of the B.C. Arts Council, whom I've met and have had a number of conversations with, has been very pleased and comfortable with the amount of funding that we have provided to the B.C. Arts Council.

I know it's always easy to make reference to the year that was, or previous years, as to what the funding should be and how it should be going forward, and that's fair, I think. We all do it. That being said, I'm going to just read into the record a number of the funding dollars the B.C. Arts Council has received for the last number of years, just to share with the member the fluctuations that have occurred.

In 1996-97 the Arts Council was up to, through its awarding processes, $14.7 million. Then in 1997-98 it dropped to $11.9 million. In 1998-99 it stayed, well, relatively the same — $11.9 million. Then in 1999-2000 it dropped to $11.875 million, before it went back up in 2000-2001 to $14.7 million.

In '01-02 it did take another drop to $11.2 million, which was probably close to what it had been prior to that one-year increase. Then it maintained a level of $11 million up until 2005-06, when it jumped up to about $13.8 million; in '06-07, another $13.8 million; and 2007-08, $13.7 million.

There was a huge increase — this is why sometimes it's very difficult to appreciate — in '08-09, where it jumped up to $23 million, a $10 million increase. But that was based on an additional supplemental amount that was advanced to it of that $7 million, which was in advance of the next year, of the '09-10.

So if you took '08-09, the $23.8 million, and take the $7 million out, we would get down to about $16-some-odd million. Then if you go into '09-10, where you see $11.5 million, and put the $7 million back in, we're again about equal to where we are.

In 2010-11–2011-12 — now going forward the last two years, $16.8 million. That is where it has been stable at.

As I say, it's difficult to sometimes appreciate why the fluctuations occur, but they did occur, and this is historical. I can appreciate the confusion that did take place, but when you come in and you see a historical high, not understanding that it is in fact to be reflective of two fiscal years, it is difficult to accept that there is a drop in the subsequent year.

Again, I want to assure the member that the B.C. Arts Council, who I feel I've had a good discussion and relationship with thus far — I've met with them on a number of occasions — appreciates the fact that they have received certainty in terms of what their budget is for the fiscal year, going forward for '12-13, that they have the $16.8 million to work so that they can carry on the very valuable and important work they do in terms of peer-reviewing for their artists and their arts and culture communities that are requesting funding.

I hope that's helpful. I know the member indicated that he had these figures, but I think it's important to put that into the record.

[1605]

S. Chandra Herbert: I'll try for the third time to ask about what the ministry is doing with the $3 million — which it has, the minister has stated. With 30 days left until the end of this budget year, surely, given the concerns and the pressures that the minister has spoken about, the ministry and herself as minister may have made decisions on those already. If not, why not? And if so, will the minister release the list?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm not able to provide the member with an exhaustive list, in part because we have, as I indicated, a number of requests. The requests far exceed what we have available. If I were to share with the member the requests or what I'm anticipating we'll have to make decisions on, it would be unfair for some of the organizations who have made application.

What I can say is that some of the dollars that have been expended to date…. There was some $200,000 that went to Royal Roads University for the global centre for creative industries and entrepreneurship — again, because of the creative industry. That was considered a very regional, broad base.

Music B.C. received some — I think $50,000 for an adopt-an-instrument program. Again, I think it's an important program not solely dedicated to one region, although perhaps some would argue it's very Lower Mainland–centric.

For another organization called DASH, arts pilots for the after-school program, $150,000 — again, to deal with youth in after-school programs.

Those are just three examples of where we have made some decisions, so I am able to share that with the member. There is a list which, as I say, I'm not able to share, simply because I am still deliberating with staff on which
[ Page 9679 ]
ones appear to have the most broad-based, most regional approach and appeal, to ensure that as many people can benefit from the program as possible.

To provide the member with that today would be unfair to those who have applied, who may be wondering whether they're on that shortlist or not. I just ask the member's indulgence. It will be made known soon enough.

S. Chandra Herbert: I think that people in the arts and culture industry will be interested, and surprised to a large extent, that the minister herself has approximately $3 million to allocate as she sees fit. Certainly, I am surprised. I think the minister has spoken about applications. Was there an open call? Is it just whoever knows? How does this happen?

Once she has allocated the dollars, will she be releasing what the applications consisted of so that people can see that it was done in a fair and transparent manner? Will she release what advice she had so that she can be sure that it was broad-based and regionally supported, so that people see that she is using taxpayers' dollars in a wise manner?

As the minister will know, the B.C. Arts Council operates through a pure jury process — in a sense, to try and take away the concern that people might play favourites, that political considerations might come into how funds are allocated.

[1610]

For this upcoming year will the minister be making any open call to the public to say that she has $3 million to spend for arts and culture groups? "Come one, come all. Apply today. This is the process. This is when money will be allocated."

To only be able to talk about approximately $400,000 today out of a pot of over $3 million shows me that a lot of money is going out the door very quickly in the next 30 days. To me, it looks more like political considerations, rather than a reasoned approach to addressing the challenges arts and culture face.

If the minister could tell me how the application process is done, if she will release the applications, the considerations that led to the decisions and what processes she is going to use to ensure that in an election year this is not just a slush fund to help Liberal fortunes in ridings where they're not doing well.

Hon. I. Chong: How quickly we get cynical on how ministries distribute the dollars. There have been grant programs — and I think the member will know — in ministries in the past, and we will continue to do that.

I want to make it clear. The B.C. Arts Council, while they do valuable work, is not, I guess, the sole body that will decide where arts and culture organizations receive funding. As the member will know, through the gaming grant distribution program, as well…. A number of arts and culture groups apply for additional dollars there. There are always opportunities for arts and culture groups to apply for dollars, for non-profit groups to apply for dollars.

What I will say is that we will ensure, because of the numerous amounts of requests that we just simply get as a ministry that has arts and culture division within it, that we are able to look at each and every request that comes in and ensure that the value that is derived from the request in fact is done in a way that achieves the most, I guess, in an economical and efficient way possible.

Some people would disagree with even the distribution that we have made on the advice of staff. To be honest, they're the ones that receive the numerous amounts of letters. I don't know if it's hundreds, but I know they receive letters on a very frequent basis — no end of people asking for dollars to fund what they believe is a great idea for the arts and culture community.

Staff do have an obligation to take a look at that, to ask questions and to ensure that prior to making the commitment and prior to giving me advice, it is done in a way that does reflect that we have asked those questions. I would say, though, that to put out the dollars in another application process…. As the member will know, because I do this with the infrastructure programs and other programs, there are always going to be more requests than there is money for.

So $3 million, while it seems like a large amount, is not always a large enough pot for the requests that we get, because we have people who will apply to three or four different places, whether it's through the ministry directly, whether it's through the Arts Council, whether it's through the gaming grant. Some people who have a particular ability to fill out forms and receive funding in a much more concerted effort usually will be the beneficiaries of those dollars.

One of the reasons why this was not put out specifically in a program where we've asked people to make applications was to not find ourselves in the same situation as in the past, where usually the same groups were applying for and receiving dollars.

What we are doing with these dollars that we have available is dealing with the applications that we receive, the requests that we receive, on an annual basis. Taking a look at those, staff do their very best, do their due diligence, to ensure that the applications and the ability to fund those programs are reasonable. On that advice they provide to me, I'm then able to make a decision.

[1615]

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess, if I'm understanding the minister's train of thought on this one correctly, as long as we keep the program secret, then groups that don't traditionally apply to the B.C. Arts Council, gaming and other granting organizations will be able to sniff out the secret and be able to apply for that money so that they
[ Page 9680 ]
get a fair chance.

If it was publicized, then all these well-established groups would be able to find the money and get the money. That seems to be what the minister is saying. The ministry prefers to keep over $3 million secret so that somehow the groups that do not receive funds because they are not very good at filling out applications will somehow be very good detectives and be able to write brilliant letters or buddy up to an MLA at a cocktail reception and say, "Hey, I've got this great idea," and then somehow that will happen.

I know that the minister — in discussing other legislation that's before the House and in discussing her own background as an accountant — would probably find it a little bizarre that that is the approach here. At least, that would have been my assumption, but this seems to be a justification.

We've got — what? — 30 days, $3 million. So what is that? How many millions a week? Are we going to put out $100,000 a day? What is this? Is this an approach to get all the money out the door a.s.a.p., with big announcements?

I just find it very surprising that $400,000 is what has been allocated so far in this year, and we've got — what? — 30 days until the end of the month to allocate another $3 million, with a process that is secret, that is not publicized, without application forms, solely at the minister's discretion. This is the same process that the minister seems to suggest will be appropriate for next year, in the year running up to an election.

I know the minister said it's cynicism, but you'd excuse me for being a little concerned. I think it's practical, not cynical, to be looking at how money is actually allocated, so that in a desperate situation funds don't go to groups that may be politically convenient for a minister but actually go to groups that will do the absolute best.

Now, I understand the minister's staff looks at these things. They try and figure out what best to do, but in the end, the minister says, the decision rests with her.

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I've looked at previous government programs which were announced but were decided at the ministry level. There was no paperwork in terms of how the decisions were made. The decisions were made in a way that was politically convenient. It went into government-held seats, so to speak, so that it could help benefit MLAs seeking re-election, before the last election.

What assurance can the minister give — beyond, "Just trust me; I'll do my best" — that this won't happen again?

Hon. I. Chong: I think the member used the word "bizarre" in his comments that he has just made, and I will use the word "bizarre" with respect to his assertions. I have explained to the member that grant programs have occurred in ministries throughout the years — even in the '90s, believe it or not.

In the '90s ministers had gone to the end of their budget years — in fact, ran out of money — and then would routinely go to Treasury Board and ask for dollars and overspend their ministry budgets and not have the ability, as well, to provide any kind of a program for the distribution of those dollars.

The fact that we have a fund that does allow for our ministry to work with the community to receive requests — as I've indicated to the member, there are requests that come in throughout the year — means that we evaluate those based on the most economical and most efficient way possible. Decisions are not made at the beginning of the year simply because to do so and expend them, we would end up at the end of the year again running to Treasury Board, asking for more dollars.

Maybe that's what the member wants, because that's what his previous government had done on a regular basis, routinely. That's not what we're trying to do. If we don't spend the money, obviously, it goes back to the consolidated revenue fund. That's not necessarily a bad thing, because as a government that's trying to be fiscally prudent and manage the dollars in the best way possible…. If dollars are not spent, they do in fact go back.

[1620]

I just want to again express my concern at the member's comments, because he is making reference to what he refers to as political decisions. I would hope that my record stands, my record as a minister who has dealt with infrastructure programs over the last number of years — since 2004, in fact. I have had the opportunity to take a look and ensure that when a grant program was one that I would administer, I've done so on a fair and equitable basis around the province.

If you look at my record, you will see that I have distributed fairly — as opposed to a previous administration, where, I remember, in a ministry called Cooperatives and Volunteers, or whatever it was called…. That previous minister found that 90 percent of the funds and grants went to the ridings that were held by the government of the day.

That was written up in the Vancouver Sun, I believe. I didn't write the article. I was actually very surprised, and ever since then I have been very mindful that when distributions of taxpayers' dollars are made, they are made in a very fair and equitable way — that regions around the province get the benefit of these tax dollars, which are very, very precious.

Again, I'm sure the member did not mean to suggest that the method that we have within our ministry is bizarre, but I will state the fact that we are going to distribute the remainder of the dollars. If we're able to deal with all the requests that the ministry has received, we will do so, which I believe is going to be consistent with regional representation.

S. Chandra Herbert: No, I don't think grant programs are bizarre. I think the assertion was that why this has
[ Page 9681 ]
to exist is that more established groups know how to get money through grant programs and that thus, we need a secret fund so that the groups that can't do that properly through grant programs could get that money. I think the assertion was bizarre, because it doesn't really make much sense to me that a secret program would somehow be more beneficial to groups that were not professionally able to succeed through grant programs.

As for the discussion around the 1990s and around this government, we could talk booster seats. We could talk cycling programs under this government, which were politically motivated. We could go through all that, but two wrongs do not make a right. I don't think going back to say, "Well, back then people were bad…." I wasn't part of that government. I actually was in high school, which was interesting for the minister to note. It was that long ago.

I think it is interesting that to try to justify actions today, sometimes people will go: "Well, it was worse at another time." That, to me, does not breed confidence. That, to me, is obfuscation and trying to hide from the fact that maybe something may not be correct.

Yet again, we have $3 million, 30 days to be spent. The minister says maybe it'll go back to the ministry if it's not spent, even though she says that she is fighting for money to better fund the arts. It doesn't really add up. Certainly, we may have this debate for some time.

One question to the minister, moving from the arts. I know I have a colleague who will be getting up to talk around gaming grants as well. Before I sit down and let my colleague get up and discuss gaming grants, it's a question around tourism.

I know that the minister is not responsible for the Tourism Ministry, but I know that the minister was written a letter by a group, the coalition to support rural tourism in B.C., specifically on questions around land valuation and what has been affecting RV parks, rural campgrounds and resorts in the Cariboo-Chilcotin area, as well as in the upper Thompson and throughout that region — 100 Mile House, Little Fort.

[J. van Dongen in the chair.]

Their concern is that as the authorities decide the highest and best use for those resorts and for those RV parks is actually to be, perhaps, sold as fee simple lands — so that people can put vacation properties on there or something like that, which may have a higher value — the taxes increase. When you are providing 30 camp spots at 30 bucks a night, those property taxes make that kind of a business model less efficient.

[1625]

On that individual lot, my understanding is, it may be hard for that operator to survive, so they end up selling the lot. They end up shutting down the resort. You lose the tourism in the region, which of course has a much bigger impact beyond just that individual lot. It affects the local hotels, the local restaurants and those local communities.

My question to the minister is: what is she doing to address that concern, given that it is going to have and has been having a big impact in terms of employment, jobs, particularly in our rural B.C. communities?

Hon. I. Chong: The member is correct, in that where it refers to issues of tourism, the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation is the correct minister to approach.

However, I gather, as he was speaking, that he is referring to the Tourist Accommodation (Assessment Relief) Act — or TAARA, as it's known — in the Cariboo-Chilcotin area in particular. I do want to say that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, the MLA, has certainly raised this issue with me, most recently in the last while as well.

I do know that there have been dialogue and conversations that have taken place over the past number of years. As a result of some concerns that had been raised — which went back, I think, to 2006 — there was a regulation that was passed that shifted campground land from class 6, which is business and other, to class 8, which is recreational property, non-profit organization. That happened in 2006.

Further, in 2009 another regulatory amendment shifted the land of rural recreational accommodation properties — such as the guide-outfitter resorts, fishing camps — again from class 6, which is business and other, to class 8. The goal was to reduce the property tax liability for most of those properties, as the class 8 rates were generally lower than those of class 6. It does go back to taking a look at classifications at times, where we're able to have a meaningful dialogue and make those changes.

In terms of valuation, the B.C. Assessment Authority — which, as the member will know, we have responsibility for in this ministry — assessments are based on professionals who determine the valuation of properties through their market research, the sales. They take a look at spikes, and things like that. We actually don't have a direct role in that, because professional evaluations are done in that respect.

If there were to be further changes to the TAARA act that would require a direct reduction, though, and exemptions, those would have to be done in concert with the Minister of Finance, because the Ministry of Finance obviously has a role to play here. We would not be able to implement amendments without having that discussion with the Ministry of Finance. If the member wishes to further explore that with the Minister of Finance, because it is tax policy in nature, he can do so.

I think it's fair to say there have been some changes in the past. We will continue to speak with the owners of these properties to find what other remedies are possible.

Certainly, we want tourism to be an industry that con-
[ Page 9682 ]
tinues to provide value for all communities around the province. If there are specific areas where tourism can be bolstered in parts of the province, I think it would be important for the member to ask those questions of the Minister of Tourism and his tourism strategy.

[1630]

S. Chandra Herbert: Thanks to the minister. I'm getting the wrap-it-up signal from my colleagues, as they have many questions. I know the minister is smiling.

Hon. I. Chong: It's kind of like the Oscars.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yeah, wrap it up. Where's my music, to get me off the stage?

I guess we can follow up that question and a number of questions. I certainly will be interested in having a fuller briefing around a number of these questions. A colleague is going to get up and ask a few questions on gaming policy.

I guess the final question that I would leave with is…. The minister often talks about the Premier increasing money from gaming. In fact, it's been a decrease, from $156 million, which was the total in 2008, down to $120 million, back up to $135 million. I guess technically, in a sense, it would be an increase in that small period of time, but it is still a decrease from what it was in 2008.

The minister will also talk about the Skip Triplett review, the consultation. Certainly, people in the community were glad that they had a chance to be engaged in that discussion. The minister says that the increase, as she calls it, to $135 million was as a result of that. Aside from that, though, I can't really see much that the minister, so far, has come from.

We used to have multi-year funding. The minister has said that out of that review we may get multi-year funding. Well, we already had it, but the government decided that was not going to happen anymore. Now they're just going to consult some more and consider it.

It was a review with a lot of ideas and options put forward, but what we got out of it was less than we had before. The minister refers to getting things out of this review, like increasing funding which is actually a decrease from what we had; and considering multi-year funding, when we actually already had it and the government got rid of it. I'm not quite sure where that's going. I'm hoping the minister will be able to tell us today if more of the gaming funds — which were a social contract with communities, which were dedicated to arts and culture — will return.

I'd also like to know a timeline on when we're going to hear about multi-year funding, since it is more efficient for the non-profits to operate in that fashion. It's more efficient for the ministry, for the gaming branch, to operate in that fashion. That would be a question that I'll leave on at this stage.

Hon. I. Chong: I do want to address directly the comment the member has made with respect to the amount that we had in our budget. Going forward, we were looking at an amount of $120 million.

Yes, it was a decrease over previous years. I can get into some of the reasons as to why. But we were faced with a $120 million budget for the gaming grants that were being made available when this ministry received responsibility for the distribution of gaming grants.

When I say I'm pleased that an additional $15 million was provided…. It means I don't go have to go back to Treasury Board. I don't have to ask for those dollars. Those amounts will be permanently provided for, which therefore allowed us to increase eligibility as well as allowed us to top up some organizations that in fact did have reduced funding.

The member has already mentioned — and I appreciate it — that he believed that the gaming grant review was a useful exercise. It was very comprehensive. Mr. Triplett gave up some two months, three months of his time in travelling around the province and listening to what people were saying.

He could easily have come back…. In fact, one of the recommendations was to keep everything at the status quo, as $120 million. However, he indicated that wasn't necessarily going to be the best outcome.

[1635]

The options he presented to me were such that we were able, given today's very difficult fiscal challenges, to ask for an increase that would be permanent in the budget and ask, as well, in providing that, that it be focused and directed on restoring eligibility as well as looking at those organizations that had reduced funding.

I want to say that the gaming revenues that do come into government are not entirely spent on the distribution to our non-profit groups that provide a valuable service. Gaming generates more than a billion dollars in revenue per year, hon. Chair, and that money goes to a number of areas. You know, $147 million goes directly to health care. Those dollars are still there. As well, dollars go to fund education by going into the consolidated revenue fund.

The dollars that we receive from gaming are, as I say, not specifically provided and directed to the gaming grant distribution, because there are demands that everyone is asking for — increases in health care, increases in education spending.

I do want to say that there is $135 million going forward. I have said that I will look at the multi-year funding as a mechanism, as a way to see how we can improve it. While the member indicates that we had that before and that we should have it back, it doesn't mean that what we had before worked perfectly either.

I think that this gives us an opportune time to take a look at those organizations that in the past have received multi-year funding and those who haven't received
[ Page 9683 ]
multi-year funding and find a way, again, to make the application process simpler. For those that have earned a degree of independence, where they have traditionally provided good, sound information — financial information, in particular — perhaps we would be able to deal with those more quickly, to provide them with some certainty going forward.

The Premier had indicated, when the review was conducted by Mr. Triplett, that she did want to find a way to provide more certainty and predictability to some of our very valuable organizations, and that's what we are working towards.

G. Gentner: I rise to discuss the budget of 2012 relative to the Ministry of Community and Sport, and arts and culture. I want to begin by first of all thanking the ministry for a job well done. You can probably take that to your people who make pamphlets for you and put me on the record on that one — relative to, of course, the greater….

Interjections.

G. Gentner: Well, you'll hear a few, of course, where credit's due.

I was fortunate enough to attend the B.C. Winter Games. I'd first of all like to thank, just for the record, the greater Vernon organizing committee president, Akbal Mund, who did a fantastic job with his people up there. It was well, well done. Of course, president and CEO Kelly Mann of the B.C. Games Society and his staff and the board were stellar. And I'd like to thank the organizers of the community and all of the volunteers who put together the fantastic games, the coaches, the athletes and of course the parents.

The venues. You know, this situation where we play, of course, is politics, but there's something about sport that's really quite fascinating. In my dealing with sport over the years — I was the chair of the parks and rec commission in Delta for many years — staff themselves are above politics in most cases, I'd say. They're event planners, and they put kids first, and it's really a great area of endeavour for anybody to be involved in.

Again, I'd like to also just say to you that the minister herself treated us very well in Vernon, and it was very much appreciated.

Now, having said that, regarding the budget it was mentioned that I would talk a little bit about gaming, and maybe on Monday when we come back we'll be able to dwell on it a little bit later.

I was at one time the critic for gaming and the B.C. Lottery Corporation. I had a little bit of background on it years ago on how it all works, but there have been some changes along the way on the funding and how it comes about.

In sport what I really want to know more about is the allocation of the money and how the ministry determines it. In particular, what I have a concern about is: does the ministry have a criterion whereby it weighs moneys that go to female sports versus sports for males?

[1640]

This equity business is important because, from a public health perspective, how we allocate that money for sport is going to help our children to fight obesity and other increasing public health issues. So are there built-in criteria for how you divvy up the grant money to various sports?

Hon. I. Chong: Thanks to the member for Delta North for his opening comments and his congratulatory remarks on the Greater Vernon 2012 B.C. Winter Games. I would agree with him — perhaps one of the most successful winter games we've seen in a long time.

I mention to the host cities whenever I'm around that these not only provide a great opportunity for our youth and for trained volunteers to be left behind as a legacy, but it also brings out a sense of community pride and civic celebration that only happens once in a while. I wish sometimes that greater Victoria would consider doing another games, but last time was in the year 2000. I'll leave that up to them to decide.

What the member raises is an interesting question with respect to how sports organizations are funded. Our branch does provide funding to the provincial sports organizations, the PSOs. How that is distributed is based on judging the effectiveness of how that organization is increasing participation, how they are also increasing participation with sometimes special targeted and focused groups. It could be First Nations; it could be those with special needs; it could even be young girls and women.

We do take a look at the provincial sports organizations. We do ask the question as to what more they are doing to become more effective and perhaps more equitable in getting participation up. I think it's important as well, though, to acknowledge that some of the provincial sports organizations are pretty even in terms of increasing participation in general. I think soccer is a good example, as many young girls and boys participate equally in that particular sport.

In other sports I think you will find — perhaps the ribbon dancing — that women are involved, and more men are involved in things like the high bars and those kinds of things in gymnastics.

We do ask if they are also looking at persons with special needs as well as First Nations. As well, we do provide assistance and some funding support to ProMOTION Plus. As the member will know, ProMOTION Plus is an entity that is very focused on women and girls in sport. I hope that gives the member a bit of an idea of how the distribution of sports dollars is maintained.

G. Gentner: I gather from that — I don't know to ex-
[ Page 9684 ]
pect one — that there isn't really a set-out formula that ascertains how much money should be spent towards women sports versus male sports. The reason I raise it is that football is an expensive sport. For the testosterone athlete running around for the Florida Gators, that's a multi-million-dollar industry. Meanwhile, for example, you look at girls soccer. You can get a lot of girls playing soccer as opposed to football, so that's why I raise it.

[1645]

I raise it because I think some equity has to be dealt with, with the allocation of funding for sports, but I gather that there really isn't a formula per se. Am I correct?

Hon. I. Chong: There is actually an assessment process and an opportunity for a provincial sport organization to present its plans and how it intends to improve upon some of the areas that I guess ministry staff speak with them on. If the member would like to sit down with staff, we can give him a briefing with respect to that assessment process. Moneys are not just given to a sports organization without questioning from year to year how well they have done so that we can assess it.

Some of these sports organizations, as the member can appreciate, perhaps go back many, many years, before either one of us were involved in politics. Those sports organizations, therefore, would have, or feel that they have, a historical request that comes in every year that needs to be looked at. That's why the assessment process is important. If there is a longstanding provincial sport organization, you do want to take a look at the changing of the times — of more women being, for example, in a non-traditional sport; taking a look at whether they are focusing on if there are persons with special needs or First Nations.

That is one of the reasons why, when the staff take a look at that application or the report that comes in, the questions are asked, and if they don't meet some of their objectives, then the funding can be reduced in the following year.

G. Gentner: Well, just one last aspect of the gaming, and I'll move on. I'm also wondering: when the ministry does the assessment, has it reviewed the province relative to the fitness needs? For example, the demographics — does it look for areas in the province where there's a higher instance of obesity and you have to get children involved as opposed to another area which seems to be doing quite well, or do you just take the grant applications that are received and assess them accordingly?

Hon. I. Chong: Apologies to the member for Delta North. I had thought that his questions were directed to the provincial sports organizations and, in particular, how they were being funded by the ministry as opposed to from the gaming grant process.

Let me just correct for the record that the information I just provided was how we assess the provincial sports organizations, how they receive funding from us on an annual basis and whether we will continue to provide that funding based upon the plans that they provide and whether they have made improvements or are not going forward.

The organizations that receive money through gaming are dealt with differently. It's not just sports, as the member will know. It's arts and culture. There are human and social services, animal welfare, environmental concerns. A number of non-profits are allowed to apply to the $135 million gaming grant fund.

What happens is, generally, that any organization that is deemed to be a sports organization is allowed to apply for those dollars. The process, generally, is that they have a governance model in place that shows that they are not a private club — for example, it is open to the public; secondly, and this goes to arts and culture as well, that they have a financial status or their statements provide that they have the ability to deliver a program so that they, in fact, do not receive dollars from the gaming grant pot and are not able, then, to deliver the program for which they applied for those dollars. That is handled through the gaming grant branch of our ministry.

[1650]

There is a team of people who receive some 6,000-plus applications in a variety of areas each and every year, and they do distribute them based on, as I say, the criteria that are completed on those application forms.

G. Gentner: The 2010 sport legacy fund was supposed to run out for three consecutive years — '10, '11 and '12. Can the minister explain to me how much is left in the fund? Is it allocated under the legend here of just arts, culture and sport, out of the $10 million?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, the $10 million sport legacy fund, not unlike the $10 million arts legacy fund, was created in 2010 to provide additional dollars. Again, on the heels of the very successful 2010 Olympic/Paralympic Games, it was designed to find ways to enhance and build on that success in terms of sports.

It is different, though, for the sport legacy fund than the arts legacy fund in that with the arts legacy fund, the objective was just to provide opportunities to enhance arts and culture around the province. It really was dealing with the demand that, as I say, continued year-round.

With the sport legacy fund, and I have more history on this because I had then been the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport, we knew from, I guess, a very early stage — at the beginning of the fiscal year, anyway — where the demands would be and how we could best provide those and distribute those dollars to make sure that they would reach as many people and be as effective as possible.

I am able to share with the member that the $10 mil-
[ Page 9685 ]
lion has now been fully distributed for this fiscal year of 2011-12. We did provide the provincial sports organizations with support for development of their community coaches and officials. Some $4.75 million went there. Again, they do some event hosting, and they do training of teams for high-level competition. This goes to the provincial sports organization, and that's the organization that provide support for over 700,000 individuals.

We also had $1 million with which we established what we called the hosting program. This was to fund a number of events around the communities. I think around $515,000 of that $1 million, for example, funded 69 events, representing 43 sports in 28 communities, as a part of this program.

This is an application-based program for very small events. Oftentimes you may see a small amount for $5,000 or $10,000 or even $ 2,500, just to help that organization host a tournament and bring it in. I can tell the member that we're always oversubscribed on that. We try to limit it to no more than two applications per sport. Otherwise, you can have one sport applying constantly and actually depleting that fund very quickly.

Of that $1 million, we also did provide some dollars to look at mid-sized events, as opposed to smaller events. We did an Olympic qualifier for men's soccer. We provided $250,000 there. That's the CONCACAF that I think the member will probably have heard about. That gained, I would say, a fair amount of media attention, and, therefore, public acknowledgment of the fact that soccer was a very welcome sport here in British Columbia.

Also, $125,000 went to the Bobsleigh and Skeleton World Cup; the OutGames in Vancouver, $75,000; International Children's Games — I believe those were in Kelowna — $50,000. So that gives you an idea about where the $1 million of the hosting program went.

Another $1 million was provided to what we call an after-school sports program. It was a successful launch of programs in five communities. They were in Victoria, Prince George, Haida Gwaii, Vancouver and Surrey.

[1655]

They were chosen, I would suspect, based on my staff working with these areas, these communities. They looked at the success that they had previously launched and wanted to build on that. More than 4,000 children and youth in some 90 schools are beneficiaries of this program, and it is a matching program that provides free after-school sport and physical literacy programs to vulnerable children and youth.

In '11-12 we are hoping that we'll be able to launch it in 12 more communities. Again, that was $1 million, and $1.92 million was spent for the Canadian sport institutes and regional training centres. This is part of the federal-provincial matching program to take Canada's Own the Podium program to the next level.

British Columbia was the launch province for this initiative, to move forward towards the creation of the Canadian sport institutes, and Victoria and Whistler were the first two locations selected by Canada. It is, in part, a partnership. It allows us to ensure that we work well with our federal government in ensuring that we have a program that deals with some of our higher-performing athletes.

So $100,000 went to provide support for local sport development grants, and 54 projects in 34 communities in '10-11 were provided. That funding provides grants of up to about $2,000 to municipalities, to aboriginal groups and the not-for-profit organizations to encourage the expansion of sport opportunities within the community.

Some examples of that would be the family open gym in Whistler, adaptive skiing for people with autism in Vancouver, the New Totem Archery Club in Fort St. John, Victoria Wheelchair Rugby league and pickleball for everyone in Trail. Pickleball, I understand, is a fairly new yet very popular sport. The Secwepemc dancers in Salmon Arm, I believe, also were beneficiaries of those programs.

That was made available, and $230,000 was provided for sport-on-the-move grants. That provided funding directly to offset the cost to families of students competing at high school championships. Since most of the championships are in the Lower Mainland region, financial assistance mostly helps schools in the north, Vancouver Island, Okanagan and the Kootenays area — again, to allow that to take place.

We provided $400,000 for the aboriginal sports strategy. This augmented $200,000 that we previously provided to them, so I guess in total they were receiving about $200,000 a year out of the program. KidSport — another $220,000 went there. That augmented their base contribution. I believe it was about $180,000.

Again, the idea of KidSport, as the member well knows, is to lever with the private sector additional funding to assist low-income children in a number of chapters across the province. I believe they're up to 71 chapters now.

About $300,000 went to the multisport organizations. These were transfers to them. As I mentioned, ProMOTION Plus would be one of those kinds of organizations that particularly deals with women. B.C. Sports Hall of Fame and Museum, SportMedBC, which is a sport safety program, and coaching associations are just to name a few.

I hope that gives the member an idea of where that $10 million…. Because those organizations very early on were aware of where the needs were and what likely would require funding, we were able to work with them early in the year and actually make sure that the funding was in place — rather than, as I say, in some situations where we have to wait and see what all the requests are and make sure a determination is made that suits the eligibility requirements.

G. Gentner: I have a few more questions on that issue,
[ Page 9686 ]
but I think that I'm going to segue into something I think more pertinent right now, because time will always be of the essence. Hopefully, I can return to Legacy B.C.

I notice the ministry has on the website something called SportSafe, originally set up to fight against harassment. I'm just wondering: can the minister tell me how much money is allotted in the budget for SportSafe? Or is it basically just downloading reports from a previous time?

[1700]

Hon. I. Chong: I don't have that information readily at hand. Maybe I can provide that information to the member with respect to some of the questions. If he has more detailed questions, maybe he could provide that in a letter to me, and I can get him the full information or provide a briefing to him on that.

G. Gentner: It allows me to sort of point out to the minister that on the website of SportSafe there is discussion on sport and recreation injury prevention — for playground safety, a need for bicycle helmets. And in fact, surprisingly, you have a 105-page report way back from the year 2000, to the minister back then, Ian Waddell — the Bernie Pascall report on violence in hockey.

It allows me to ask the question that…. Since it's on the webpage and there is a need to protect children in sport — which I think is, obviously, under your purview — and this report was incorporated under the ministry in partnering with B.C. Amateur Hockey, I have to ask the question. We know that in today's world we are seeing a major impact of injury in hockey — in particular, minor hockey. Frankly, I don't know if too much has been done by the ministry since then, the year 2000 to today. But this is a growing, unfortunate phenomenon — regarding concussions.

A bodycheck in hockey is a major issue, and I want to know what the ministry is doing. Give a status report. Like I say, it has been 11 years since the last report was made. It's affecting our national game. I know that lacrosse players would disagree with that and say that that's the national game.

But my question is: is concussion a contributing factor to the declining enrolment across British Columbia in this particular sport? What is the type of funding the ministry is providing for hockey associations, and how much funding is being used for the prevention of injury in minor league hockey?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm sure it will come as a surprise to the member, but while he is making reference to some of the issues with respect to prevention, it's actually the Ministry of Health that is the lead on injury prevention. The reason for that is because it's not about just sport. It is about the health side of things. That's why the Ministry of Health is there.

We are collaborating with them, the Ministry of Health, as I say, and other injury prevention organizations across the province, such as the B.C. injury research and prevention unit, the B.C. Medical Association, SportMedBC and ThinkFirst B.C. These are organizations that have come together with the Ministry of Health to look at strategies to prevent head injuries and educating and training parents, coaches and health care professionals on the most recent and current concussion management and the return-to-play protocols.

I can tell the member, in fact, that the Ministry of Health is working on this. Because we are dealing with so many sports organizations, we are participants and we are a member of the recently established B.C. Concussion Advisory Network, which is, again, led by the B.C. injury research and prevention unit.

[1705]

This was a forum to address the need for consistent messaging, developing standards of practice and educating health professionals on the most up-to-date concussion assessment and management protocols. As I say, we are involved. However, the lead in this area of concussion prevention and management does rest primarily with the Ministry of Health.

G. Gentner: What I'm saying is: even though the B.C. minor hockey associations and associated teams are concerned with this, prevention, relative to concussions and children being inflicted with injuries, is of no interest to the ministry. The ministry is doing nothing on this file.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm sure the member did not mean to be inflammatory. I will take that as his not having heard the comments that I made just moments ago. The reason why the Ministry of Health is the lead on this is because injuries and concussions are medical in nature. That is why it's important to work with the health care professionals — in particular, people like the B.C. Medical Association, people like the B.C. injury research and prevention unit, people like SportMedBC.

The Ministry of Health is working with them. Our branch…. We do co-chair the B.C. sport and recreation injury prevention advisory group, so in fact, we have a role. We do participate, and the group does meet. They share information, and they work collaboratively on strategies to prevent and reduce sport and recreation injuries in British Columbia.

Through our annual funding to the provincial sports organizations, which I mentioned earlier — and how the provincial sport organizations receive dollars…. They require codes of conduct for athletes and coaches as well. As I say, because the funding supports those organizations, they are required to have safety initiatives. One example is Football B.C.'s distribution of concussion cards, a practice that we encourage other sports to follow.

So I would not agree with the member if he is sug-
[ Page 9687 ]
gesting that we don't care and that we don't have an interest in this. He's absolutely wrong.

G. Gentner: It's obvious that the ministry lacks a proactive need to look after the children in this province, who are indeed being inflicted with greater concussion than anywhere else and other sports per capita. I have to say, as the minister suggests that this is medical in nature and therefore not necessarily under her immediate purview, that violence in sports and injury in sports is part of a culture. It's part of a culture, and she has a responsibility to begin to deal with the ongoing concern we have and the fact that parents themselves are no longer enrolling their children in hockey.

I have to say that last fall the member for Vancouver-Langara introduced a private member's bill in the House, and she proposed legislation that would prevent concussions in young athletes. Her private member's bill should have been made into law. But we're talking about putting aside some money in a budget that's going to talk about instructing children and coaches, who this minister has the umbrella over, to work it through.

Now, how is it that the member for Vancouver-Langara, through her bill, Concussions in Youth Sport Safety Act…? It was recognized by the majority of sports — relative to, of course, injuries. I'm asking the question: what is the ministry doing relative to concussions and injuries in minor hockey? What are you doing? How are you assisting? How are you working with the associations? Do you have an awareness program? Those, the suffering….

There's a story about a young lad. He was only 11 years old. His name was Jason DeMarco. He went through months and months with headaches because of minor hockey. This is of growing concern. So to simply push it off to the Ministry of Health when this ministry is responsible for sport in this province…. I think it's unconscionable that we would allow this to happen and not get involved in a file that is threatening our youth.

The minister is suggesting that she is not involved in this. I'll ask another question. Has the ministry conducted a study and reported the number of concussions and injuries to children due to sport?

[1710]

Hon. I. Chong: I'll reiterate for the member that while I expressed that the Ministry of Health was the lead, oftentimes you do work cross-government to achieve an objective, and you take a look at the groups and the organizations that you work with.

Clearly, the Ministry of Health was working with the health care professionals, as well, to ensure that the best practices for safety and the concerns related to health care would be considered. The last thing you would want is people who think they know better, and then have the health care professionals come along and tell you that they were not consulted, when they're the ones that actually treat injuries, for the most part.

That's why the Ministry of Health is in fact the lead on injury prevention. As I say, they bring in people like the B.C. injury research and prevention unit. They bring in people from the B.C. Medical Association and SportMedBC, as I've already expressed.

I've also shared that in our ministry, as the sport branch, we do maintain involvement. We are concerned, by virtue of co-chairing the B.C. sport and recreation injury prevention advisory group, which meets to share information and to work collaboratively on strategies to prevent and reduce sport and recreation injuries in British Columbia.

These organizations are our link to the most recent statistics and initiatives across the province as they relate to sport and recreation injuries. Clearly, these are the organizations that know where and how often injuries are occurring and that are keeping track of that. So it's important to work with them, because they have the foundation to go across the province as well.

The sport branch in our ministry, as well, is a member of the recently established B.C. Concussion Advisory Network, as I've indicated, which is led by the B.C. injury research and prevention unit. That was formed to address the need for consistent messaging, developing standards of practice and educating health professionals — which is, again, why I express how health professionals are involved here — looking at the most up-to-date concussion assessment and management protocols.

It's not about just everybody wanting to do more. Absolutely, we want to do as much as we can to prevent injury, but we also want to ensure that the health care professionals are at the table and can provide their best advice and take a look at the assessment and at the standards of practice.

Our sport branch also funds SportMedBC, which provides health care professionals and the public with injury prevention information. We also monitor the work that is being done by the B.C. Concussion Advisory Network to ensure that the most recent concussion standards are being communicated in British Columbia.

So I do take exception to the member's suggestion that our branch, our sport branch, is not involved or not interested, in particular, about the injuries.

I am very gratified with the work that the member for Vancouver-Langara has done thus far. She spoke to me prior to introducing her private member's bill, to advise that this was an area of concern to herself, being a doctor, and that she wanted to provide an opportunity to present a bill, which then would give her grounds by which to meet with groups, sports groups in particular, and really have that communication and hear from people — not only from the sports injury or concussion side but also in her capacity as a doctor.

I know she has been out and met with a number of people. I look forward to hearing a report or hearing back
[ Page 9688 ]
from her as to what those discussions concluded. We'll be able to work with her and the Ministry of Health to move forward as we deal with concussion prevention.

G. Gentner: The member for Vancouver-Langara will certainly, I think, have our support relative to bringing this to the forefront. It's bold, bold work — yes. I think it's one of those cooperative things we've got to deal with.

The minister has to understand that the Pacific Coast Amateur Hockey Association voted in a special meeting to ban bodychecking. It's a movement that's going on. I hope that the ministry will get involved with the associations and create a very safe type of hockey venue.

We know there is always going to be hitting in hockey. It seems to be something that…. I hope the ministry will take a major lead in this effort.

Now, to move swiftly — because I'm going to get the hook sooner than I had anticipated — I want to segue into something that was on the front page of the Vancouver Sun sports section today.

[1715]

My question to the minister is the following. Apparently, there is a promise to the Vancouver Whitecaps of $17.5 million to build a training centre. I'm just wondering where in the budget here — I can't find it in your ministry — this $17.5 million is found.

Hon. I. Chong: The member is correct. It is not in the budget because we have not yet received a business plan and case for the national soccer development centre.

G. Gentner: Well, it was promised in 2009 before the election, and it wasn't in the budget then. I don't know where…. Could the minister please explain to me…? First of all, obviously it's coming under her budget. Therefore, there is going to be no training facility started up in 2012. It's not in your budget today, and the Whitecaps were told by the former Premier….

My understanding is that in order for them to get the MLS franchise, they had to build a training centre. I would have thought that would have been on the books, but apparently it's not. There is no $17.5 million set aside. Therefore, the minister is saying there will not be a decision made this year because it is not in the budget.

Hon. I. Chong: I hope the member understands, because he has been here for a number of years, what goes into a budget. What goes into a budget is generally what you expect that you are going to be required to expend over the course of the next year or the next number of years.

The reason why it's not in the budget is because we have not yet received from the Whitecaps a plan that shares with us how and when they can provide that expenditure. They are currently, as I understand it, still in discussion with interested municipalities. They have not yet made a determination. How could we possibly put the amount into a budget when we still haven't heard back as to which municipality it will be established in?

The member perhaps was hoping it was in Delta. That is where it was originally promised. I grant you that. But Delta withdrew their application or withdrew their request that it be in their area because they needed the property and the lands for other purposes.

If that had not been the case, I would have ventured that it would have been in progress now and the funds would have shown up in the budget. But as a result of the decision that Delta council made…. I don't know if the member had anything to do with it. The fact of the matter is that Delta withdrew, and the Whitecaps, as I understand it, are looking to interested municipalities and finding a location where it would be suitable.

I have indicated to them that when they are ready to tell me what and how they're going to develop this centre, obviously, I will be sitting down with them and making their request to Finance.

G. Gentner: It's not a question so much that Delta refused. It's got a lot to do with the fact that Wally Oppal was not re-elected. It was pork-barrel politics at the time. It wasn't itemized in the budget. It's still in the budget. A promise was made. You would have thought that $17.5 million would be put in reserve for the time that it's going to occur.

Suddenly now the Whitecaps, rightfully or wrongfully, have been promised something that isn't there. It's not in the budget. The minister has admitted that. They made an obligation that in order to get the franchise in Major League Soccer, there would be this money allocated towards a training centre, and it's not there. It's not in reserve. It's not there.

Now, as the minister responsible for communities and particularly municipalities…. There is also another party that's involved. It's the Whitecaps, and it's the province, and it's going to be the municipality, whichever one it is, to come up with the property and land. So it's a three-way partnership.

Can the minister commit today that her ministry is in discussion with all municipalities in the Lower Mainland, that this is an ongoing file? Or is it a closed file? We want to know where you are, because the money's not there — no money, no training centre.

Hon. I. Chong: As I expressed to the member, he is correct. The money is not in the budget because we don't have a plan from the Whitecaps as to how they need to disburse those funds when they do that.

You know, if the Whitecaps aren't able to provide us with their plan in the next three or four years and the budget is only out three years, how can you possibly put it in? That would be irresponsible.

[1720]

The member should know, because he's been here for a number of years…. If in fact we need to go back to the Ministry of Finance to provide those dollars, that's why you have a contingency fund. That's why the Minister of Finance is the individual I would then speak with and request the funding for it.

The Whitecaps have been in discussion with our ministry staff, because they know they have to get on with finding a place. It is not up to our staff to find the municipality where this will go. It is up to the Whitecaps to decide. After all, they will know what is best suited to their needs.

The member made comments about Delta and the fact that we withdrew from it — that it was because of an election. I would say that he is wrong. I met with the mayor of Delta shortly after the election of '09. She expressed a very keen interest in going forward, and we actually were moving towards that. But somewhere along the line we received a letter advising us that the lands that were intended to be used would no longer be made available. Then the Whitecaps decided that it would not be the place to go because it would not meet the needs of their club.

Consequently, for the last two years they have been looking for a place. I can assure the member that I had our staff speak with the organization, expressing very clearly that they need to move on this very quickly if they intend to have a training centre in place that can be used for the purposes that meet the condition of their MLS franchise. That is something I know they are very concerned with, and we are in discussion with them with respect to when they are able to provide us with a site, able to provide us with their business plan and able to provide us with the cash flow projections that they will require from us as government. We will then be able to go to Finance and provide for the dollars they need.

G. Gentner: Well, I do know the mayor, and I do know council. I do know the circumstances. This was foisted upon Delta at the last minute, just before the election. That's a fact. There was a lack of consultation. But we will have a difference of opinion. I'm sure, hopefully, that the mayor will come on the record and straighten the whole mess out.

But I want to ask the minister another question. We did have a lovely Grey Cup. We were able to hoist the Grey Cup, and we're Canadian champions. How much money did the minister pay towards sponsoring the venue and event in B.C. Place and other venues attached to the Grey Cup? And can she itemize where that money was spent and how it was spent?

Hon. I. Chong: Certainly, I hope the member does, if he wishes to, speak to the mayor of Delta. I certainly recall the conversation I had. As I said, I think it was July or August of 2009 when she expressed a real desire and came with a plan and showed what their hopes were.

I also recall a letter that came in some months later which said the requirements of the municipality had changed and they withdrew. I can tell you it was not something that I would agree with the member about — that it was foisted on them and then they were required to withdraw. They were in fact still keenly interested in the summer of 2009. What made them change their decision, the member can discuss with his former mayor and council members.

With respect to the Grey Cup, I can advise the member that we provided dollars for the festival, not the game itself — the festival included the parade and a number of arts and culture venues around the city — to the tune of $550,000.

G. Gentner: How much of that $550,000 went to providing the venues during the game itself, as in suites, etc.? The other question I have is: how much money did the ministry spend during the celebrations of the Stanley Cup?

[1725]

Hon. I. Chong: The amount we provided to the Grey Cup society for the festival was, as I say, $550,000. That is not unlike…. It's fairly similar to what was provided in a previous time when the Grey Cup festival occurred in Vancouver. I believe that was around $500,000. That was in the year 2006. We did not provide dollars to the Stanley Cup because there was no celebration, as such, for the Stanley Cup that we were asked to provide for. If the member wishes to suggest that we had received a request to help celebrate the cup, I can assure you that that did not occur.

The contribution we provided of $550,000 was to help support a number of free, family-oriented events as part of our sponsorship package. That also allowed for us to see that Vanier Cup tickets were distributed to families, including disadvantaged youth, through the provincial sports organization and charitable groups, including the Kids Up Front, which are focused on helping out low-income families.

As a part of this, this was, I think, the first time the Vanier Cup was held in conjunction with the Grey Cup, and a number of tickets were provided for, which we immediately asked the provincial sports organization to distribute. I can assure the member I was not distributing a number of tickets for the Vanier Cup. We, as I say, know that…. Because sport has such a positive impact on the lives of children, we chose those organizations to deal with that.

I understand that as many as 300,000 people attended the festival events, including 100,000 who came to the Grey Cup Parade itself. That's where the dollars went, and it went to the festival that occurred that weekend.
[ Page 9690 ]

G. Gentner: Sorry. One last question. Can the minister provide me the same briefing note she's reading from — both pages that I've so far seen?

Hon. I. Chong: The member will know that all information that he requests would have to go…. From the ministry it usually goes through an FOI lens. And whatever is available, we will provide to you.

I do want to tell the member that with respect to the provincial support, in past festivals it varies widely with various provinces. I want to let him know that the province of Ontario is actually providing $4.5 million to support the 100th Grey Cup next year. That is well in excess of what we have. The province of Alberta provided $1.1 million to support their festival last year in Edmonton. So we were certainly well below that amount.

We did indicate to the festival organizers the fiscal restraints we had, but we also knew how important it was with respect to ensuring that many free, family-oriented events would take place during the festival weekend. Also, we knew how important sport was in contributing to the well-being of our youth and how sport has had an opportunity, as we saw in the 2010 Olympics and Paralympics, to galvanize our communities and express our pride.

G. Gentner: This will be my last question.

H. Lali: This is the fifth time you've said that.

G. Gentner: I know. This is getting better all the time.

So the $550,000…. I was going to say million. Sorry, that was a slip. I started thinking about the new roof and how it really got out of hand there. But $550,000 or thereabouts…. Does that also include the venue after the Grey Cup — the tour with the cup and taking it everywhere else in the province?

Hon. I. Chong: The $550,000 went directly to the weekend of the Grey Cup for the festival and for the arts and culture, family-oriented events. That's where it was provided for. The Grey Cup tour that occurred recently was funded separately, and I believe the amount was about $50,000, which was similar to what it was the last time British Columbia won the Grey Cup.

H. Lali: In the spirit of the questions and answers that are taking place, I was tempted to actually lighten the mood a little bit and ask the minister if there's money set aside for the B.C. Junior Hockey League championship or the lingerie cup, but I won't go there anyway. Just kidding.

We will lighten things up.

Interjection.

[1730]

H. Lali: Don't go there.

Before we actually get on to it, I gave….

Interjection.

H. Lali: Watch it, hon. Member. I don't think your constituents would like that.

Anyway, before we go to the general ministry questions, we'll stick with the gaming grants since we're talking about that right now. I've got a few questions. I just want to talk about Skip Triplett's community gaming grant review report. One of the recommendations under the eligibility options is No. 6.

I'm just going to read from this. It says: "Remove essential service organizations such as parent advisory councils, district parent advisory councils and public safety organizations from the community gaming grant program and fund them directly from the appropriate ministries."

I just want to ask the minister if any funds are going to go along with that or not — these funds for these grants that would come from the new ministry that they are going to go to.

Hon. I. Chong: Those will continue through the gaming grant process.

H. Lali: Okay. In other words, they make their applications from the appropriate ministry, but the funds would still come out of the gaming grant?

Hon. I. Chong: It's the same process that has been in place. These go through the gaming grant branch, and they will be continuing to do that. I realize that was a recommendation or an option that Skip provided, but we have not changed that.

H. Lali: Under the governance options there's recommendation 16: "Create a foundation or trust to adjudicate and administer community gaming grants." I was wondering if the minister might explain what is meant by that. And has No. 16 been implemented?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. I. Chong: The options that Mr. Triplett provided were really that. They were very informative, and they were options for government to consider. It wasn't a recommendation that we go there. He, I think, was looking at what was done in Ontario where they do provide the dollars to a foundation. Then the foundation makes the distribution, but the foundation also receives an administration fee — as the member will probably know, things like Vancouver Foundation. Sometimes when they have grants that they administer on behalf of the government, they take a fee.

What we have found with our staff in our branch of
[ Page 9691 ]
roughly ten or 11 people is that we can do it very efficiently and effectively. They adjudicate as many as 6,500 applications a year. From that extent as well, the people who reported to Mr. Triplett were saying that they found our system that was being handled in-house was a very efficient system. We appreciate his idea, but it wasn't one that I was going to consider.

H. Lali: I'm just wondering if the minister can describe the government's actual response to the options in the Triplett report, and two of them specifically I'm going to mention here. I'll roll it all into one question.

Under additional ideas in this report, No. 1 says: "Create a special fund for organizations with strategic plans that help address current government issues." I have no idea what he means here. I was wondering if the minister might explain that and also if that was implemented or not.

The other one, No. 8, says to create an innovation fund. Again, there is no explanation as to what is entailed in the innovation fund — and if that was also something that was implemented.

[1735]

Hon. I. Chong: On the first option that Skip Triplett provided and that the member is questioning, with respect to special funds for strategic plans, when I had a briefing with Mr. Triplett, he indicated that in his discussions and consultations around the province he'd heard from people who said: "Well, how about we look at a possible other pot of money, maybe, to deliver specific programs?" One, for example, could be to strategically focus dollars on First Nations, to do with a First Nation program that would otherwise not fit in any other program.

The innovation fund was more about providing seed money for new ideas and even for organizations that had not been in operation for 12 months — if somebody had a new idea and wanted to get it off the ground, some sport idea. So they said: "Well, maybe we could have a fund for that."

The criteria that we currently have for the distribution of gaming grants do require, because of the financial implications, a governance model, a board that has public input as opposed to a private club, as well as a financial statement that shows that it has been in operation for at least 12 months and, therefore, will be able to continue the program.

These, again, were ideas or options that Mr. Triplett provided to me. I can tell you, because both would require additional dollars, that given today's fiscal climate, I was not able to secure those additional dollars. I was very pleased to get the additional $15 million. To have received the funding for these two funds would have required additional dollars. To be quite honest, I just wanted to get some of our basic funds back up to a level that would allow us to address as many concerns as he had heard about.

H. Lali: As of January 2012 the eligibility for community gaming grants…. I understand that an organization is ineligible if it is a federal, provincial, regional, municipal or other local government. I want to ask this question: why was the change made?

I know that in my community of Merritt…. Of course, this was before 1991, when the grant was approved. It was called GoBC, which was the gaming grants under Social Credit when they were in government. Of course, all the grants were reviewed, and it was one of those that was checked off to go ahead when the government that I was a part of came into existence.

There was about $1 million for a pool facility, an aquatic facility in Merritt. There were other recreational types of facilities across the province, which were also funded either by GoBC or the following government, by both Social Credit and the NDP when they were in office.

Obviously, the ownership of that pool included the regional district and the municipality of Merritt. The First Nations were not in ownership, but because they're within the regional district, obviously they would have that ownership, because they were constituents of the regional district. So funds from gaming grants were made and put to use by those local government bodies.

Obviously, I understand now, as of January 2012, that municipal, regional and local governments are now ineligible under this. I was wondering if the minister can explain why that change has been made.

[1740]

Hon. I. Chong: I would respectfully let the member know that there was not a change. When that communiqué was published, I guess, it was just to make sure that people were aware of what the rules were — as a reminder, in some cases.

Since at least 2001 that I'm aware of — I'm just checking with the gaming grant division — it has always been that situation where they were not eligible for that. So it wasn't — in this document that the member is reading from — that we changed it. It has always been that. Because of the additional dollars that were being provided, we wanted to be very clear about who should be applying. And sometimes it's just, again, a statement to be made there.

H. Lali: Will the minister provide a list of the gaming grant recipients from the last fiscal year?

Hon. I. Chong: If the member wishes to load up his printer, he can go to the website. There is a link called "Where the money goes," and every organization that has received money from the community gaming grant, I believe, is listed on there. But he'd best load up his printer.
[ Page 9692 ]

H. Lali: I guess I'll have to get a new printer, then.

Interjection.

H. Lali: Yeah, that's right. Well, you know, austerity is going on all around.

Can we expect to actually see more of the smaller grants, given that the eligibility has expanded?

Hon. I. Chong: It's rather difficult to speculate on the size of grants. Generally speaking, when an organization applies, we do try to accommodate their request, but staff does, I would say, a very rigorous process and ask whether in fact they need the full amount. Sometimes people ask for a larger amount than they actually need. Sometimes they have cash surplus amounts sitting….

There are some organizations — I know the member finds it hard to believe — that have surpluses, and that's what the gaming grant staff does. They take a look and ensure that they can provide the dollars to assist the organization but not provide reserves of cash when there are so many organizations that apply.

We don't know how many organizations apply. We know that 6,500 to 7,000 apply. Depending on the number that apply…. It depends upon that, as to what is made available for those various groups.

I can't speculate to the member about whether some will be larger or some will be smaller. In some cases, some people will get larger amounts, based on what they're able to do with the dollars on the requests that they provide. Again, that is a very rigorous process that the gaming grant staff goes through.

H. Lali: I note the time, obviously, so I've just basically got this one question, and I know the minister will answer it. You know, I understand what the minister is saying. Some communities or organizations apply for a sum larger than they need. It's sort of similar to how ministers go to Treasury Board asking for moneys — I've been there, done that — or to MLAs up north applying for multiple grants, knowing they're going to get a few of those — right?

In any case, obviously, there are organizations that rely on these grants on a year-to-year basis, and the minister is quite familiar with that. When the eligibility requirements are going to be expanded, that means it'll open it up to more organizations to apply for a grant. I was wondering if the minister can tell us: what effect does the minister expect the expanded eligibility to have on groups that have previously relied upon grants?

[1745]

Hon. I. Chong: I think what's fair to say is that when the gaming grant fund had been adjusted to $120 million, organizations and groups — some of which, admittedly, were not pleased — got, I guess, accustomed to the amount that they were going to receive. Some have found alternate sources of funding through more fundraising efforts, through private donations, membership increases or increasing their membership base.

A number of them have found ways to adjust for that, but $120 million was what was in the base budget. When we added the additional $15 million, that's where we were able to move it towards the eligibility to reinstate some the groups that perhaps were struggling, were not able to find other sources of income. I can tell the member that, by increasing the fund, we were able to increase eligibility.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:46 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada