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)

Monday, March 5, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 31, Number 2

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

MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2012

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have two individuals who are visiting us here in the gallery. Over the last few days they've been taking advantage of Be a Tourist in Your Own Home Town, a great tourism opportunity and a good economic driver in Victoria. They've decided to come by and visit question period at the Legislature. Would the House please make welcome Travis Moore and Drake Matejka. Great to have you here.

J. Horgan: I have two sets of introductions today. Joining us in the gallery are two retired educators from the Sooke school district. Bonnie Stacy, the former principal of Crystal View Elementary, and Erica Williams are here today, as well as some active teachers from Journey Middle School in Sooke. Would the House please welcome Martha Gerow, Michelle Vann, Laura Maragh, Sue Kilpatrick and Randy Dunbar from downtown Sooke.

S. Hammell: There are a number of Surrey teachers in the gallery today. They've joined us to witness the debate on Bill 22. Could I please have the House recognize Marion Koerbel, Glynis Cawdell, Julia McRae, Kristine Olsen, Gabriel Mateescu, Bhupinder Mattoo and Amber Rainkie.

L. Reid: My guest today is Jane Dyson of the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities. It has been my privilege to reconnect with her to advance on an issue which is at the hearts of many — namely, emotional support animals. Please join in making this House very welcome to her today.

[1335]

D. Black: Certain circumstances in the province have provided somewhat of a benefit to this grandmother in that I want to welcome and ask the House to welcome my granddaughters Meagan and Lauren Black. They're students in New Westminster, very athletic girls who have participated in the community in every manner of way. Accompanying them is their father, my son Matthew, who is a Vancouver police officer, a sergeant in the Vancouver police department. I'm delighted to have them with us here today, and I hope that everyone in the House would make them welcome.

Tributes

MARY MACKIE

L. Krog: I rise today to ask the House to pay its respects to the passing of one of British Columbia's most courageous citizen journalists, a woman who was a harsh critic of the B.C. government, particularly around the sale of B.C. Rail, and also critical of yours truly in the role that I played in criticizing the government. She was a well-known blogger. A defender of democracy, she feared no power. I'd ask the House to pay its respect to the passing of B.C. Mary — Mary Mackie.

Introductions by Members

H. Bains: In the House we have more teachers from my city, the city of Surrey. Please welcome them here. Their names are Casey James, Eric Newmeyers, Ken Jones, Peter Martin, Naomi Petzetakis, Gioia Breda, Angela Thibault, Ramandeep Mann and Monica Singh. Please help me welcome them to this beautiful House.

B. Ralston: I, too, want to recognize teachers from Surrey who are here in the House today — Dawn Mah, Raeland Guery, Colleen Eichendorf, Kieran Sandhu, Sarah Kramer, Kevin Larkin, Bob Elliott and Craig McGuire. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Fleming: I have a couple of introductions I'd like to make this afternoon. The first is to Tony Irwin, who's the CEO of Western Tidal Holdings, and his colleague Roger Ord. Western Tidal Holdings is a renewable energy company recently formed and registered in British Columbia to locate and build sites for tidal power electricity generation here on the west coast. Would the House please make those two gentlemen feel welcome.

There's also a group of four constituents of mine who are here in the House today — June Dermann, Dream Dermann, Tristan Wright and Angelica Wright. They visited the Legislature on the weekend as part of the Be A Tourist In Your Own Home Town festivities, events that occur in Victoria. They enjoyed the tour so much that they wanted to come back today to see question period, so they've been here twice in three days. They wanted to witness debate on Bill 22 this afternoon. Would the House please make those four individuals most welcome in the House today.

Tributes

HARVEY FRIESEN

L. Reid: I rise today to pay a fond farewell to my father-in-law, Harvey Friesen. It's never easy to have that conversation with your children about the passing of someone
[ Page 9712 ]
who is larger than life for them. He was a spectacular grandfather. I simply wanted to extend my thanks to all of you for your many kind wishes.

Introductions by Members

G. Gentner: Many of us in this House were, I'd say, survivors, so to speak, of the Fire Ops 101 last year, sponsored by our firefighters provincially. I have the honour and pleasure to introduce to the House today Delta's finest firefighters from Local 1763 — president, Brad Wilson; vice-president, Mike McMillan; Shawn Cropley, secretary; Hardeep Dhaliwal, who's the registrar; and the money guy himself, Tony Smith, treasurer. Could the House please make them welcome.

J. Brar: Visiting us today there are more teachers from the city of Surrey, the fastest-growing community in the province. They are here to witness question period as well as the debate on Bill 22. They are Vanda Sampson, Tim Saprut, Linda Stewart, Amanda Hickey, Meena Dulku, Christine Yurik, Emily Dinjara, Jas Sidhu and Phyllis Minsky. I'll ask the members to please make them feel welcome.

[1340]

S. Chandra Herbert: I just want the House to welcome K-t Harvey, who describes herself as an actor, writer, shape-shifter and proud Okanagan, Tsilhoqot'in, Kootenay and Carrier native. Please make K-t Harvey very welcome.

M. Mungall: Mr. Speaker, it's not every day you look up in the House, especially when you're from a rural constituency, and you see someone you know. If I'm correct, I'm looking at Carole Gordon, who will be participating in the democratic process come 2013 in Kelowna. Please make her welcome.

Statements

AIR SAFETY WORK OF KIRSTEN STEVENS

D. Routley: Last week on February 28, it marked the seventh anniversary of February 8, 2005, the day an MJM Air Beaver plane crashed in B.C. Onboard and killed in that crash were Dave Stevens, Fabian Bedard and brothers Trevor and Doug Decock.

Kirsten Stevens, Dave Stevens' widow, has gone on to create an organization called SafeSkies, which has done extensive lobbying throughout Canada and with the federal government to improve air safety for floatplanes in this country. My partner, Leanne, and Kirsten have worked as lobbyists for logger safety.

I think that it would be good for this House to recognize Kirsten Stevens for the excellent work she's done. So often people suffer tragedies, and it's their response to those tragedies that helps so many others, and so Kirsten deserves our thanks.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2012.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm pleased to introduce the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2012. This bill contains amendments to the Business Corporations Act, the Cooperative Association Act, the Financial Institutions Act, the Partnership Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act as well as consequential amendments related to the Auditor General Act and other statutes.

The most significant amendments in this bill introduce a new type of corporation, the community contribution company, or CCC. Within the for-profit framework of the Business Corporations Act, CCCs will combine socially beneficial purposes with a restricted ability to distribute profits to shareholders. This hybrid vehicle will promote social enterprise by allowing this sector to tap into the emerging demand for socially focused investment options.

Other amendments in the bill will confirm procedural safeguards that protect co-op members, make corporate registry filings more efficient, streamline the appointment processes for the head of the Financial Institutions Commission and provide greater certainty and transparency regarding the authority of the Auditor General.

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

Bill 23, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

MARILYN DOOLEY AND
ROLE OF SOCIAL WORKERS

R. Sultan: This is Social Work Week in British Columbia. Social worker Marilyn Dooley once said:
[ Page 9713 ]
"Suffering diminishes all human beings. Social workers give of themselves to enhance life for everyone." She also observed: "We have this tremendous social service in B.C. responding 24 hours a day, serving children and families in crisis and others in need, helping resolve many of our society's problems."

Marilyn Dooley recently retired after 40 years in public service, mostly on the Downtown Eastside. We hoped to have Marilyn in the House today so that we could honour her and recognize Social Work Week with her, but that was not to be.

But it is a time when all of us should thank those who toil tirelessly in our schools, in our family programs, in our mental health facilities and in our counselling centres, improving the lives of British Columbians.

[1345]

Social workers staff the front line of our child protection system, and we ask them to make difficult decisions every day. If you ask Marilyn Dooley, she tells you that social workers are "just good people." I ask both sides of this House to join me in recognizing the contribution that these good people make to our province.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN SAYWARD

C. Trevena: Sayward used to be the gateway to the north Island, a vibrant logging community in the port of Kelsey Bay, where the ferry headed north. Now it's a much quieter community, with some people living in the broad valley; others further down the picturesque Salmon River, in the shadow of Mount Hkusam — many seniors, many retirees. But it's a community with a mission.

The mayor, John MacDonald, has been a driving force in making the dream of a primary health care clinic for Sayward a reality. He wants to make sure that the people in the community have access to health care in their own community. It's just over 70 kilometres from Sayward to Campbell River, and that's a long drive for a person who made an appointment with a physiotherapist, or care post-surgery or to visit the baby clinic.

People in the community have now caught the bug, and a board has been established to create a primary health care clinic. The building is there, the former municipal offices, and the furnishing has started, thanks to many donations. Now it's a matter of trying to attract professionals who would come to Sayward on set days of the week or the month to work out of that clinic.

The group are hoping that it will attract the mobile lab service so that people don't have to head to town for a simple blood test. They'd really like to see a nurse practitioner. They know they don't need a doctor full-time, but they would like to have someone who can take on some of the medical load.

A number of people on the board are also paramedics, and there's some talk of integration with the work done by B.C. Ambulance Service. But they're not starry-eyed. They know they need a lot of basic medical equipment to make such a clinic work — everything from tongue depressors to disposable gloves to gauze to a blood sugar meter. They're looking for donations and are aware that some of the equipment may need to be purchased.

There is a fundamental belief in public health care, in preventative health care and in health care in the community. Health care should not be paid for by fundraising or by corporate donations but out of the public purse. Care close to home, in the community, often saves hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, to everyone's health care bill.

BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF PETS
AND ANIMAL-HUMAN INTERACTION

L. Reid: Today I'm dedicating my remarks to Jane Dyson, the executive director of the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities. Comfort, solace, companionship, bonding — all are characteristics of a settled life. Dr. Coren of UBC talks about one of the newest trends in medical research, which focuses on the relationship between people and their pets and the effect this has on their physical and mental well-being.

The scientific data is unequivocal in showing that dogs can be a significant factor in dealing with stress responses for all people and can have a major beneficial effect on special groups, such as persons with physical and mental disabilities, seniors and others who may be socially isolated.

The medical recognition of the significance of the human-animal bond and its influence on human psychological health has become a subject of serious research. Human findings include lower blood pressure, relaxed heart rate, regular breathing and less muscle tension — all signs of reduced stress. Individuals with disabilities are particularly susceptible to stress, and hence, all of the secondary problems associated. Up to 25 percent of people who seek the services of a general practitioner do so for depressive and anxiety disorders.

Depression is considered to be much more disabling, socially and physically, than many chronic conditions. Although depression can be caused by many factors, one of the most common is loneliness. People who lack human contact often benefit from pet ownership and the emotional bond that pets provide.

Recently researchers looked at a group of people 60 and older living alone or only with a pet. Non–pet owners were four times more likely to be diagnosed as clinically depressed than pet owners of the same age. The evidence also showed that pet owners required fewer medical services and were more satisfied with their lives.

In the year 2010 Dr. Aubrey Fine edited a stunning collection of chapters on animal-assisted therapy, theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice, in which the au-
[ Page 9714 ]
thors explore the animal-human bond — from the use of animals with individuals with autism spectrum disorder to human-animal interactions in successful aging.

Animals have become an important part of the lives of many people of all ages, and there are now numerous studies to support the beneficial effects, both physiological and psychosocial.

[1350]

HOUSING FOR
INCOME ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS

J. Brar: During the welfare challenge, I experienced firsthand how difficult it is for a person living on income assistance to find a place to stay. I walked half an hour in the pouring rain to reach Highland House, a non-profit organization that helps low-income people find accommodations. A staff member named Tammy provided me with a list of rooms to rent and a ride to go see the places. The list contained 50 rooms, and Tammy asked me to call and set up appointments to see some of them.

I called every number on the list and was able to set up only three appointments. One of the houses I saw was a scary-looking, dirty old house with four rooms. The room that was available was small, with a single bed, a very small table and a fridge. The rent was $450.

Around the side of this house the landlord showed me another room. It was about three feet by seven feet, with no windows. When he opened the door, I was shocked. Who could live in a room that small? I could only take one step into the room, and I was standing directly in front of the twin bed. The bed fit in the room like a glove, from wall to wall. I thought to myself that it would be worse than staying in a jail cell, this room.

When the landlord told me that the room was already rented for $300 to a man due to be released from the hospital following surgery, I was unable to control my tears. I tried to hide them from the landlord and Tammy. I could not even begin to comprehend what kind of challenges await the tenant recovering from surgery when he comes to this room.

No one should be living in conditions like this. Clearly, we need to do a better job assisting the most vulnerable people of this province that we call the beautiful province on the earth.

NUTRITION MONTH AND HEALTHY EATING

J. Thornthwaite: British Columbians pride themselves on being counted among the healthiest people in Canada. Not only do we have the highest physical activity rates in the nation; we have the longest life expectancy as well.

I was a registered dietitian in my other life. My daughter is now at UBC in the land and food systems department with the goal of becoming a dietician, and my mom was a dietician at St. Mary's Hospital.

We take our nutrition very, very seriously here in British Columbia. Fresh organic produce is readily available in many of our supermarkets, and campaigns like the 5 to 10 a Day program build the foundation for lifelong nutrition in our schools. According to Stats Canada, British Columbia consumes more fruits and vegetables than anywhere else in Canada.

Check out the Dietitians of Canada website. They pronounce March as Nutrition Month and have dedicated it to busting popular nutrition myths, bringing the truth about food to Canadians. All month thousands of dieticians across the country will promote healthy eating and help Canadians with nutritious meal plans for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Healthy eating starts in the home. As part of healthy families B.C., this is another great way for families to learn about nutrition and how to eat healthy together.

Last year our government announced a new resource for families. HealthLink B.C. is a fast, easy way for people to access trusted health information. Simply dialling 811 connects you to a nurse, pharmacist or registered dietician at any time of the day.

This week at Lions Gate Hospital there's going to be a Nutrition Month display outside the cafeteria and ready access to all of the dieticians in Lions Gate to get tasty snacks, recipes and handouts on healthy nutrition, etc. This month I encourage all families to take advantage of the resources and information available to them from these dieticians. Let's work together to help keep our province healthy.

ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM
BY ART LORING

D. Donaldson: Many years ago I founded the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en School of Journalism. One day we were told of imminent direct action by Gitksan and Gitwangak to shut down the main CN Rail line running through the village on a long-ignored compensation issue. Sensing a teachable moment, we quickly packed up the class and headed to Gitwangak to cover the story. Standing on the tracks was a man who volunteered to be arrested but first spoke firmly and clearly to the RCMP and cameras about why the actions were necessary.

Always raising awareness, he then kept talking with the arresting officers, as he was led away down the tracks, about the export of timber resources from the territory with little in the way of employment for a village where nine out of ten didn't have a job. That man was Art Loring, Guu Tsa-giin, of the Lax Skiik Eagle clan, a true warrior — peaceful yet forceful, firm but not violent, respectful of the traditional laws. That was what I witnessed during many intense experiences I was privileged to share with Art.

[1355]

There were other times when I documented direct ac-
[ Page 9715 ]
tion that Art spearheaded. Once we were threatened by an agitated outsider when the Gitxsan were attempting to assert control over some unsustainable pine mushroom harvesting activities. Art skilfully defused the situation without losing the point, and soon the man was arrested in possession of a loaded rifle. As the main subject in Blockade, a 1993 documentary by filmmaker Nettie Wild, Art became more widely known as a defender of the land.

I also recorded his efforts to introduce ecosystem-based timber harvesting strategies in the Fiddler Creek watershed and his ecotourism initiatives. He used traditional ceremonies to cleanse his spirit and found great comfort and strength by working on the land and teaching young people about hunting, fishing, trapping and medicinal plant gathering.

On January 30 Art Loring, Guu Tsa-giin, died in a falling accident in the bush. Only 56, he is greatly missed, but his true warrior energy will be inherited by those to come in future generations. [A First Nations language was spoken.]

Oral Questions

INFECTION CONTROL AT
BURNABY HOSPITAL

A. Dix: My question is to the Deputy Premier. For many of my constituents and their families and, obviously, for people in Burnaby, Burnaby Hospital is their community hospital — including the Rampuri family. Their father, Bhinder Rampuri, contracted C. difficile three separate times during his hospital stay, including the week prior to his discharge date of February 6. He died February 8.

The Rampuri family is obviously concerned about the level of information available to them and the community about the spread of C. difficile at Burnaby Hospital. In fact, the Fraser Health Authority itself has acknowledged that action was only taken because of media headlines. I quote Dr. Nigel Murray. "As a result of recent public discussion, we have taken immediate steps to restore confidence in infection prevention."

Why did it require television news stories on the situation and media reports on the evening news and in the newspapers for the government to provide adequate information to people in the community about the problems at Burnaby Hospital?

Hon. K. Falcon: I will take that question on notice on behalf of the Minister of Health.

CATALYST MILL
OPERATIONS AND WORKERS

D. Routley: Catalyst Corp. is in creditor protection. Catalyst operates mills in Crofton, Port Alberni and Powell River. The loss of any of those mills would be devastating to their local economies. In Crofton, in my constituency, hundreds of direct jobs, hundreds more indirect jobs and many, many small businesses will be directly impacted.

What is the minister doing to work with Catalyst towards a solution to this crisis?

Hon. P. Bell: One of the key elements to the issue that Catalyst faces is its competitiveness internationally. We are working with the company as well as individual log suppliers to ensure that they can receive logs in an affordable way, maintain competitiveness and operate on an international basis. But this problem will not be solved just by the provincial government. It's a problem that will involve all parties, including the local communities, the employees, the management team and potentially new sources of financing.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: Well, the government has steps they could take between doing nothing and stepping right into the situation. The workers and their families are waiting for some sign that this government is taking their plight seriously. The minister must step up and provide that leadership right now.

These mills, once down, are lost forever. These jobs will be gone. Already, workers who took a buyout option or a bridging to their pensions are left hanging. They may be unsecured creditors, and they may lose their pensions. These workers are looking at a future without jobs and potentially without pensions. This is a disaster in the lives of the people in my communities — my friends, my neighbours.

What can the minister tell them today, right now, about what he and his government are doing to protect those jobs and to find a solution to this crisis?

[1400]

Hon. P. Bell: I will try and be clear again to the member opposite. This solution will not be found by any one single individual or party. Catalyst has had some history around challenges, economically, with their operations. They are currently in a restructuring process. That is the appropriate model under which they should be operating.

Catalyst has been working with their employee groups. Some have been supportive of new styles of contracts, similar to what Harmac has done. They've been working with individual communities in the province, and they've been working with the province, in terms of harvest and log supply for Catalyst. I'm confident that if everyone works together, we'll be able to find a solution that will protect the interests of employees and the corporation here in British Columbia.
[ Page 9716 ]

S. Fraser: With Catalyst Paper receiving creditor protection, there are fears that hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs may be at risk should the operation cease. I represent the workers and the community in Port Alberni, and there is so much at stake.

Has the minister appointed a fact-finder, for instance, to look into this issue and determine what needs to happen and to try to protect these mills from closing?

Hon. P. Bell: We are working with Catalyst. I and my colleagues have been meeting both with them as well as individuals in the communities. This is a very complex issue, and it is absolutely appropriate that they are operating under creditor protection right now.

Our role will be to make sure that all parties come together to try and find a constructive solution. I would actually refer to Port Alberni because I think they've been very successful in terms of working with the community under the previous leadership that existed. I hope that the current leadership in Port Alberni continues to do that. I know the employees have worked hard.

If they want to take a lesson, it would be to look at Harmac. That's a great example where there has been real success in a company, and they're looking at a long-term, viable future for the employees and that community.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: With Harmac, they tried to get into a partnership with Voith international to help them become a world leader, and this government walked away from that. So that doesn't bode well. This is real life right now — 360 direct jobs in Port Alberni and another 1,000, as the minister knows, with the spinoffs, in the balance here.

This is above politics. The workers and their families need solutions, and we don't need rhetoric. Will the minister agree to work with the company and also with the unions and the workers and with the communities, in a real sense, to protect these jobs should the unthinkable happen and Catalyst curtails any of its operations?

Hon. P. Bell: I believe I've answered that question already. The solution to this is actually all parties working together.

Recently there was a vote held by one of the unions in the organization that rejected the proposal that had been brought forward. Catalyst has worked hard with local communities. Communities like the one that the member opposite represents in Port Alberni have been very, very proactive. Powell River — very, very proactive. Campbell River — some very positive decisions. Other communities, not so much.

It's important that we work together to resolve this. The insolvency process, the creditor protection process that they're in, is the appropriate one.

AUDITOR GENERAL REPORT ON
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
AND PERMIT BACKLOG

R. Fleming: The government tabled a budget without new resources for the environmental assessment office only months after an Auditor General's report blasted the Liberal government for failing to ensure that the proponents of industrial projects are delivering on their environmental commitments.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. How does the minister expect the environmental assessment office to address all of the Auditor General's concerns when clearly this budget will do nothing but send the office towards more project review backlogs and chaos?

[1405]

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for the opportunity to talk about our response to the Auditor General's recommendations. I think we should never be afraid of making our processes better. We want to do that each and every week in this ministry.

The environmental assessment office has, in fact, responded to the Auditor General's recommendations. We now have a strategy and quality assurance unit to develop and implement the EAO's enhanced compliance management program. We have additional FTEs that have been reorganized in the office to ensure that we have coordination across all of the line ministries, to ensure that we not only make sure that we do a comprehensive environmental assessment but that we have the compliance and enforcement mechanisms at the back end of that, which is in line with the Auditor General's report.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The environmental assessment office in British Columbia was once an award-winning internationally recognized agency that was studied and emulated by other parts of the world. Today, under this government, we have an agency in crisis whose work has been put under a cloud — by the Auditor General's findings, for example, but also for the hit it took on its credibility and quality of advice for approving the Prosperity mine last year when the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency utterly rejected the project.

Same project, same review, same terms of reference but radically different results. Prosperity got turned down by the federal government, but it got a B.C. Liberal green light because the facts and the science weren't done and they weren't put before the minister.

Again to the Environment Minister: it simply defies common sense to imagine that the environmental assessment office can both improve its environmental oversight, as recommended by the Auditor General, while accelerating the permitting process, all with a frozen
[ Page 9717 ]
budget. Can he explain how his government intends to accelerate environmental assessment process without further lowering the bar for environmental protection in our province?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, as always, the NDP answer to everything is to just put more money into something. Of course, we won't know what the NDP would propose to spend on the environmental assessment office because we haven't seen the phantom budget that they apparently have over there, which they were prepared to release in the fall.

I can tell you this. The NDP could save a lot of money, because the NDP say no to everything. We wouldn't need to have an environmental assessment office.

On this side of the House we believe that British Columbia can develop our natural resources in the most sustainable way in the world, in which all British Columbians can be proud, and that's what we are doing.

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION STRATEGY

M. Mungall: The Liberal September press release trumpeting their plan to double international education students in B.C. by 2015 promised an action plan for international education, ready by the end of the year. We're now two months into 2012. We have yet to see a plan, and the only action we've seen in post-secondary education is to make cuts.

Does the minister have a plan that she can table in this House, or will she just admit that the Liberals are once again failing to keep their promises to British Columbians?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member opposite got it half right. Yes, we are actually embarking on an aggressive international education strategy. The report from the International Education Project Council did come to me at the end of last year. It is being reviewed, and you'll see shortly an international education strategy that will be unveiled publicly.

The member opposite is also wrong about our annual operating dollars and the commitment to our post-secondary institutions. Annual operating dollars to post-secondary are increasing — $1.9 billion being invested by taxpayers this year alone.

[1410]

Let me remind the member opposite: over $2 billion since 2001 for student financial assistance and over $2 billion in capital invested in our post-secondary system.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: The minister says there's an actual plan. I wish she would actually tell us where the whereabouts are for the student aid review. That would be some good news.

The question is: what is in the plan? The reality is that post-secondary institutions…. Many of them are saying: "Where are they going to put international students? Where are they going to be able to address this increase?"

Acting now on international education is critical. Eric Davis, vice-president of the University of the Fraser Valley, had this to say in response to the Liberal promise to double international students. "We don't have the room to grow…. Our buildings and classrooms are full. We've run out of space." And he's just one among many.

The Liberals' response to the realities at UFV is this: no plan to build capacity, no support. Just make cuts. British Columbians want to know when the minister is going to pick up the file and get the job done.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Unlike the members opposite, whose phantom budget is yet to be displayed, we actually do have a strategy for international education. I'll be pleased to present it to the members opposite once we have it finalized.

ELECTRICITY RATES AND
SMART-METERING PROGRAM

J. Horgan: I, like other members of this place, have been receiving e-mails and correspondence from constituents who have seen their hydro rates double over the past number of months. Since the implementation of the smart meter program, in fact, in my constituency I've been hearing from dozens and dozens and dozens of people about how they've gone from $100 a month to $300 a month without changing their consumption patterns.

Hilton Venter is a senior living here in Victoria. He had a smart meter installed in December. His bill has doubled to $885 for a two-month period, and he hasn't changed his consumption at all.

We have thousands of people saying: "Don't put these on our walls." We have dozens and dozens of people saying: "Our bills are out of whack." Will the minister acknowledge that he's made an error here, that he's made a mistake, and ship the whole process to the Utilities Commission so we can get to the bottom of it?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess we're at the bottom of the barrel for question period, with 12 minutes to go.

The reality is I had a conversation with the member opposite on Thursday. He brought up one of the issues around one of the smart meters. I explained to him that somebody got a bill change, not because of a smart meter but because they'd installed a 220-amp service and put in a great big hot tub, and they ran it through the winter.

Now, there is often a reason for a change in bills.
[ Page 9718 ]
Sometimes you can have a bad reading. What you do then is send somebody out. We actually send somebody out to measure their electricity, and the federal inspector of electricity actually performs these disputed tests. We go out and look at the range, and if we have to, we'll switch out the meter and go over the bill with the individual.

I said to any member of the House that's asked me about this, on both sides of the House, that if you have somebody that has a concern about a bill, get it to me personally — I've said this to the media as well — and I'll look into the individual cases, as you give them to me, every single time.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: It's interesting that…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: …the misfortune and the hardship of citizens of B.C. is a night at Yuk-Yuk's for the Minister of Finance. But we on this side of the House take it seriously when constituents contact us. We take it seriously.

Thousands and thousands and thousands of people have lost confidence in this government and B.C. Hydro as a result of the mismanagement of the smart meter program. It was exempted by law by the B.C. Liberals without any oversight whatsoever on a billion-dollar expenditure. Now we see rates going up right across the board.

[1415]

In California last year 1,600 meters were recalled because they were defective. Will the minister make the same commitment to the people here in British Columbia that the Utilities Commission will review the billion-dollar expenditure and will try and keep rates down for people in B.C. rather than sending them through the roof, which is what the Liberals are doing?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, 0.015 percent of people have actually rejected, of the 750,000 metres that have been installed in British Columbia today. In actual fact, when the grid goes live, it'll be the first integrated grid in North America, which will save hundreds of millions of dollars for British Columbians and at the same time allow us to make sure we have the most valuable integrated system in North America.

I know that the member opposite just gets really excited about this, but I do know this. The one thing he supports is higher rates for families in British Columbia, because he supports the union of B.C. Hydro that wants a 9.3 percent increase in power rates when we're prepared to stand up to the Utilities Commission as best we can to keep them down to 3.9 percent.

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

K. Corrigan: Last week this government claimed they take the issue of domestic violence seriously. Yet in December of 2011 the Auditor General, in his report Effectiveness of B.C. Community Corrections, raised concerns that only 42 percent of probation officers had completed their mandatory course on domestic violence.

The Auditor General said it is a risk that these officers who are front-line workers dealing with domestic violence all the time are not completing certain courses before supervising offenders.

With only 42 percent of probation officers completing a mandatory domestic violence course, how can British Columbians trust the Liberal claim that they take this issue seriously?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, yes, the Auditor General did make some comments and provided a very helpful report that looked at the effectiveness of community corrections. And in fact, what the member opposite didn't point out was that approximately 75 percent of our corrections clients have actually not come back under community supervision for a new offence within a two-year time frame.

We continue to lead. British Columbia does an exceptional job. We will continue to look at the recommendations provided by the Auditor General. We appreciated those. In fact, there were a number that were related to the way that records were kept. We have accepted all of those recommendations, and we'll continue to work hard to improve correction services within the province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, it's interesting that the minister mentions a reoffence rate. One of the recommendations and one of the comments made by the Auditor General was that the tracking was inadequate and it was hard to find out what the reoffence rates were.

We have heard reassurances from this Liberal government before, and the problem on domestic violence is the lack of action that follows empty promises. Over 4,000 people convicted of domestic violence are living in the community, with the majority having a substance abuse or mental health issue.

Government was warned of the seriousness of the domestic violence issue in a report by the children's representative in 2009. It was told again in the Auditor
[ Page 9719 ]
General's report about inadequate training for probation officers. Then last week we saw the Representative for Children and Youth's devastating and heartbreaking report.

Why has the government failed on such an important issue as domestic violence? What action will this government take to prove that their most recent reassurances aren't just more empty promises?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite points out the recommendation that I referenced in my answer. In fact, the Auditor did find that in 64 percent of the non-completion cases where we were dealing with community corrections, the problem was a lack of recordkeeping. So we said we will rectify that situation. That is exactly what we're going to do.

[1420]

All of us in this chamber, not just the member opposite, take the issue of domestic violence as a serious and profound issue that has impact on people's lives.

When the report was tabled by the child and youth rep, we responded immediately by saying that we are creating a domestic violence unit within our government. It will bring together the resources from those ministries that currently have resources in place. I can assure you that unit will be in place. It will be operating, and we will deal with circumstances. We all hope profoundly never to see the same circumstances repeated again.

ALLOCATION OF
FUNDING FOR ARTS AND CULTURE

S. Chandra Herbert: Arts groups in B.C. have been struggling for years, especially after the Liberals made the deepest cuts to arts investment in B.C. history. So imagine my surprise when I learned last week that the minister for arts is sitting on a fund of $3 million — a fund not known to the public, with no application process, without any public knowledge about this fund — and she has to spend it within the next 23 days.

Can the minister explain to this House how a secret fund of $3 million with no application process, no public process, no jury — completely at her own discretion — is open, accountable and will best support artists and the creative sector of British Columbia?

Hon. I. Chong: Half a billion dollars, $500 million — that is what this government has invested in arts and culture since 2001. For the member to suggest that there has been a cut is really inconceivable.

What we have been able to do is work with the arts and culture community. We have maintained funding to the B.C. Arts Council, the second-largest level ever in the history of this province, and they are providing those grants to a number of arts and culture communities. In addition, the community gaming grant program provides another $7.5 million to arts and culture groups. That's an increase as well, and we're proud of that investment we're making in arts and culture.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, the minister in estimates last week confessed to having $3 million and only 23 days now to actually spend it. She didn't say there was a public process. There is no application process. She admitted to that as well. She admitted that it was completely up to her how to spend it.

Now in this House she claims that there were no arts cuts. Oops. You might want to tell your Finance Minister, who admitted to the press that the Liberals cut the arts far too vigorously. Oops. I guess that fact didn't get checked either.

So $3 million — we forgot about that. We forgot that we cut the arts — the worst in B.C. history. Well, that would be the B.C. Liberals. We saw the head of the B.C. Arts Council resign over political interference. Now we know that in this upcoming budget year there's also $3 million, and it's an election year — surprise, surprise. The minister pretends to be surprised.

Can we ask the minister how she can assure the good people of British Columbia that this $3 million is not just another political slush fund for the Liberals to use to try to help them in failing re-election chances?

Hon. I. Chong: As I said already, half a billion dollars, $500 million, is what we've invested in arts and culture since 2001 — $17.5 million through the gaming grant process. Despite the current economy, we are maintaining funding levels to our arts and culture groups in 2012-13.

S. Simpson: We're talking about a $3 million slush fund. We're talking about a fund here that's not accountable and that's being driven out of the minister's office. We're talking about a fund that, it looks to anybody viewing this, is for political purposes. How much of it will get spent in Port Moody? How much of it will get spent in Chilliwack-Hope? That's the question.

[1425]

Will the minister commit today to bring an end to these kinds of funds in her office and ensure that they go through the Arts Council or go through an accountable, transparent body and not through her office now?

Hon. I. Chong: I do want to say that ultimately, responsibility and authority reside with ministers. The public accounts will reveal all the expenditures that are made with respect to arts and culture grants and programs.

I just want to assure the member that the programs
[ Page 9720 ]
we have within our ministry are dealt with diligently, with staff who review and analyze all the requests we receive. The member will well know there are always more requests than there are dollars for, and that's one of the reasons why I depend on my staff to take a look at those requests and provide recommendations to me.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Well, since the minister isn't prepared to make a commitment to move those funds over to an accountable, independent body like the Arts Council, since the minister makes vague comments about knowing what this is all about, will the minister release today documentation that tells us exactly what she plans to spend that $3 million on?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, the B.C. Arts Council has received the second-highest level of funding ever. They do a wonderful job, and they will continue to do that. But if the member is interested in where all the allocations of dollars will be through this ministry and other ministries, the public accounts will be revealing those.

[End of question period.]

D. Donaldson: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

D. Donaldson: This is a petition signed by 258 constituents of Stikine, mostly from small communities and villages in the upper Skeena, calling on the government to stop the installation of smart meters without consultation, against their wishes, for privacy, health and job concerns.

P. Pimm: I seek leave to make an introduction, please.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

P. Pimm: In the precinct today with me we have two members from the fire department in Fort St. John. Capt. Tom Worton and Stephen Beard are here. Can I get the members to help me make them welcome, please.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon we will continue second reading debate of Bill 22, intituled the Education Improvement Act, and in Section A, in committee, we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. Should that conclude before the end of the day, we would move to the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

(continued)

K. Krueger: At the beginning of the second reading debate for Bill 22, the minister and the critic each acknowledged that this House has deep respect for teachers, and I want to start on that note as well.

I'm married to a very gifted teacher, a woman who was born to be a teacher. We didn't realize that when we first met or first got married. She thought she was going to be a pharmacist, and I thought I was going to be a doctor. She chose teaching, and I chose this place. I think she made the smarter choice, certainly the one with the most long-lasting benefits, because she makes positive changes in children's lives every day with the way that she teaches them.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

We have many friends, too many to name, who are teachers. Many are my constituents. I do want to mention one, Renee Renkema, bravely fighting a terrible battle with cancer — a dear bosom friend of ours.

We're praying for you, Renee, and thinking of you. I hope you're able to watch this debate. I know it's important to you.

[1430]

The fellow who serves as my constituency association president was my student teacher when I was in grade 8 up in Dawson Creek. We've known each other all these years. He calls me one of his successes because he taught social studies, and he's proud that I'm in the Legislature. I'd better not start naming them because there are so many teachers that have been positive influences and mentors in my life. Everyone seems to recall those excellent teachers that they had in their lives and treasure what they gave us.

One of the cool things about this debate is that I'm getting letters from students. I'm sure teachers are urging them to write, and I thank them for that. I'm just going to acknowledge one from a young woman named Lizz. She emphasizes two z's on Lizz. She didn't think I'd actually read her e-mail, but I have, and it's one of the most powerful letters I've ever received. I just got it, really. It was March 4 at 10:13 p.m. I don't have her permission, so I won't go any further into that one, but I hope one day I can release it because it is an amazing letter.

Our government committed to one another before we were government — our caucus, our leader — never to cut education funding. I know there are arguments about
[ Page 9721 ]
if you don't keep up with inflation, people say that's a de facto cut and so on. But the truth is we've never cut funding to education, and as the student population has declined, we have taken pains to try and show people that we're paying more per capita in the system. And we are — 50,000 students less. Nevertheless, we know that education is the first and highest priority of the provincial government. Health care costs us more because it's so expensive. But we generally feel that way, and we all in this House deeply respect teachers.

The world changed in 2007 and '08 with the worldwide recession that we're not out of yet. We aren't, and the rest of the world certainly isn't. We're seeing positive signs. We're coming out of it faster than we might have been able to expect. Just before that, though, when we found ourselves in a surplus position, we gave a very healthy settlement to our entire civil service, and that included 16 percent over five years to teachers and a signing bonus of, I believe, at least $3,700. I've heard that some teachers got $4,000. I'm not sure about that, but at least $3,700. That was because we could afford it at the time.

But since then the entire civil service, pretty much — 130 unions — have settled with net zero because we're in recession. We're in deficit. Cabinet ministers took a 10 percent cut in pay immediately, and they're still at a 10 percent cut in pay because we're serious about not making this deficit any deeper than we can possibly afford it being. Around the world, things have changed. Even in Hawaii, everything's half price compared to what it was in 2007 — condos, single-family homes, everything.

So most people aren't looking for a salary increase, and 130 B.C. public sector unions have accepted and signed, including some very recently, that they don't reasonably expect that and they're prepared to sign off without it. They're looking for ways to increase productivity. They're looking for consultative problem-solving so that they can find savings within the existing funding and share that between the union memberships. It's been working pretty well.

The exception is the BCTF and this painful phase 1 strike over the last six months. There has been a price that's been incurred. Students have incurred it — parents telling us that they didn't know their children were failing certain subjects, a loss of vital communications with parents and between teachers and their administrators, a loss of relationships in the schools that may well take a long time to overcome. Vulnerable students falling through cracks because their parents didn't know that they were failing.

Worn-out principals. There have been headlines over and over in our newspaper locally in Kamloops that administrators are sick in unusual numbers because they are just being worked so hard. We call them principals. Teachers call them principals, and so do the rest of us, because they are intended to be the principal teachers, the go-to teachers in the school, the mentors, and this prolonged strike has make them sick, disrupted teams and hurt relationships long-term.

Every child should be taught as an individual with a unique context. That context changes over time, and it's really important that teachers and parents keep abreast of that. There are family breakdowns in our society. We know that. A lot of marriages end in divorce. A lot of them have rocky times. There should be tight communications.

Now, I've liked this debate thus far. It reminds me of how we proceed in the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, which the Leader of the Opposition referred to. In that committee, everybody is about the children and making sure there's a good liaison with the children's rep and that we're listening to her. She's doing a great job. This House unanimously renewed her mandate recently. The opposition leader praised all of that, and so did Mr. Ted Hughes when he reviewed the work recently.

[1435]

This debate has been feeling like that thus far, and that, I submit, is because people in this House actually feel education is too important to be partisan about, just like children in other contexts are too important to be partisan about.

So I hope we can continue in that vein. I know we have disagreements. We both know that we're dealing with a problem union, with the BCTF. The members opposite had difficulty settling with them — couldn't settle with them, actually. I think we're the only government in 25 years that has actually been able to settle with the BCTF. Frankly, that was because we had a lot of money at the time, and we had the bonuses and so on.

But now, faced with the fact that it's time that BCTF accepts net zero, they just don't want to do it. We can't do otherwise, Madam Speaker, as you know. We're already in deficit. It would cost $2 billion to meet the demands of the BCTF. In addition, we would have to pay a like amount to all those 130 unions that we've already settled with, in what is known, colloquially, as a me-too clause because we promised that. Everybody else is going to have to accept this. If we sign with any union and we don't stick to net zero, we'll pay you as well. We can't afford it. It would be over $3 billion.

There are a lot of numbers that are thrown around by the BCTF. You would think, almost, that we don't do funding for special needs children. Actually, we have $866 million a year earmarked for children with special needs, and we have the additional learning improvement fund as well. The minister has covered that thoroughly.

I said that my wife is a teacher. On Friday when she and I both got back from work, which is often pretty late in the day, she said: "I need you to explain some things to me." She's a very trusting person, like a lot of teachers. She looks to her union to give her the facts and nothing but the facts, to give her something that she can rely on. She gave me a list; this is her little handwritten list.
[ Page 9722 ]
She said:

"The union says we're going to be fined if we withdraw from a volunteer extracurricular position. We're going to be fined if we remove items from a classroom that we paid for ourselves."

Everybody knows that a lot of teachers spend personal money making their classroom a better place.

"The school district will have power to transfer a teacher to any other location or job in the district, with two days' notice. We'll not have our seniority — our length of service — or education considered when we apply for jobs. There aren't going to be any limits on class sizes beyond grade 3. And there'll be a removal of the restriction on the number of special needs students in the classroom, presently three."

We've had status reports from the Minister of Education all through these painful six months. He has asked Susan Lambert time and time again to sit down with him and schedule time. He'd clear his calendar. He'd clear up those sorts of questions. Her response has been that she wants money on the table. She knows there's not going to be any money on the table. So once again, we're at this dread impasse.

I'm not going to take up a lot of time, because we genuinely want the opposition to have the time that they want in this debate to state their case. The critic came over and asked me why I applauded him. But I thought he did such a good job laying things out. He doesn't agree with us on everything, but he said a lot of things we can certainly agree with, and I applauded him wholeheartedly.

We know that teachers have been told that there are 700 fewer special needs teachers. The fact is that there are 2,100 additional special needs teaching assistants in B.C. classrooms. We know that teachers have been told they're the ninth best paid in Canada. The fact is that B.C. teachers' salaries, with benefits, make them fourth best in all the provinces, and they pay the very lowest income tax, just like all the rest of us that make $120,000 a year or less.

We know the teachers have been told that seniority is eroded under Bill 22, but it does remain a key factor, with qualifications also considered. We do think that if you are applying for a math job, you've got to be able to teach math. That's just so commonsense that I don't think any teacher would actually argue with it. But the BCTF would.

The contract demands — we are told by the BCTF, and teachers are told — are reasonable. But a 15 percent wage increase, at a cost of $2 billion, is not reasonable given the current economic reality. The rest of the world knows that, including 130 other public sector unions.

Again, my wife tells me that the BCTF says class sizes are going to be eliminated, and they're not. They're going to be there. Granted that from grades 4 to 12, it's a cap of 30. It can increase, with the approval of principals and superintendents.

[1440]

But the individual teacher will have to be compensated if that happens. The compensation could be money — and it would be on a pro rata basis for the extra students — or it could be additional prep time. It could be professional development funding or a combination of all of those and other things.

We're looking to have satisfied teachers, happy teachers, happy classrooms. We're not looking to offend our teachers or in any way show disrespect to them. I think it's disrespectful for a union to frighten its members, to try to stampede them into a situation that's not natural to them.

I've lived through strikes. I was on strike once for 22 weeks, and that was because the employer locked us out. We kept chipping in our net pay to support the people they were locking out. When they hit 400, we couldn't afford it anymore, so we all went on strike. We were gone for 22 weeks — zero pay for half a year. It's really tough.

I'm sorry that the teachers are losing money today, and they will be tomorrow and the next day. They're not going to be happy about that. It's going to be hard for them to stop feeling bad about that. It'll probably take a very long time.

I am going to wrap up because I don't want to usurp time here, but I want to say that our hearts are with you teachers out there. We'd like you back in the classroom. We know that's where you want to be. We know you're getting great things done there. I am hearing genuinely touching testimonials to the way your students love you.

Not all my teachers were good, but many of my teachers were very good, and some were absolutely excellent. I'll never forget them, and I still want to thank them when I have this opportunity.

C. James: I am incredibly proud to stand in this House and talk about my support for education, but I have to say that I also stand angry that once again we on this side of the House are having to stand up and defend public education against a government that doesn't care about the system in British Columbia.

You know, Madam Speaker, I heard the previous speaker say that the government's heart is with teachers. Well, an easy way to show the heart is with teachers is to withdraw Bill 22 right now and go to mediation, as was suggested in the first place. That would show some real action and support for teachers. But I'm sad to say that I don't expect that we'll see that. This has been a track record that we've seen from this government.

I want to take some of my time to talk about that today, but I want to start by talking about the involvement that I've had in education and education's importance to our economy, to children, to our society, because that is what is at stake here. I feel very grateful that I've had the opportunity to see education from a number of different sides and a number of different roles.

I think, like many of us, I've seen education in the role of a student — a student right here in greater Victoria. I feel very fortunate that I had the opportunity to be educated in public schools right here in this district: James Bay School, South Park School, Central junior high school, Oak Bay high and Spectrum. I name those
[ Page 9723 ]
schools proudly because I'm very proud of the education that I received in those schools. I thank the teachers and the other educators who provided that incredible education.

I've also had the good fortune to be involved in education as a mother of two kids who are also educated in the public school system — again, right here in greater Victoria. In fact, it was one of those rare times, I think, in communities, where my children had some of the same teachers that I had in school. Not sure my kids appreciated that when they get the comments back, but it's an interesting perspective to be able to have your children attend a school that you attended, as I said, with some of the same dedicated teachers in that school.

I was very involved in the education system as a parent. I was president of the parent association, and so that's another role where I had a chance to see firsthand the involvement of teachers in our school system. Anyone who is involved in a parent association knows that you see how hard teachers work.

You hear comments once in a while about people talking about the time that teachers spend in the classroom. Well, anyone who's been involved in school, anyone who cares about education, knows that a teacher's job is not the school day. A teacher's job is the school day and the mornings and the weekends and the evenings and the events they go to and the prep time and the work that they do to put those things together.

[1445]

You see that firsthand when you're involved in the parent association. I feel very grateful for that opportunity because, as I said, it gave me a very good perspective on the work of teachers.

I also have been involved in education as the child of a teacher. My mom was a single parent for a large portion of my life growing up and was a teacher in the school district — again, here in greater Victoria.

Anyone who had a mom as a teacher or a father as a teacher will know that August has a very special meaning. It's the time you start to spend going to the school and going to the classroom and getting it set up for September, because the school year for teachers starts then, in August, when you're getting the classroom ready. I have fond memories of spending time putting posters up and getting the classroom ready for September. I think anyone who's had a parent as a teacher thinks of that time fondly and recognizes the time and the energy that was put in.

Any child who has a parent as a teacher remembers report card time and those weeks that are spent getting those report cards done, preparing for those report cards, the incredible time that teachers put in.

I'm sure anyone who's had a parent as a teacher also remembers those students who, for our family, became lifelong family members. My mother was a teacher in special education, so we had students — we still have students — who come back in the summertime to visit my mom. Although she has been retired for over ten years, they'll come back to visit and are connected to our family because of the time and the energy that was put in. That creates a special, unique view of education.

I also have seen education as a foster parent of children with special needs. I was a foster parent for over 20 years and had children and young adults who went into the public school system with great special needs. I saw the incredible time and energy put in by teachers to meet their unique needs, despite all of the challenges and despite all of the odds, who wanted to do everything they could to make sure that those children received the best education possible and the best start possible. That's again a unique view of the education system.

I also served as an elected school trustee for 11 years in the greater Victoria school district. That's again a unique view of the education system. I sat at the bargaining table. I sat across from employees as an elected school trustee, as a member of the employer, bargaining with all different employee groups. One of the most important things I learned, through any of the bargaining that was done, was that the key to come to the table for successful bargaining was respect, that that was the key in any relationship.

No matter how difficult…. And we had some difficult bargaining times in our school district over my 11 years as school trustee. We didn't agree on everything around our table. We had some very tough talks, but we knew that we respected the employees, and the employees respected us back. That meant we could get through those difficult conversations. We could come to agreement because we had a common goal, which was to improve our education system for everyone.

Madam Speaker, I just don't see that. I just don't see that with the B.C. Liberals. That's probably the word I've heard the most often from parents and students and teachers that I've talked to since this bill was introduced and since we knew that it was coming in the Legislature: the lack of respect. The people in the profession feel the lack of respect that hampers everything in our education system. That's so critical, as I said, to a good relationship, to good bargaining at the table — that respect. I think it's unfortunate that that's what we've seen from the B.C. Liberals.

Why is education important? I just want to take a minute to talk about that, because I think people often may look at education as important simply for their children while they're in the education system. My experience has certainly deepened my belief that education is critical to all of us. Regardless of whether we have children in the education system, regardless of whether we are parents or business people, education is critical to us as a society. It's critical to us as a society because it's the basis of a fair and democratic society.

[1450]

Education is there for everyone, Madam Speaker. You can't say that about a lot of services that are out there, whether it's government services or community services. Our education system is there for everyone. It brings people together from different views in life, from different parts of a community, from different ethnic communities. All come together in our education system.

Education strengthens and enriches our communities. It's critical to a good, healthy citizenship, critical to a good, healthy society. Education is critical to a strong economy. If we don't have well-educated citizens, we won't have a strong economy. If we don't have creative minds coming out of our education system, where are the next inventors coming from and where are the next creative entrepreneurs coming from? They're coming from our education system. The education system provides the foundation for a strong community and a strong economy for everyone.

A strong education system also will save us resources in other areas of social programs. A good, quality education will save us resources later on from the justice system, from the health care system and from social programs. Every measure of population health, whether it's poverty issues or whether it's ill-health issues, talks about education as key to a healthy population.

It's critical that we strengthen our education system in British Columbia, critical for all of us. Whether you have children in the system or not, whether you have a connection to education or not, it matters to all of us in society to have a strong public education system.

Everyone in the system is important. I've certainly worked with everyone across the education system — principals and vice-principals, support staff, boards of education, parents and, of course, students. But I want to talk, for the purpose of this bill…. This bill really does take on an attack on our teachers in British Columbia.

The teachers really are the people who are there in the classroom with our children for a large portion of their lives. They're the unsung heroes in our society. They are the people who educate our future. And what could be more important than supporting those people in our classrooms every day who are educating the future of our society? It's a critical role, a critical role that is not being respected by the introduction of this bill.

I want to read a quote for a moment. I'm sure some people have heard this quote, but I think it really describes, for me, the reality for teachers in classrooms every single day. It's a quote by a long-time teacher. It says:

"If a doctor, lawyer or dentist had 40 people in their office all at one time, all of whom had different needs and some of whom didn't want to be there and were causing trouble, and the doctor, the lawyer or the dentist, with little or no assistance, had to treat them all with professional excellence for the entire school year, then they might have some concept of what the classroom teacher's job is like every single day."

I think that's a good description of the challenges of a teacher.

I think many of us, some of us on this side, have had the good fortune of having grandchildren over the last number of years. I certainly know that I love looking after my grandchildren, but I also know how exhausted I am at the end of the day when I've had my two grandchildren over and I've spent a day and had a day with them. Well, just imagine, Madam Speaker, having 25 or 30 of those children with differing needs, with differing challenges every single day in a classroom. That's the extraordinary job that our teachers do every single day.

[1455]

Given that importance, given the importance of teachers, given the importance of our education system when it comes to our economy, when it comes to our society, when it comes to a healthy citizenry, what did this government decide to choose as its direction when it came to education? They chose to pick a fight, to pick a fight with something so important as education.

I wish it wasn't so, but there's a history here. There's a history here of not only this government picking a fight with teachers and the education system but this Premier picking a fight with teachers and the education system. Let's take a minute just to look at that, because it is important to look at the history. This isn't a one-time event for the B.C. Liberals — to decide to pick a fight with teachers and our education system.

This is an ongoing battle that started off with the Premier when she was, in fact, Education Minister. We heard the government, the B.C. Liberals, when they ran for election back in 2001, talk about the importance of funding education — how critical it was. They promised, in fact — another one of those broken promises — that they would support more funding for education.

What happened after the election? We ended up seeing education funding frozen from 2001 to 2004. What does that mean when education funding is frozen? It means that school boards are expected to pick up the inflationary costs that are there, which means cuts in programs and services somewhere. That was the reality from the now Premier, then Minister of Education — to go back on that promise to support education and to in fact create cuts and more difficulties for school boards.

We saw those cuts happen all across the board. The funding formula was changed to take away the support for small, rural schools. We saw one of the largest school closures over those years, because no longer was there a recognition that sometimes in small, rural communities you have to support a school that is in place and provide funding for that school. But no, the then Minister of Education, now Premier, decided to change that funding formula and took away the ability for those small schools to stay open, which created huge pressures for school boards and therefore huge pressures for teachers in classrooms.

What else happened during those years when the
[ Page 9725 ]
Premier was Education Minister? Well, we saw that the government and the then Education Minister stripped teachers of their collective agreement — a bill that was overturned in the Supreme Court, where the government was told that they were wrong, that what they did was invalid and unconstitutional.

Now, you would think that a government would have recognized that using a heavy hand might not be the direction to go. You would think having the Supreme Court tell you that what you did was unconstitutional and invalid would perhaps send you in a different direction when it came to dealing with teachers and teachers bargaining.

Perhaps you might want to try and resolve issues. You might want to show a little respect, a little understanding that what you had done was wrong. But we didn't see that at all. Instead, we have seen Bill 22 arrive here in the Legislature, without a recognition that this government, in fact, was told by the Supreme Court that what they did was wrong.

I want to read a quote from the Supreme Court judge in that case, because I think it really says everything about why we shouldn't be here and says everything about the B.C. Liberals and what they think of teachers and what they think of education.

The quote comes from the Supreme Court judge: "By passing this legislation without so much as consulting with the BCTF, the government did not preserve the essential underpinning of collective bargaining, namely good-faith negotiations and consultation." "Good-faith negotiations and consultation." That's a direct quote from the Supreme Court judge on the previous bill that came forward, that was found to be unconstitutional.

[1500]

Wouldn't you imagine, Madam Speaker, that the government would have listened to that, that they would have paid attention to negotiations, to consultation, to collaboration and the importance of that? Sadly, that's not why we're here in this Legislature.

I wish we were standing up to talk about how we could strengthen our public education and support teachers. Wouldn't that be a wonderful conversation to spend our time on in this Legislature? Wouldn't it be wonderful to be talking about how we could work together to improve our education system, to provide more support for all students and all teachers in our province? Now that would be a good use of legislative time.

Instead, we're standing here because the government decided, once again, as I said earlier, to pick a fight with teachers and to bring in this bill instead of trying to resolve things.

In the throne speech, which was only this fall, we heard the Premier say: "We want to modernize our education system to ensure our teachers have the support they need to provide children with the right skills." That was in October. There's another broken promise, from this Premier and from the B.C. Liberals.

How is this bill going to provide children with the right skills and provide teachers with the support they need? It's not. It's not doing that at all.

This legislation doesn't give support. It takes support away. This legislation, along with disrespecting teachers, removes support for children, all children, in the education system.

Now, when the minister introduced this legislation, I heard him talk about discrimination and that this bill would ensure special needs students weren't discriminated against. Well, what is discriminating, and what is discriminatory, is putting students with special needs into a classroom with little or no support. That's what is discriminatory — not allowing those students to receive the attention and the support that they need.

Those are heartbreaking stories that I'm certain members on the other side of the House have been told as well, where teachers are doing everything they can to try and provide support, and they go home in tears, at the end of the day, because they just aren't able to meet the needs of every student — that's students with special needs and not with special needs, who then struggle in that classroom. It's all students, then, who are struggling in the school. It's all students who aren't getting the kind of education they need. You have to put the supports in place.

I'm a big supporter of integration. I spent a large portion of my life working with children and adults with disabilities. I think it's critical to provide opportunities for every child, to be able to be educated in our school system, to go to their neighbourhood school, to be able to have the same kind of opportunities as every child does. But some children need supports to be able to do that. Those supports come in a variety of ways, including smaller classes to be able to provide the teacher with the ability to give the attention that's needed to those children.

This legislation causes that not to happen. This legislation says that, yes, there's a cap, but it's all right to go over the cap. It's all right to go over that cap if you provide extra resources. Well, I can't tell you how many times I heard this weekend from teachers who said: "We don't want the extra resources. We want the smaller classes and the support so we can provide those kids with the best education possible."

That's what teachers are looking for. No one goes into the teaching profession unless they care deeply about education and about children, about making sure that they can do the best job possible. No teacher I know went into the profession so they could see government pick a fight with them when they're trying to do a good job in the classroom every single day. But they need the supports for that to happen.

[1505]

What I see with this legislation is that it further erodes those supports and the ability to make sure that teach-
[ Page 9726 ]
ers have every resource possible to provide for children in classrooms.

Now, the legislation also says…. I think it's interesting to take a look at this, because we see the government say no to mediation. "No, we're not interested. Sorry. We're just going to bring in this legislation. We're going to take it forward to an arbitrator with clear direction, not an open mediation process." Yet the bill itself says to teachers: "You'll just collaborate on class size. You'll just work it out. You'll work with everybody in the school, and it'll all just work out."

Well, the government isn't listening to its own advice. The government isn't sitting down to try and work things out. The government isn't looking at how it can resolve issues, and yet it is saying to teachers: "Don't worry. It'll all happen in the classroom. You'll work with principals. You'll work with parents. It'll all work out."

Well, I'd say to the government, to the B.C. Liberals, that they should take a little of their own advice. They should have looked at sitting down and working things out. When you actually had both the employees, the BCTF, and the employers, the BCPSEA, B.C. Public School Employers Association, saying, "Let's go to mediation," both parties calling for mediation, why on earth wouldn't government have said yes?

There was a point agreed to by both parties in the negotiations, and usually when you have both parties agreeing to go to a mediator, that provides that wonderful opportunity where you say: "Let's go and try and resolve this. Let's take this, then, to mediation. Let's make sure we do everything we can to try and resolve this, to work it out."

But instead, we haven't seen that. So what will be the reality — the reality we have seen over the last 11 years under the B.C. Liberals in education? That reality will mean larger classes. That reality will mean less resources for education, which will mean fewer supports for students with special needs, fewer teacher-librarians, fewer counsellors, more school closure, because the reality is that this budget holds pat. It doesn't increase funding for education in the budget that was tabled by the B.C. Liberals.

If you don't increase the budget, you end up with cuts. Because there has been an increase in MSP premiums and school boards pay for the MSP premiums in school districts, there is a cost the boards will have to find from somewhere. They'll have to squeeze those education dollars once more to be able to pay for that. Where does that come from? It comes from the classroom.

I hear a lot of talk on the other side around change in education, individualized learning and how important that is. Well, one of the keys to individualized learning is time for teachers. It's pretty tough to create individualized learning if you have a larger class and larger numbers of kids with special needs and no supports to provide for them. It is very difficult to create individualized learning without those resources in place.

I'd love to have a conversation about how to improve our education system. But it has to start from a place of respect for the individuals who work in the system and a recognition that the supports and the resources have to be in place in the system. We can't continue to download costs and pick a fight with the employees who work in the system, teachers, and expect that that is somehow going to make everything just fine in the education system.

[1510]

I want to take a minute to reflect some of the voices that I've heard, because I think the most extraordinary time that I saw this weekend were the number of students I spoke to who talked about the importance of education to them.

This is a letter from a teacher in Prince George.

"The reduction in the funding provided to our education system is having a drastic, irreparable effect on our students. I work in a senior high school, and I've seen the devastation. I'm assigned to the learning assistance program, and let's take a look at what that means. It means that every 70 minutes, 15 new students arrive in the classroom needing help with math, chemistry, physics, calculus, biology, etc.

"Class-size limits protect our students' education, their mental health and their well-being. Having properly funded programs ensures that the adults are there for students when they come for help."

Another one from Victoria. "As a teacher working in the Victoria district, I implore you to remember that those of us who have dedicated our life's work to enhancing student achievement don't deserve to be disrespected. I want to fight for our students and to protect education in our future. It just makes economic sense."

"I write to you as a mother, a lawyer, a member of your constituency. I voice my concern because I believe it unfairly impacts teachers in our community and province, and I hope that people will remember to support our teachers."

"I'm a foster parent of a 15-year-old child with special needs. She's been well supported in the public school system, but I'm concerned because she needs individual attention. Because of cutbacks, there isn't always support for her. She's a well-behaved student. She flies under the radar sometimes. I want to know that teachers can complete the outcomes and curriculum, and they need the supports to do it."

J. Rustad: I rise to speak to Bill 22. Quite frankly, I wish I wasn't here speaking about Bill 22. I remember giving a similar comment a number of years ago under a previous job action. It's never healthy for any system when you have these types of things going on.

I want to talk a little bit about what Bill 22 is and kind of what it isn't and put a few things into historical perspective as well. What Bill 22 does is bring a cooling-off period to a situation that is, clearly…. On both sides tensions have risen to the point where we actually have an escalation in activity.

It brings a mediator in place to negotiate under a num-
[ Page 9727 ]
ber of things that need to be addressed. However, it does implement the net zero clause that government's position is in. On top of that it also has what's called a learning innovation fund, where it responds with $165 million to deal with some of the challenges that the federal court, the Supreme Court, has said that we need to deal with.

But I want to just say why that net zero component is so critical. A 1 percent increase to our public sector across the thing is about $230 million. Now, we have signed 130 different agreements with our public sector unions under the net zero mandate. They've signed on reluctantly, but they recognize the fiscal reality that we are in as a government.

They've said: "Okay. If that's the case, we understand. We're going to go sign on to net zero, but we do not want to be the only ones to do it." We put a me-too clause in, which says that if somebody else gets something, their contract is back and open, and it's an option for them.

Think about this for a second. The wage ask from the BCTF is only one component, but just that component alone is about $765 million over three years — the 15 percent. So let's do the math. If we had to do that across the entire public sector, 15 percent is over $3 billion. What's $1 billion? That's an awful lot of money.

To put it in perspective, $3 billion is more than 50 percent of what we take in with personal income taxes. If we were to meet that and try to get to a balanced budget, we would have to raise personal income taxes, if we wanted to do it through personal income taxes, by 50 percent. That's only the wage component of what the ask is.

[1515]

It's completely unrealistic to think that we can move off of the net zero mandate when 130 other public sector unions have already signed on to it. It is unfair to them, and it is unfair, quite frankly, to the taxpayers in the province.

Now, I would love to see us in a situation where we can provide an increase for teachers. I really would. I've been in a lot of classes. I was a former school trustee. As an MLA, I go into classes, and it never ceases to amaze me the amazing work that our teachers do in the system. But we're in a fiscal situation where, unfortunately, we have to make some tough choices.

There is room to mediate a whole bunch of things. When we engage with the BCTF and ask them about class size, composition, those sorts of things, they're not interested unless we move off net zero. Well, that makes it very difficult to try to get to a position where you can actually negotiate after 78 bargaining sessions and now seven months of job action, which has now escalated to a full strike.

But the members' opposition seems to suggest that this is conflict between the B.C. Liberals and the teachers — that, you know, it's: "We don't like teachers." Well, nothing could be farther from the truth.

I want to read into the record some previous Hansard discussions, if I may. So this is an individual. The name is L. Hanson.

"It's interesting to listen to the Minister of Labour say that he can't get his message across to the teachers that there's no money. If he was dedicated to do that, he would have a manner of doing it.

"Mr. Premier, a question. Students in this province are being treated as political footballs. This government is standing on the sidelines while children get kicked around in these school strikes. Is the Premier of this government so beholden to the BCTF that he's unwilling to restore education as an essential service?"

That was from May 12, 1993.

Another quote.

"It's clear to me that the trustees and teachers will not return to the bargaining, let alone reach a better agreement for our children. As a government, we simply can't risk this agreement in the hope that these two parties will put aside their longstanding differences and work out anything better." It continues: "I am not prepared to gamble with our children's education by allowing this impasse to drag on and risking the strong likelihood of teachers being locked out or on strike."

That particular phrase was from June 25, 1998, from the hon. P. Ramsey.

Here's another quote. This is from May 5, 1987, hon. Mr. Veitch.

"One of the members a while ago, however — I believe it was the member for Atlin — stated this was an anti-teacher type of legislation, and he quoted someone as saying that they ought to take the gloves off. Well, Madam Speaker, I honestly believe that we've had the gloves on, on all sides of this issue for far too long. I believe the whole issue of education in the province has been politicized for far too long and it hasn't done any good for the educational process in this province. It certainly hasn't done any good for the participants, and it certainly hasn't done any good for those people we are trying to protect and to help through the educational system, and that's the students, who are sometimes forgotten in this whole melee."

That was a quote from May 5, 1987.

A quote now from October 6, 1982, Mr. Lauk: "We know what this bill is. It's a political ploy. It's taking kids, a whole generation of students, and turning them into a political football." October 6, 1982.

Madam Speaker, this dispute has been going on for a far long time. Let's go back even farther. April 30, 1975, by Mr. Smith.

"I am not blaming the minister for all of these innovations, because some of them came before her time. But let me say this. Each of the innovations introduced by the minister since she took office have been, to the great extent, costly programs. It has given rise to the belief that the more money you pour into the system, the better the education. Well, there is a good reason to believe now, as there was in previous years, that money is not the answer or the solution to our educational program entirely."

I continue the quote.

"The problem is that we are turning out of our high school system, from the grade 12 level, too high a percentage of students who are practically illiterate. They can't read properly. They can't write properly. They know nothing about the basic concepts of life that they will have to face after they leave the grade 12 level."

[1520]

The arguments and what has been going on that we've heard so far in this bill and that I expect we'll hear in the coming days of debate on this are not new. This is a challenge that has gone on for a very long period of time.

But I think it's worth noting, in particular, something
[ Page 9728 ]
I find quite interesting about the BCTF. As I said, I've worked with a lot of teachers as part of being a trustee and in classrooms. Their work is incredible, but I do kind of wonder about the BCTF and what their motives are.

There's a great book called Worlds Apart which talks about the history of the education system over 150 years. It came to a conclusion as part of its text that in the late 1960s and into the early '70s, the BCTF had decided they wanted to become more political. So they broke an agreement that had been longstanding and became very political and ultimately are credited with the downfall of the government to that day.

But since that time I find it quite interesting…. When you look at, for example, Ken Novakowski, who was the BCTF communications director and former president, was a federal NDP candidate in 1972, a provincial NDP candidate in 1986, managed Glen Clark's leadership campaign in 1996…. Interesting.

The BCTF executive director and former president, Elsie McMurphy, provincial NDP candidate in 1986. Former BCTF president Alice McQuade, Mr. Clark's appointee as co-chair of the B.C. unity panel on the Calgary declaration in 1997. David Chudnovsky, BCTF president and also an NDP MLA here in this House in 2005-2009. Jinny Sims, former BCTF and NDP MP currently. Irene Lanzinger, another BCTF president who was on stage with the B.C. NDP leadership during the recent convention. Our current president, Susan Lambert of the BCTF president, donated money — $1,150 — to the B.C. NDP.

Do you see a pattern, Madam Speaker? It's one, I think, that is challenging. I wonder, because what we should be talking about…. The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill said it very well. We should be talking about how we are improving education in the province, what we need to do to try to help out our students. But it's unfortunate that we have this challenge and this relationship that has gone on now for more than 40 years.

I read in recent press articles that they've come to the realization too that this is a real challenge going forward. So the question is: what is it that Bill 22 is trying to solve? How is it we are trying to get there?

For example, the BCTF has come out and claimed that there are over 12,000 overcrowded classes in British Columbia — 12,000 overcrowded classes. That gets out in the press and the press print it. The question is…. Out of the 65,000 classes that we have in the province of British Columbia, fewer than 1,500 have more than 31 students. Fewer than 600 have more than 33, and almost all of those are band, choir and theatre.

Those are the facts. That's the reality, and I kind of wonder why misinformation is being put out there to the public. We're talking about an education system. Surely the education and the people talking about the education system should be accurate in terms of the facts and figures that they use. They claim there are 700 fewer special needs teachers, when in fact 2,100 additional special needs teaching assistants are in the classroom today.

The one that I think is particularly interesting is…. The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill said: "We shouldn't be picking a fight with teachers. You know, this should be about educating. This is about trying to improve funding in the classroom for our students." So perhaps it's worth going through exactly what's on the table from the BCTF. Leave provisions, $118 million. Preparation time, $711 million. Benefits, $295 million. Salary, $765 million. Salary grid reductions, $169 million. Over $2 billion that's on the table. In all of those things, I didn't see what the member had talked about in terms about smaller class sizes.

[1525]

So when you are facing tough economic times, as we are, and you're trying to do the best you can without seeing a situation where you're raising taxes, without being in a situation where you're being fiscally irresponsible, sometimes you do have to go to a net zero mandate. A net zero mandate isn't designed to try to punish anybody or to single anybody out. It's designed to try to help government get through a tough time, where they cannot raise taxes, where revenues are tight and you need to get back to a balanced budget.

You only need to look at Ontario and at what the Drummond report has suggested they're going to have to do to their education system to realize that if you are fiscally irresponsible, there are consequences eventually. I don't want to see those sorts of things have to happen to our education system. I know from the teachers I've talked to that they care deeply about their students and about their jobs. I also know that they're very, very frustrated with us, with the whole system. To many extents, I don't blame them, but we're not in a position to be able to go where the BCTF would like it to go.

We have an interesting tool in legislation in the province of British Columbia, and it was used effectively around the HST. It's called doing a petition. Get 10 percent of the people all around the province to sign a petition, and you can actually go to a referendum. That's a tool that, maybe, the BCTF should consider if they want to see the type of tax increases that they'd like to see for education. Take it to the people. Ask them directly. We have that tool to be able to allow for the direct input and for direct democracy.

Now, I'm not a fan of direct democracy, but the tool is there. It was put in, in the 1990s. Maybe it's something that should be considered if they feel that through our net zero mandate we're not doing the right thing.

I want to close just by talking a little bit about the kids. The job action that has gone on for seven months has had a negative impact. It has. I know there've been lots of teachers that have tried to find ways to keep parents in touch and to try to find ways to make things work, but the reality is that there has been an impact. I've heard from many of the administration that they're burnt out.
[ Page 9729 ]
Having the stress of the extra workload, because of the withdrawal of services and stuff, is creating challenges. This cannot go on forever.

Unfortunately, when you have a net zero mandate and you're in a situation where you must try to negotiate under that, you can put a lot of things on the table, but you have to realize it has to be within that. Like I said earlier, it'd be irresponsible to the rest of our public sector employees to do anything other than that.

I had a meeting with a teacher representative from my area. At that meeting we talked about net zero, and she said: "You know, we could perhaps get to net zero." But I'm just wondering why that has never been able to make it through in terms of the negotiations with the BCTF. As this carries on, I hope that we will see an end to job action soon. I hope that this bill will come through the House and that we'll be in a situation where we have a cooling-off period, where we have the ability to be able to have this mediation and some discussions around that.

Ultimately, I have a real passion about education. I would like to see some significant changes in the education system. I think there's great opportunity to see improvements. But we can't do it by trying to bankrupt the province and put us in a situation where we can't provide properly, going forward. It just can't happen. I'm sorry about it. I wish there was a difference. I wish there was a different way, but the fiscal reality is what it is.

Madam Speaker, I'm appreciative of having the opportunity to say a few words on this bill, and I very much look forward to listening to the rest of the debate. As I said, education is critical, and the teachers are an enormous part of any success that we have in our education system. Maybe I'll just close by thanking them for what they've done over the years in terms of providing the quality education and the improvements that we have seen over the last decade and beyond.

[1530]

C. Trevena: I rise to speak on Bill 22. I'd like to start my remarks by putting it into a little bit of context by reading a letter that I received from a teacher. I'd like to quote it: "Currently I am teaching four different classes with the following composition: socials 11 with 33 students and one IEP; socials 11…"

Hon. D. McRae: That's my letter. I wrote that.

C. Trevena: "…with 30 students and four IEPs; socials 11 with 34 students with four IEPs; and military history with 31 students and nine IEPs."

"I endeavour to be a good teacher. I try to create a positive learning environment to create relationships with my students, be available outside of class time and effectively teach the courses in a meaningful manner. This semester I have 128 students and 18 IEPs in total. This does not include my advisory group, with whom I meet once a month and try and assist their progress through the school year.

"My concern is that I do not know just how effective I will be as an educator this year. With large classes, management becomes a bigger issue, and more time is spent trying to get students on task rather than teaching content and skills. I find it difficult to create positive relationships with my classes when there are so many students of varying needs and issues. It stretches one's ability to have students reach their full potential when you can spend so little time with each individual.

"I will do my best to work with the students and give them the skills and knowledge they will need to be successful in my classes. My concern is that I may not have the ability to be as effective a teacher as I have been in the past. There is only so much time one can spend marking (an additional three more students adds 10 percent more marking load on a teacher per class), prepping, doing the paperwork, making the phone calls, answering the e-mails and learning new programs like BCeSIS.

"If I continue to teach classes of this size and composition, I do not see how the system will get 18 more years of service from me. I would eventually break or stop caring, and then it would be time for me to move on.

"Many thanks for listening to my concerns."

As the Minister of Agriculture noted, it was his letter. It was his letter that was written at the time of Bill 33. There is a historical context. We have been discussing these issues before.

But I would like to ask the minister, seeing that it is his letter and it's very pertinent to the debate that we're having again, whether he still stands by this or whether he feels — he has now moved on and left the teaching service — whether he has actually challenged his cabinet colleagues about his real, direct experiences as a classroom teacher. Heartfelt feelings went into that letter, obviously.

Has he said to the Minister of Education and to the other members around the cabinet table: "You cannot go ahead with this. Please, you cannot go ahead with this. I believe too strongly in public education"?

Or does the minister feel that he's now moved on to a much more comfortable position where he won't have to go back to his teaching position? In which case, I think that he's feeling a little conceited because one never knows in elected politics how long you're going to be there for.

So I really hope that the minister will participate in this debate to give both sides of the House the full benefit of his experience as a classroom teacher who has — many times struggling with large classes with many students with special needs — tried to get that balance that, I think we've all heard, has come time and time again from teachers who are facing classes which are just, to be honest, unwieldy for them to do the job that they're hoping to do.

I hope that the minister feels he has the opportunity to respond to this, that if he has actually changed his mind, he has the integrity to stand up and say that he's changed his mind and everything is fine now, and that if he hasn't changed his mind, he could explain to his cabinet colleagues and the people on the B.C. Liberal side of the House why he will, then, not be voting in favour of this bill and be supporting this side of the House on the bill — which I and, I'm sure, his colleagues who have
[ Page 9730 ]
worked with him in schools in school district 71 would be hoping to see. I have had conversations and letters with teachers in his former school district who are very concerned, obviously.

[1535]

I quoted this, and I am standing up in opposition to this bill with this side of the House, because we are debating really fundamental legislation here. The previous member for Nechako Lakes was talking about the history and going back from teacher dispute to teacher dispute from many years, quoting from Hansard, talking about the debates and talking about how we keep hearing this again. It sounds a bit like Groundhog Day. I've got to say, quoting from the minister's letter…. You feel that we aren't ever going to come to a solution.

I've got to say that what we are debating in this piece of legislation…. It's almost like it has crystallized after so many years, really, of attacks on the public education system. I believe that Bill 22 is the crystallization of it, because it is going to two fundamental, core parts of our society.

One is the fundamental right for free collective bargaining, which this bill, I believe, undermines. Secondly, it undermines high-quality public education. Both of these pieces are rights that we have had as Canadians for many, many years. We've had the right to belong to a trade union and bargain freely without having a piece of legislation imposed on you. Well, the teachers have, for some time, not had that right. I think this further undermines it, and I'll be explaining that in my remarks.

Also, we have had the wonderful benefit of a public education system, which is the great equalizer in our society. If you have kids going to a public education system, they all get the same start in life. They're all there getting the benefit of high-quality education from people who are trained and trained and trained.

I was talking to a teacher this weekend who said: "Do people realize how much education we teachers get? How much university training we have? How many of us have a master's? How many of us go back to school during the summer to improve our skills? How many of us keep on doing the training?"

We have a highly skilled workforce that should be giving the benefits to students right across this province. Free public education. It is actually…. Free public education is one of the parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Elementary education — free public elementary education — is part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This piece of legislation, I believe, undermines both these blocks that we need for a good, healthy, just, fair and equitable society — the right to free collective bargaining and the right to have a good-quality public education system.

For a few minutes I'll talk about the imposition of this legislation, when I think that what we really should be seeing is having mediation rather than imposing legislation — very, very heavy-handed legislation — on the teachers.

It makes one wonder what sort of war the government is fighting with this profession. You know, they are hard-working professionals. They work hours that are comparable with our hours as legislators. They're up very early in the morning preparing their work. They're at school all day handling large classes, often with unwieldy groups of children. They are then continuing their work after school, often with after-school-hours clubs and marking and meeting teachers, and then they're prepping the class for the next day.

Their vacations are often filled with extra training or summer schools. They are doing an exceedingly hard amount of work. They, like other workers who belong to a union — and the B.C. Teachers Federation is a trade union — have the right to have free collective bargaining. They have the right to freely negotiate their wages, their benefits and their working conditions without having them imposed by a piece of legislation such as Bill 22, which I do think is, as I mentioned, draconian.

The legislation. What actually is in Bill 22, Madam Speaker? Well, it extends the collective agreement as we know, but it imposes mediation, and it imposes a mandate for that mediator. It sets down ground rules for that mediator that are very strict. It says that proposed solutions must not result in any new net costs for school districts. In some ways, I'm sure the school districts are breathing a sigh of relief, because they have so much downloaded on them with having to pay for MSP, carbon offsets and HST, which they don't get refunds for, and so on and so on. I would hope…. They must be quite pleased that it would result in no net cost.

[1540]

This piece of legislation has so many tight parameters that it really is, as I say, a heavy-handed imposition. Also, it's got a section called "Offences," which I am not surprised the teachers are offended with. It comes across as really insulting and, I've got say, almost punitive when you are looking at what these are. And the offences are if there is an illegal strike.

Of course, we know that teachers are an essential service. This was brought in by this B.C. Liberal government to make the teachers one of the underpinnings of our fabric, like firemen or nurses or others who just cannot go out on strike. The whole society will crumble if they go on strike.

They are an essential service. But now we're actually going to have them fined to an extraordinary extent if they have the temerity to have an illegal strike. For an employee, for each teacher, $475 a day — that's obviously on top of the wages they'd lose — and for the union an amount of not less than $1.3 million each day. This is saying to a union: "Forget it. Just go to work. Be good people. Do due diligence and forget your right to unionize."
[ Page 9731 ]

This is the year 2012. People were fighting for trade unions and the right to belong to trade unions and have free collective bargaining and have their rights represented by people that they elect more than a hundred years ago. This was something that people fought and died for. It's part of the fabric of what we as a democratic western country should be proud of. This was the foundation for both the party in Britain that then became the governing party for many, many years, the Labour Party, which came out of the labour movement, as did the New Democratic Party when it was starting.

The labour movement is not just a political movement. It's essential to the rights of working people. People forget, in their endeavours to say how terrible it is and, I think, partly to make the teachers look bad…. One forgets the good things that unions have done, and teachers belong to a union. Unions brought us the five-day week. They brought us maternity leave. They brought us health and safety. They brought us good working conditions. They tried to bring in child labour laws, but those have gone too.

I think that the teachers have every right to be angry about Bill 22 and what it is doing to their rights as teachers to operate in a collective manner. There were alternatives this government could have used. It could have accepted mediation. It could have called in a special mediator. There could have been a form of inquiry. There are different tools that this government could use without bringing in the hammer of Bill 22.

But we know that the government has a history of legislating people back to work. I mean, we've done it before with the teachers. We've seen this happen before. We did it with the paramedics not so long ago. Time and again, this government gets terrified of people actually exercising their democratic right to go on strike and legislates them back to work.

I could continue with this because I find it such an egregious, heavy-handed approach. However, I want to turn my remarks…. We only have half an hour to speak on this bill, and there are a lot of other things I'd like to say.

So I'd like to talk a little bit about what the teachers are doing. I referenced this right at the beginning of my remarks — about the hard work that teachers put in. I have three school districts in my constituency. School district 72 is the largest. It represents Campbell River, Sayward, Quadra Island, Cortes Island and Read Island. Read Island has a small, one-room schoolhouse that it's managed to keep open despite all the threats that have happened. It's been really quite amazing that we still have a school on Read Island.

I have school district 85, which is Port Hardy, Port McNeill and Woss. It includes Sointula. It did include Echo Bay, but that school closed. It did include Quatsino, but that school closed. It did include Holberg, but that school closed. We've seen three schools closed completely, three communities lose their schools in those communities. In Port McNeill we saw another school close down and another arrangement start up, and Woss is now under threat.

[1545]

So school district 85, which has an aboriginal population of First Nations students of 42 percent, is under a lot of pressure. Some 1,500 total, roughly, in that school district.

Then school district 84, Vancouver Island West, a very small school district. That school district is smaller than many of the schools I know in many of my colleagues constituencies — 480 students in the whole school district, but a number of schools that really have to survive. We've got Kyuquot, which is K-to-12; Tahsis, K-to-12; Zeballos, K-to-12. Gold River has both an elementary and a secondary school.

So different environments in different schools and different school districts. I'd like to quote from some of the teachers that got in touch with me from each of those districts. I have here one from a teacher in school district 72, which as I mentioned, is Campbell River.

"I'm currently teaching grades 7 and 9 math and science in a middle school. The average class has 28 students, with a minimum of seven 1701-designated students. This is just the students that meet the governmental guidelines for designation. Many others have learning or behavioural issues but do not meet these guidelines.

"With this type of classroom composition, not all students get the one-on-one help they need and deserve."

I'm sure the Minister of Agriculture would recognize this.

"So who loses out here? The kids, of course. In all my planning, student needs are number one in my mind. Yet I'm constantly put in a situation of not being able to meet the needs of all the students in my class. This is stressful. We are creating a situation where kids can't be successful, yet we pass them on to the next year in hopes it'll be better."

The teacher goes on:

"Money cannot be the bottom line. Our kids are worth more than that."

Our kids are worth more than that.

Another one from school district 72. Another teacher who is very concerned says:

"To the government:

"You say: 'We just announced the hiring of more teaching assistants to fill the gap and give the students more individual attention. Problem solved. Be quiet. Go home.'

"While I welcome new funding for new EAs, because it will allow me to better support students, EAs are not teachers. They do not write IEPs, individualized education plans, which have become incredibly cumbersome documents under this Liberal government. They don't do screening tests, complete ministry checklists to see if students qualify for funding, and so on.

"In short, while your government gives great lip service to supporting education of students, the actions tell a really different tale."

I have another from school district 84. As I mentioned, that is the west coast, which has 480 students. This teacher has worked in a number of the schools over on the west coast.

"Six of the students" — in the class she was teaching, a grade 3 class — "were at least a year behind their grade level. Ten students in the class were First Nations. One student is autistic, another stu-
[ Page 9732 ]
dent is FAS" — fetal alcohol syndrome — "and a severe behaviour problem. One child has cerebral palsy.

"Many of the students were being pulled out for 15-minute remedial sessions, so they miss vital lesson and classroom help. They also disrupt the class with continual leaving and returning to the classroom.

"The First Nations students collectively received only 1½ hours a week of support, not nearly enough. The autistic child and the behaviour problem child had to share an aide, which meant one was often left unattended.

"The need was so great in this classroom I was unable to maintain the standard of teaching I was accustomed to."

The teacher goes on:

"I'm very proud of my union for standing up and forcing the necessary change so drastically needed. It's beyond me how the leaders of this province" — this government that's been in power for 12 years, I add — "can have so little regard for the children of our future and the very people who are put in charge of shaping them."

I think this is the crux of this. These are the children who are going to be, in 15, 20, 25 years time, hopefully leading this province. Here we are selling them short — selling them short because this government refuses to allow proper negotiations to take place — by imposing contracts, by looking at the classrooms and saying: "That's it. We are saying what can be."

I continue. I'm going to quote just one more letter here. This is from school district 85 in the north Island.

"I'm a primary teacher. I've worked with five- to eight-year-olds for the past 21 years, and I have seen what stress and going without support does to an individual and to a class of students.

[1550]

"I have, at times, felt like I'm running a three-ring circus. I've been emotionally drained and exhausted by the end of the day. I've taught children who fall between the guidelines for designation, whose behaviour leaves you distressed and without support. I have been in a classroom of children who have suffered anxiety attacks and tummy aches over and over again because of their reaction to another child's severe behaviour."

So it goes on. I'm sure that the Minister of Agriculture, as I say, will recognize this.

If I might quote one more from his constituency, school district 71, perhaps a colleague that he may have known. It talks about "a classroom physically too small for us. We have in this classroom one student with serious learning problems, with a medical condition; a student who takes medication for ADHD; another who is in the process of a medical investigation."

We all want to see inclusion, and we all believe in inclusion, but what we are seeing here are teachers and the system set up to fail. We are seeing stresses that are unbearable. We're seeing teachers who just cannot do the job that they're supposed to do, which is to provide education, impart knowledge, share knowledge, create that environment where children want to learn, where they want to grasp on to things, where they want to find out what they can do and how to use their abilities.

Being a teacher is quite an amazing thing. I have huge respect for teachers. I would hope that everybody in this House has respect for teachers — to be able to do that with children, to be able to impart that knowledge and to share that knowledge. They're being sold short.

I've been quoting here from people who are dealing with the designated students who have some problem that they have been assessed for. I have to note that not all students are designated.

We have some students who have fetal alcohol syndrome, which is a terrible thing that young children have. It is something that seems to be growing rather than diminishing, but so many students aren't actually assessed for this. Students who do not have access to assessment aren't assessed for it. They live outside an area where there is an assessment, and they go undiagnosed, unassessed.

They don't get those supports even though they need them. They have huge problems with attention, with learning, with cognitive abilities, and yet they're not getting the support. This is a whole extra texture to many of these teachers' concerns.

I wanted to just quickly switch to school district 85. I spoke the other day in the Legislature about an aboriginal enhancement agreement on education that was being signed there. Great fanfare — it was in the big house at Fort Rupert. It was a wonderful celebration. I heard from many people who were there what a fantastic celebration it was.

As I mentioned, the Minister of Education was going to be there, and he was there. It was a chance to look at what this school district does and what the teachers do for First Nations education, to make sure that everybody is working together for the best interests of the community and for the kids, for the parents and for the schools. For many years we've had aboriginal First Nations culture imbued in the education system there, imbued in the classroom learning. This was taking it to the next stage, bringing it into the community and making sure there was that real integration.

As I say, the minister was there. This hasn't gone down very well with some of the teachers, and I'd just like to quote from one teacher who has been working in the north Island for a very long time, has a great track record there and is very well respected. She says:

"I was one of the people called down to the fire and acknowledged by Kaleb Child at the ceremony for the signing of the aboriginal enhancement agreement at the Fort Rupert big house.

"Minister, you were dancing behind our superintendent, Scott Benwell, when he spoke with me during the friendship dance immediately after the signing of the agreement. You looked my way as you danced past me and smiled. The words you spoke in the big house do not feel synonymous with the forced legislation teachers are facing with Bill 22.

"As a teacher in British Columbia right now, I do not feel valued, respected, important or cared about. These are the qualities and attributes I expect from myself as a teacher, and these are the qualities and attributes that I ensure I share with my students."

[1555]

One other teacher, who was also at the ceremony, says:

"I'm appalled that the minister had the nerve to come to Port Hardy and ride in a canoe, as if he really had anything productive to do with the enhancement agreement that was being signed. If he was truly willing to do something positive for the First Nations
[ Page 9733 ]
students we serve, he would be enhancing their education by providing us with the teachers and the support staff necessary to meet their needs.

"We have teachers, support staff, administrators, district staff and board members who work hard in this district to support the educational needs in our schools. We need the government to do the same thing."

As I mentioned, school district 85 has a very large aboriginal population. We keep talking about how we need to ensure that aboriginal students complete school, not that they're just passed through the grades year after year and then get a leaving certificate but that they graduate, can participate, can go on to post-secondary education.

If this is the tenor of the government's approach to a public education system…. It's not looking at it in a realistic way. It is not willing to put the resources necessary to support these teachers by providing for school districts where there are a lot of First Nations students and for all school districts.

The government is just giving up on them. It's just saying: "Oh. Well, yeah. We're fine. We're okay. Our friends are okay. But it really doesn't matter. We don't care about aboriginal kids. We don't care about other kids. We really don't care about the future of this province."

As I said before, public education is the great equalizer. It is what allows us to have a good, strong province.

It is unfortunate that my time is running out. I wanted to touch and will touch briefly on the other context of this legislation, and that is the reality that this government all too often tries to ignore. The reality is that we have had 11 years of a B.C. Liberal government, 11 years in which a commitment to education has been shown to be — how to find the parliamentary language? Well, I'll put it nicely — a joke.

This government is clearly not committed to public education, does not see that it is important, has systemically cut funding to public education. While we hear time and again, "Oh, it's the highest funding, the highest per-pupil funding," what this government ignores is that, as I was mentioning earlier, it has downloaded all the costs on school districts — the MSP, the carbon neutrality, and so on and so on. It has frozen capital programs. School districts are stressed.

I represent a riding that is largely rural. One of the harshest things the government did — this was when the Premier was the Minister of Education — was to establish a per-pupil funding system for paying for education. That has penalized rural schools time and time again. It has said to the rural education system: "You, you don't count. If you don't have enough students, forget it, even though it is a long boat ride away to the nearest school."

Echo Bay. There is no school close to Echo Bay. People had to up and move out of their community to live in another community simply so their kids could go to school.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Quatsino. There is no school nearby — boat ride. People, again, have to move so their kids can go to school.

The latest one under threat — Woss. It is about three-quarters of an hour on a pretty nasty winter road to get to the nearest school, a road that most people don't want to drive in winter. So what do we do? Allow kindergarten students to go on it.

[1600]

These are some of the results of what this government's education policy has been over the last 11 years. What we're seeing now is, I think, the culmination of it. This government has finally said that the rest has been playing games. Now they're going to come in, be draconian, bring in the hammer and legislate teachers back to work, leaving them with working conditions that will be untenable for our students in the future.

With that, Madam Speaker, I take my place in this debate, and I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.

J. Thornthwaite: I rise to speak on Bill 22. Just as an introduction, I'm very much honoured to represent the people of North Vancouver–Seymour, to express my love of my job — even in difficult times, I still love serving the people of North Vancouver–Seymour — and to say hi to my kids and, obviously, my CAs back home.

I also love teachers, and I've had lots of experience with teachers, being one myself at the university level, also being a school trustee and having three children, one of whom is still in the school system at Windsor Secondary School in North Vancouver. All of the teachers — I can pretty much say all of them — have been great advocates for my children's education.

In fact, just recently, on Friday I got a phone call from my daughter's home ec teacher, who wanted to give me an update on how she was doing. I can brag that she's doing very, very well, but I appreciated that personal phone call that I actually got.

Her science teacher has been regularly giving e-mails to all of the parents in her class telling the parents when the next test is, how to prepare for it and to look at their notebooks for that day or that week. I very much appreciated being informed of my child's progress even during this recent job action.

My daughter doesn't really struggle in school. She's quite committed and does quite well, so I'm not really too worried about her. But as an MLA working in North Vancouver–Seymour, I have had quite a few e-mails and phone calls from parents expressing concern over their not getting report cards or not having meetings with other professionals within the school district.

I'm only going to read you a couple of letters. I've had more, but I'm only going to read you a couple, just because of time. This was from a mom:

"I have three children in elementary school in North Vancouver who will basically be receiving blank report cards."
[ Page 9734 ]

This e-mail was actually from November.

"When is your government going to do something to end the strike action? I do not think one parent-teacher meeting in the fall is enough, and I don't want to bug the teachers about this. Please let me know when I can expect to receive report cards.

"I pause to note that a pediatrician for one of my children wants to see my child's report card on January 18, 2012."

Then I got another letter — this is a letter that I was cc'd on — of a parent with a special needs child to her principal. I'm not going to mention the child's name or the teacher's.

"I'm concerned about the absence of this teacher in my son's math 8 class. To my understanding, the teacher sits on the executive committee for the negotiations with CUPE, and this requires her to be out of the classroom. My son is designated with a Q, and his IEP states as a strategy: 'to create and maintain a teacher SEA support system in class' whereby my son's work is consistently monitored for accuracy.

"This has not been followed, and my son is suffering in his math skills because of it. I currently hire a tutor to come two times a week, for a total of 2.5 hours, to help with his struggles in math."

Those are just a couple of the e-mails that I have gotten. I've also heard a lot from principals and vice-principals who are picking up the slack during the job action. Teachers aren't meeting with principals or attending staff meetings, and there are no collaborative meetings, no written communications, no report cards.

It takes a team in the schools for students to reach their full potential — teachers, teacher's aides, principals, vice-principals, administrators and also the trustees. Currently with the job action, this team is broken down, so you can see why some students are suffering and some parents are upset.

[1605]

The Minister of Education has been, in my opinion, quite patient over the last year of negotiations. He has stated that he's not prepared to see another school year pass without every parent in B.C. getting a fulsome accounting of how their children are progressing in school.

We are particularly concerned about the impact on vulnerable students. He has stated that, quite frankly, the two sides are no closer to an agreement than when they were at the start, and that's after more than 78 face-to-face meetings and seven months of job action.

We have been clear in this government that there is no new money to fund wage increases in our current fiscal plan. Times are tough, and we are not going to raise taxes or take on more debt to fund increases. I spoke about this a couple weeks ago when my colleague from Chilliwack brought forward a private member's statement on the importance of the net zero mandate, essentially to control spending in these uncertain economic times and ensure taxes remain low for B.C. families.

The Teachers Federation remains focused on securing a significant pay and benefit increase and has refused up until now to accept the reality of a net zero mandate. I've been told that there is a $2 billion wage demand on the table that has prevented progress on the many non-monetary improvements that teachers are seeking.

The minister has mentioned many times, and he has been quoted, actually, in the newspaper and on the radio…. I think the term was: "I will clear my calendar to discuss these issues with the union." But the union refused. Why? Because the government is committed to its net zero mandate.

Seventy-five percent of public sector workers have been able to negotiate within this net zero mandate, including CUPE, the very support workers who work with teachers in the classroom. I'm told that recently there were 130 net zero contracts that had been signed for over 25,000 CUPE employees, and today we just heard another six agreements — K-to-12 support workers — were announced.

That is 24 agreements signed so far, and apparently another 42 are imminent. We support and thank these unions and appreciate their understanding as to why we have instigated this net zero. I understand and many of my colleagues have recognized — same with the minister — that they agreed with this net zero mandate reluctantly but have done so.

It is because of this impasse and the fact that many of us are being asked to intervene in order to provide report cards for students that the minister felt he had to act on behalf of the 500,000 students across B.C. Hence, we are at Bill 22.

What is Bill 22? There's so much misinformation. I have received many e-mails from teachers who are accusing the minister, with personal attacks. He has been called a bully and worse. He has been called picking a fight or worse.

First off, Bill 22 is not an imposed contract. It is an opportunity for a cooling-off period for the parties to get down and back to the drawing table and hash out a deal. This will provide certainty for students and parents. This is what they've been asking. It simply extends the previous collective agreement to cover the mediation period, and it is an independent mediator. The only stipulation is the net zero mandate. All other issues are on the table, like local-provincial splits and class organization.

Last week many MLAs were visited by their teacher reps, who asked us to provide a mediator. This is what Bill 22 does. It is doing exactly what those teachers had asked for. This mediator will facilitate bargaining, with the goal of reaching a mediated settlement within the net zero mandate.

The other request that the government has had over the years from teachers, parents, administrators and trustees is more help for special needs students. This bill puts more money in the classroom with the learning improvement fund — $165 million over three years, with $76 million per year in ongoing funding to address complex class composition issues.

[1610]

With these funds, districts will be able to hire additional teachers and educational assistants, provide additional
[ Page 9735 ]
teaching time and support professional development and training to help teachers meet complex needs in their classroom. This new funding comes in addition to the more than $850 million per year already earmarked for students with special needs.

The other worries that I've heard from teachers is that they fear there is a removal of class size and composition from the bargaining. This bill restores class size and related matters to the scope of collective bargaining. It also sets the stage for more effective consultations between teachers and administrators on class organization matters.

Another significant change aimed at improving learning environments for students and teachers is the elimination of district class-size averages, which, I've heard from many superintendents and trustees, weren't working. It implements a class-size maximum of 30 students for grades 4 to 12.

There's more. In cases where the class does exceed 30 students, school districts must provide additional compensation to the teacher proportionate to the added workload. That could be in the form of increased pay, additional prep time, professional development funding or a combination of all of these different things.

We expect that these changes will result in fewer classes that exceed the 30-student cap. A good model like the Coquitlam school district is suggested, where they have no classes with over 30 students. Without exception, all K classes cannot exceed 22, and all grades 1 to 3 classes cannot exceed 24 students.

I'm particularly interested in the issue of special needs. I'm working on a project in a response to some Finance Committee recommendations that were put forward by the group Moms on the Move last September. Moms on the Move, you may recall…. Their key advocator is Dawn Steele. The minister had mentioned her remarks during his remarks when he initiated second reading of Bill 22. I wanted to talk to you a little bit about her.

She has children with special needs. Her 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 means broader training for teachers, restoring learning supports and flexible models that adapt to actual needs.

She pleads with the province and teachers to stop posturing and put students first by immediately reinvesting in learning supports and training, addressing gaps in teacher certification standards and supporting new multi-stakeholder frameworks for constructive and collaborative problem-solving.

This is what I am going to be doing starting this Friday in my riding. I have a regional round table set up. The people that are coming to visit to talk precisely about what Dawn Steele has mentioned are an assistant superintendent, a teacher and parent of a special needs child, a trustee and parent of two children with special needs, an SEA, a principal, three parents with kids with special needs, and a parent and teacher from an independent school.

These people are all willing to come and visit and talk to me about the issues that are near and dear to all parents and teachers who are interested and who want to make classes better not just for special needs kids but for typical kids too.

That is what Bill 22 is trying to address. It covers a wide range of abilities and challenges and provides for more regular and meaningful consultation with teachers on class-size organization so that teachers can be more involved in decisions on how classes are organized.

We all know that the current system isn't working. As a school trustee, I had to deal with all of the reports of grievances regarding class sizes. As an MLA on Finance Committee, we were constantly lobbied by school trustees on thousands of union grievances that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. Where could those millions of dollars be going? Straight into the classrooms.

The employers were hoping to achieve more transparency around how teachers' positions are posted, filled, assigned or transferred. This would help ensure that the best-qualified and most suitable teachers are posted to the right positions. Strict seniority means that we are losing opportunities to match the best-qualified and most suitable teachers to the right positions. Vacancies for jobs would be subject to five key factors: in addition to seniority, employee experience related to the position, performance, qualifications and suitability to the position and the school.

[1615]

The proposals by the employer do not strip teachers of seniority rights. It puts the issue of post and fill or seniority to a mediator to work with the parties to find a solution. Government's position is simply that we need some consistency across the province to ensure that qualifications are appropriately considered.

Surrey and the Central Okanagan already have contract language that strikes a good balance. We want to be looking at something that has worked in those districts and perhaps establishing some consistency provincewide — in other words, to do what works.

In summary, we are talking exactly about the issues that are being addressed by the members opposite. We are talking about strengthening the education system. We are talking about working and coming together. We appreciate that teachers are burned out. We appreciate that teachers sometimes feel they're not meeting the needs of all their students. Bill 22 is trying to fix this. Teachers are highly educated, specialized professionals. We value them.

In summary, I'll use the remarks of a teacher, a parent and soon-to-be principal that I met in the parking lot yesterday. She said: "Stay the course. Be flexible. Be fluid. Stop being so rigid. Focus on personalized learning for
[ Page 9736 ]
all kids." I believe that Bill 22 does that.

In my last statement I would just like to say thank you very much to all of the teachers out there. We think that you're doing a great job, and we want to continue to work with you.

B. Simpson: I wanted to start by thanking the minister for briefing myself and the other independent MLA on this bill. I have appreciated the efforts of government ministers to accommodate the need of the independent MLAs to be as informed as our counterparts in the opposition, and I don't take these additional efforts for granted.

Unfortunately, the high level of rhetoric and bombast surrounding teacher bargaining in this province is once again reflected in Bill 22's title, Education Improvement Act. The title of this most recent chapter in the long saga of dysfunctional collective bargaining with the BCTF simply reflects the cynicism and dishonesty that has come to permeate the relationship between the parties involved.

Bill 22 will neither improve B.C.'s education system, nor will it address the fundamental and deeply entrenched problems inherent in the current collective bargaining structure in that system. Before I offer what I hope will be seen as a constructive alternative, I have some declarations to make.

First, I declare my unequivocal support for teachers and the teaching profession. Teaching is an avocation, or as Commissioner Don Wright suggested in his 2004 report on teacher collective bargaining, it is a moral calling.

Commissioner Wright also pointed out that teaching involves creating magic in the classroom and warned the government in 2004 that decades of dysfunctionality at the bargaining table was eroding that magic — a warning that has been repeated in one form or another by every fact-finder, commissioner and industrial inquiry that has examined the K-to-12 collective bargaining system in this province for over the past three decades.

We've turned a deaf ear to this demand for fundamental systemic reform for far too long. Bill 22 does not restore the magic to our classrooms. On the contrary, it will only add to the dysfunctionality, and that's why it must not be supported if we truly want to get at root causes, begin the process of healing relationships and ensure B.C. has the finest education system possible, not in rhetoric but in fact.

Now, I'm not naively suggesting that every teacher is called or that every teacher can create magic. Just as there are individuals who are credentialed as lawyers or doctors or nurses or plumbers or electricians or have been elected as MLAs who should not be in those positions, there will be people in the teaching profession who ought not be in the classroom. But as in other professions, those people are by far in the minority and generally weeded out by the nature of the job.

[1620]

However, I have long believed it is essential that our education system have a strong, consistent and structured teacher evaluation and mentorship program to ensure that every teacher in every classroom is capable of creating positive learning environments for every student. So I empathize with the government and BCPSEA's attempts to put such a system in place, but this should not be done by fiat through presumptive terms of reference for a minister-appointed mediator, as much as it needs to be done.

As a society, we demand an awful lot from our teachers. The government's own new education plan recognizes this is when it states: "A great teacher has always been the key to creating outstanding educational experiences."

So if the magic is indeed going out of B.C.'s classrooms, then the blame needs to be placed on those who are not adequately resourcing our system and not the teachers who, I believe, are doing jobs that most people could not do day in, day out. I warrant that most MLAs in this House would not last a week in a classroom in today's schools, except those that have been there.

The government's new education plan recognizes the need for government to provide teachers with the supports they require to be guides, mentors, coaches and content experts, but once again, this year's budget and Bill 22 will further erode the supports government provides to teachers, while reserving the right to ask teachers to do so much more in their classrooms.

My second declaration is that I'm very fond of one teacher in particular. In the spirit of full disclosure, I declare that my wife, partner and friend of 30 years is one of those teachers who will be impacted by the content of Bill 22.

My wife, Trish, and her teaching partner, Teresa McCart, are two of those teachers who create magic in their classroom, to the benefit of their students and society as a whole. That's not my assessment of their contribution. It is the assessment of anyone who has had the privilege of spending time in their classroom — a classroom that has 27 students, four of whom are designated as having special needs, one who is an ESL student with no ESL specialist support in the district, four or five more who are in the process of testing and may in all likelihood be designated.

Despite this mix of needs, these two teachers still create magic, a testament to the willingness of teachers to do the very thing the minister claims needs to be imposed on the system by Bill 22 with its removal of the soft quota of three special needs students per class.

What Bill 22 really does is remove the right of classroom teachers to be consulted and collaborated with in the determination of their class composition. It removes their right to negotiate the resources needed to add children with special learning needs to their class, and it also removes the classroom teacher's say in whether their
[ Page 9737 ]
class will exceed the now-soft target of 30 students in grades 4 to 12.

I'll have more to say about the legal implications of Bill 22 shortly, but Bill 22's change in classroom size and composition will also directly impact the working conditions of teachers, a right the B.C. Supreme Court clearly stated is a collective bargaining right. This portion of Bill 22, despite the government's moralistic rhetoric, in my assessment is about cost savings and efficiencies of scale, not about treating every child equally.

What the minister fails to take into account in his example of a high-functioning student in a wheelchair having the right to be the 30th student in a grade-4-to-12 class is that his argument and this bill will also allow a low-functioning, high-needs-designated student to be added to that same class without the resources needed to ensure that not only will that student have the best chance for success but that that teacher will be able to create a positive learning experience for every other child in that class, designated or not.

What the Minister of Education also fails to take into account in his argument for this portion of the bill is that, as a result of decades of consistent underfunding, few resources exist to support the classroom teacher's efforts to support special needs–designated children in their classroom.

There are too few diagnosticians, occupational therapists, speech and language pathologists, teachers for the deaf and blind, ESL specialists, social workers, counsellors, and the list goes on. In some districts many of these essential supports simply do not exist because of persistent lack of funding. If the classroom teacher is not fully supported with professional advice and expertise, how can we expect them to fully support every student?

[1625]

The Minister of Education made the argument in his speech on this bill that as a first principle, every child should have access to every classroom, regardless of their designation. I agree with that first principle, but it must be matched with another first principle. Every child designated as needing support for their learning must be fully resourced in every classroom they are in.

Teachers all over this province already accommodate designated children beyond the soft quota of three. There is no need to remove their right to consultation to achieve this objective. In the few instances where teachers might resist exceeding this soft quota, I'm convinced those teachers are doing so for sound classroom management and learning environment reasons and not because they don't want another so-called designated child in their class.

The minister didn't give MLAs an indication that we have a situation where we are not allowing designated children into classrooms. So as legislators, we've had no hard data presented to us that suggest that the government has justification for its decision to once again impose class size and composition configurations by legislation outside of the collective bargaining process. It makes me wonder if the government truly understands why it lost the Supreme Court case on Bill 28.

The minister says he's following the government's lawyers' advice on this matter. I wonder if these are the same lawyers who advised the government that Bill 28 was constitutional.

My third declaration is that I am a former teacher and science department head. Why does that feel like I'm making a declaration at an AA meeting? I taught high school for seven years. In my first year I taught special needs math and special needs science, segregated classes for designated students. In my time as a teacher I experienced the beginning of the integration process the minister now states requires rethinking. I was asked to modify science curriculum for special needs–designated children in my science 8, 9 and 10 classes, something I had been given absolutely no training to do.

I also flat out rejected the integration of designated students into my biology 11 class for two reasons. First, I did not feel the particular designated students who were assigned to that class would gain educationally from being in that particular class. Second, I believed that attempting to modify that curriculum and to teach to that one student would undermine my ability as a classroom teacher to create a positive and successful environment for the rest of the students in that class, whom I knew from experience would struggle with that curriculum already.

So when I say there must be a first principle that designated students and their teachers be fully resourced to ensure the success of every child in every classroom, I say it from direct experience with this very complex and very sensitive pedagogical issue — not political issue.

As a science department head, I also had direct experience with underfunding of the education system and the imposition of education reform. I oversaw the reduction in classroom experiments and direct experiences with nature for students due to budget cuts under both Social Credit and NDP governments.

As science department head and classroom teacher, I also had to figure out how to institute the NDP's attempt at comprehensive education reform without consultation and without the additional resources needed to ensure that reform would be successful. What's that phrase, Madam Speaker, about those who do not learn from history? The current government's attempt at education reform will go the way of the dodo bird, just like the NDP's did, unless they can find a different and more productive way to engage all teachers more directly in that reform effort.

Which brings me to my fourth and final declaration. I have never been a fan of the B.C. Teachers Federation. Under the Social Credit in the late 1980s I argued for professional association as opposed to the unionization of the teaching profession. I worried that under the BCTF,
[ Page 9738 ]
a union and political activist mindset would creep into the leadership function of my chosen profession, that seniority would trump qualifications for filling positions and that teacher evaluation would be seen as progressive discipline under a collective agreement rather than as an opportunity for ongoing professional development.

So again, I find myself empathizing with the employers' demands in this current dispute and again reiterate that that is no excuse to resort to legislation to get that.

[1630]

I also argued that students were not widgets in a factory that would not be hurt in the event of a strike. I was vocal in expressing my concern that exercising our newly earned right to strike and the inflamed emotions that invariably surround strikes would not provide the right role models for students.

I even crossed the picket line during an illegal strike. I'm sure some of you can imagine the abuse I took as a result. I lost some friends over that. It didn't matter that the strike was illegal. I was simply supposed to suspend my duty to obey an order and to support the union's displeasure with the government of the day. It was not a collective bargaining strike. It was a political strike.

So I find it hard to swallow all of the BCTF's woe-is-us rhetoric and its use of the term "bullying" to characterize the government's actions.

The BCTF's own behaviour during the most recent strike of its own support workers suggests a great deal of hypocrisy exists in the leadership of this organization. The BCTF locked out its own workers for working to rule. It refused to participate in real mediation and claimed that organization's fiscal realities gave it the right to attempt to unilaterally strip the CEP of portions of its collective agreement.

Sound familiar? Maybe the CEP should wear pink the next time they approach the bargaining table with the BCTF.

Joking aside — and this is very serious — I do find it unfortunate that the symbol of the anti-bullying campaign is being co-opted in this dispute. B.C.'s anti-bullying campaign is slowly but surely having success in dealing with real bullying in our schools. I urge the BCTF and anyone associated with this week's strike action to stop tainting this campaign by using its symbols for political reasons.

I also urge teachers, individually and collectively, to look at the current structure and direction of the BCTF, and to do some soul-searching about the organization's role in the dysfunctionality of the collective bargaining process in B.C. It is simply not accurate to suggest the government or BCPSEA owns all of the blame for the soured relationships between the parties involved in this dispute.

Having articulated my personal struggles with the BCTF, I must emphasize, however, that I do not believe the weaknesses of the BCTF give the government the right to strip teachers of their constitutionally guaranteed right to collective bargaining for their working conditions. That's what I believe the government is attempting to do in Bill 22.

Appointing a mediator by government fiat with a terms of reference that reflects the government's agenda, giving the mediator the legal ability to compel BCTF to participate in the process, imposing obscenely punitive fines on both individual teachers and the BCTF and once again legislating class size and composition rather than bargaining for it, is quite simply an abuse of legislative power.

The minister has indicated this bill will likely be subject to a court challenge. Based on my layman's reading of the Supreme Court decision, I believe that portions of this bill, like 28, will be struck down. I cannot understand how the minister can come to the conclusion that this bill meets the spirit and intent of Justice Griffin's direction to the government.

Bill 22 will also lead to the imposition of a collective agreement with the teachers, one that will not address the spirit and intent of Justice Griffin's decision, as the government directly states in Bill 22 that it will not restore collective bargaining rights on class size and composition until the next round of negotiations.

I'll be curious to see how the government's lawyers will rationalize that sleight of hand when they stand before Justice Griffin again.

Just as importantly, Bill 22 does nothing to address either the current labour dispute or the systemic problems with collective bargaining in the education system. It does not and will not, in the words of Commissioner Don Wright, lead to "mature collective bargaining" for B.C.'s K-to-12 system.

As Commissioner Wright and many others have pointed out, a key reason we do not have a mature collective bargaining system for teachers in B.C. is because of the attitudes and entrenched positions of all parties involved. As Mr. Wright pointed out, the state of collective bargaining in B.C.'s K-to-12 system will not be improved "unless there is an attitudinal and behavioural change on both sides."

The BCTF's position during this round of negotiations did not signal an attitudinal and behavioural change. The government's intractability, likewise, did not signal such a shift. And as always, since it was brought into existence by the NDP and the teachers were stripped of their right to bargain at the district level, BCPSEA is caught in the middle, leaving me and a great many others to wonder why that organization exists at all.

[1635]

The main reason we do not have a mature collective bargaining system in B.C., though, is because of the government's continuous default to legislated contracts. It has been pointed out on many occasions in this debate that only one contract has avoided this legislative hammer since 1994.
[ Page 9739 ]

The use of the hammer of legislation and the current government's redesignation of education as an essential service in 2002 means that teachers do not have an effective voice in the negotiation of their collective agreement, and this is — I believe, in part — why the BCTF is forced to take such strident and militant positions as it approaches the bargaining table, allowing the organization to be characterized by many as unreasonable in its demands and fostering an untenable situation, leading to strike action, which gives the government the excuse it needs to use its legislative hammer.

I cannot support Bill 22, and I will vote against it on all readings. I believe the court will strike down parts of this bill. Taken as a whole, the bill merely exacerbates the dysfunctionality of the K-to-12 bargaining system. Simply put, Bill 22 will rob more of the magic from our classrooms.

However, I feel compelled to offer more than simply criticism and opposition to this bill, so I will offer a proposal that could start to move us in a direction that I believe the majority of British Columbians would want us to move in — towards a resolution to this untenable situation.

First, I believe government must begin to view education spending as an investment to be maximized, not a cost to be controlled. For every dollar we wisely invest in the K-to-12 system, we save hundreds of taxpayer dollars and avoided costs in the justice system, the health care system, the social system and in government-funded workforce adjustment and training costs. We need to stop protecting education funding, which is simply a euphemism for not funding it at the rate of inflation, and start strategically and thoughtfully reinvesting in it.

To this end, I propose the government restore the industrial school tax rate that it cut in 2008 under the guise of stimulus package and now rationalizes as part of its revenue-neutral carbon tax. The additional revenue from this restored school tax should be directed to increase the education budget over that currently committed in the forecast — an increase of $228 million over the next three years and at least $80 million dollars annually thereafter. I'm sure that the industrial and farm ratepayers will agree that they are one of the primary beneficiaries of a well-resourced education system in B.C.

The government should also immediately put an end to the requirement that school districts pay for carbon offsets. It is immoral and unconscionable to continue to take more money from school operating funds for the bogus claim of carbon-neutral government. This will restore $4.4 million per year to schools for education purposes, approximately $13 million over the next three years.

The government should also — and I understand the minister has done this already — publicly commit to return any accrued savings from the teachers strike to the school system. At $11 million a day, this could be as much as $55 million if the full strike is realized. This will mean $228 million in new money, and about $70 million that is truly protected money will be available to address both collective bargaining and educational change issues in B.C.

As I stated in my response to the budget, I believe there are other revenue measures the government can take so that they can increase investments in critical public services without impacting B.C.'s economy or investment climate, but today I wanted to stick with the suggestion that it can be directly tied to investment in the K-to-12 system.

As a quid pro quo for this additional and protected money, I would hope both that both the BCTF and BCPSEA would take it upon themselves to put forward thorough and thoughtful suggestions for where there are cost savings in this system.

I don't believe there are no administrative and logistical savings that BCPSEA can't recommend to government. In fact, I think the whole system is administratively top-heavy. Nor do I believe that the BCTF cannot find savings that might accrue to the system from rationalizing and standardizing benefits packages or by examining the number of pro-D and NI days, professional development funding, sick days, etc.

It would be a sign of maturity and good faith by all parties if they all looked at the system through the lens of the current fiscal realities and offered cost savings that would move them towards net zero, as many other collective agreements with public sector unions were able to achieve. However, the government must also be more honest and admit that it has not protected education funding, and commit to providing the additional finances I suggested earlier.

The second set of recommendations I want to make are complicated by the fact that we are smack in the middle of an ugly dispute, and both sides are thoroughly entrenched. These entrenched positions will invariably lead to yet another legislated agreement. No one wins in this situation, especially students in British Columbia's classrooms.

[1640]

Therefore, I recommend that the government withdraw Bill 22 and instead work with BCPSEA and the BCTF to agree to the cooling-off period that's contained in the bill, until August 31, 2012.

During that period an industrial inquiry commission should be convened to work with the parties to address, examine and report on three items by August 31, 2012: first, the implications of Justice Griffin's decision and recommend a mechanism to address class size and composition in the current and future collective bargaining process that agrees with the spirit and intent of that decision; second, the rationalization of district versus provincial issues and recommend a template for the first truly provincewide collective agreement, as Don Wright indicated in his 2004 report; and then thirdly — and this is
[ Page 9740 ]
the important one — the exploration of the model for mature collective bargaining proposed by Don Wright and a recommendation on government on how to implement this model as soon as possible.

This model would have us replace legislation with binding arbitration as the final resolution to an impasse at the bargaining table. It's time to make that move.

I also recommend that all parties agree at the outset that they will adhere to the findings of the industrial inquiry and implement its recommendations immediately. Under the current model, teachers do not have a real right to strike, and the BCTF takes extreme positions at the bargaining table as a political strategy because they know that, ultimately, their collective agreement will be decided by the politics of the day and not through the bargaining process.

Under the current model, BCPSEA does not have a legitimate role as the employer at the bargaining table. If we continue on the current path, I think we do a service to British Columbians if BCPSEA is simply disbanded and the cost savings put into the education system.

Under the current model, the government will always negate teachers' collective bargaining rights through legislation whenever the BCTF doesn't concede to its demands or wants to control education costs unilaterally. I believe that teacher bargaining in this province must be more structured and must have imposed on it the honesty and deliberateness that a threat of binding arbitration would bring, and remove that threat of legislation.

Interestingly, Bob Plecas pointed out on the Voice of B.C. last week that teachers were the second highest paid in the country and enjoyed reasonable relationships with their boards prior to 1987, when they gained the right to collective bargaining. Before they had the right to strike and collective bargaining, they were actually in a better position with their employers, and they were in a better position financially across the province.

Since 1987 to now, after that length of time with the right to strike, with collective bargaining and the BCTF as their voice — 25 years — teachers are now the ninth lowest paid, and they've had intractable relationships with successive governments.

If a collaborative approach is not possible today, then I urge the government to withdraw Bill 22 — and this is my offer — and replace it with a bill that simply legislates a collective agreement until June 30, 2013, because that's the path we're on — leaving the hard work of finding a real solution to the next government.

In effect, Bill 22…. I guarantee you that we will be back here in the fall to impose a collective agreement on the teachers anyway. Let's do it now. Otherwise, what I'm suggesting…. I know the minister would like to find a resolution to this. Find that extra money. It's there in the industrial school tax. It could just be reinstated. Also, make sure that we move this entire system to something that is more productive, more proactive, more collaborative. That is embedded in Don Wright's report from 2004.

In the educational community, Don Wright's report was accepted as a potential way forward, with the exception of the BCTF. So this is a challenge to the BCTF, on behalf of its members, to go back and look at that report again. Instead of having to confront legislation every time they come to the bargaining table, they would have to confront binding arbitration. That's what Don Wright proposed, and he lays out the whole model.

What that would do, in my estimation, is it would put honesty at the table. BCPSEA and BCTF would be forced, because they know an arbitrator is going to look at their proposals, to come to the table in a more reasonable fashion. An arbitrator would also comment on what the government is doing. That's why the government would not necessarily want to go down this path.

[1645]

But for the sake of our teachers, for the sake of the education system, for the sake of resolving this intractable dispute and to be able to move on, I strongly recommend that that's what the minister do — take another look at Don Wright's report, have the report brought into this House for further discussion, if necessary, or to the Education Committee as necessary. Make that the path that we're going on, or withdraw Bill 22 and give us a bill imposing a collective agreement. As I said, that's the end-game, anyway.

D. Barnett: Today I stand here to support Bill 22, the Education Improvement Act. I appreciate my colleague across the floor talking about past history in education prior to 1987 and what the system was like then. I'd like to go a little further back because I'm a little older. I'd like to go way back, probably 45 years, to what the education system was like then.

We had 45 of us in a classroom, and when the teacher walked in, we sat still, we listened, we did our work, and we moved on. If you didn't, I can guarantee you that sitting on your hands for an hour after school, walking five miles home because the bus wouldn't wait for you and there was nobody there to pick you up, and speaking to the parents when you got back to the house showed you what discipline was. Believe you me, Madam Speaker, it certainly didn't hurt us.

We have come a long way since then, and I don't believe it is for the betterment of education, the betterment of students, the betterment of teachers or the betterment of society as a whole. I think we have to stop and think and look at: what are we trying to accomplish? Through Bill 22, we're trying to accomplish a cooling-off period when we can sit and, hopefully, talk. We can move forward.

I agree with my colleague across the floor that there is a fundamental problem within many of our social systems today, and we must stop, look, listen and make changes.

You know, Bill 22 has a lot of good initiatives in it,
[ Page 9741 ]
which I think have been lost in the political part of the discussion. It sets out this cooling period and a mediation process to bring a responsible conclusion to this dispute and provides certainty for students, parents and class sizes.

Let's talk about class sizes and take a look at Bill 22. It says for grades 4 to 12 we are putting in place class-size maximum of 30 students. There was no maximum in place before. Grade 4 to 12 classes can exceed the maximum if necessary, but only if the principal considers the learning conditions appropriate and the superintendent approves that decision. In these cases the teacher will be entitled to additional compensation — increased pay, additional preparation time, professional development funding or a combination. We believe and expect that these changes will actually result in fewer classes over 30 students.

I had the privilege of meeting with the school board in school district 27 this weekend, and I'm very glad to say that I was told there are no class sizes over 30 in school district 27.

You know, government spending on education is at record levels and has grown every year for nine consecutive years. Next year will be no exception and will mark a full decade of continual funding increases, capped off by the highest level of per-student funding in B.C.'s history.

In 2012-2013 the overall education budget will grow to $5.3 billion. That is an overall increase of 29 percent since 2000 and 2001. We have increased funding in spite of the fact that during the same time period enrolment has dropped by more than 59,000 students. The province is delivering an estimated $8,491 in average per-pupil funding in 2011-2012, the highest ever.

[1650]

Bill 22 seeks to suspend disruptive strike activity and establish, as I said before, a cooling-off period, to appoint a mediator to facilitate bargaining, and to implement a $165 million learning improvement fund and other improvements benefiting teachers and students.

In short, the Education Improvement Act will put more money into the classroom, improve supports for students and teachers, compensate teachers for large classes and restore the opportunity to bargain class size and related matters. These gains recognize the important role and contribution of teachers. And we all appreciate teachers.

I am a grandmother. My grandson is going to graduate in June, and boy, will I be some kind of an angry grandmother if there's something in the way stopping my grandson from graduating, other than his own work habits.

I think it is so important that we pass Bill 22; have a cooling-off period; work together for the betterment of students, parents and teachers; at the end of the day, take a good look at what is wrong with the system; and make major improvements.

B. Ralston: It's very clear that Bill 22 makes things worse for students, parents and teachers. It increases class size, weakens protection for special needs students and hurts the quality of the education system overall. But before I talk in more detail about the bill, I just want to set forth some of the personal experiences in my relationship with the public school system here in British Columbia that shaped my views. I'm sure I'm not alone among many members in that approach.

I was educated in public schools in Vancouver. My sister similarly — I have but one sibling — was educated in public schools in Vancouver. In fact, she's now a teacher in the city of Surrey. She started out as I teacher on call in the '80s. That required her — for, I think, about seven years, because there were very few permanent positions at that time — to wait each morning to be called before she could go out to work as a teacher, if indeed there was work available.

My late mother was a teacher, although she went back to school in her mid-40s. She had ended her university education a bit prematurely and then decided in her mid-40s to go back to University of British Columbia to complete a degree in teaching. She went on to teach in Vancouver at a variety of schools. Perhaps her….

She, too, was shaped by public schools here in British Columbia. She actually studied in a one-room school in Evelyn, British Columbia, just outside Smithers, and took several years of correspondence in the higher levels because there was no high school education in the local community. She completed a final year in Prince Rupert, her grade 12 year.

My father was a graduate of the old Normal School, which was the teacher training ground in Vancouver. He taught for several years at Templeton in the east end of Vancouver before he went on to other employment in a different job.

My wife herself attended public schools in Vancouver, except for several years when she went to a parochial school, a Catholic school, because it was French-speaking and her parents thought it important that she learn to speak French. My three children have all attended public schools in Surrey and in New Westminster.

Indeed, in my neighbourhood I have two friends who live around the corner — one, a retired public school teacher now and another one who's just about to retire: Claude Mongeon and Jude Campbell.

[1655]

Across the street in my neighbourhood, I watched a daughter of our neighbours grow up. She went through public school in Surrey, went on to veterinarian school and is now an established veterinarian back here in British Columbia. So I'm well aware of the impact of the public school system, and I see that as a choice for myself.

I'm aware that some parents choose to send their children to other religiously based schools, which receive some public funding. I don't condemn that choice, but
[ Page 9742 ]
for myself and my family, it has been public schools. I think it's important just to…. When we approach those problems, we naturally bring that experience to bear on the questions.

I want to begin by looking at the court decision that informs a very important part of the background. Despite what some members may think about the judiciary, I think it's generally agreed that a judge brings a dispassionate, rational and informed view to the dispute and makes a decision based on evidence. The challenge of Bills 27 and 28 is a rather long and tortuous tale — it began with the introduction of legislation in 2002 — along with Bill 29.

Bill 29 was the bill that changed labour relations dramatically in the health sector. It led to the mass firing, the single biggest layoff of female workers in the history of the country. That was challenged in the courts and went all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the legislation was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. The companion legal action challenging Bills 27 and 28, the bills that were focused on the education sector, was held in abeyance until that decision was made and then went forward.

Madam Justice Griffin issued a decision almost a year ago, and hence there's some urgency in the sense that the decision requires the Legislature to react to that decision by April 13, 2012.

The decision was given on April 13, 2011 — a very comprehensive decision, 103 pages. It reviews at some considerable length and in some detail the history of bargaining, beginning with recognition of BCTF as the bargaining agent in 1987, the history of bargaining since that date forward and a very detailed analysis of the bills and the impugned provisions of the bills. It is significant because this is really devoid of political rhetoric — the analysis that the court engages in.

I want to turn now to some of the direct quotations from the decision itself, because I think it gives a better flavour of what was at issue in the case and what the court found. One of the outstanding issues before the court was the issue to which the substance of class size and composition could be legitimately negotiated. From the perspective of teachers involved, class size and composition are very fundamental to the working conditions of a classroom teacher.

Indeed, the judge captures that in a couple of paragraphs, which I think are worthy of note here. This is quoting Irene Lanzinger, who was then the president of the BCTF. The judge goes on to comment and come to her own conclusions based on some of that evidence. I'm on page 73 of the decision, paragraph 286.

"Ms. Lanzinger pointed out that teachers are responsible for assessing the educational needs of each individual student in their class and ensuring those needs are met.

[1700]

"They must take into account the physical and emotional well-being of their students, maintain order in the classroom and ensure that the environment is conducive to learning for all students. Accordingly, the number and composition of students in each class is a critical element of their working conditions.

"Ms. Lanzinger's evidence made it clear that teachers are supportive of the integration of special needs students, so long as class sizes are adjusted accordingly and proper support is provided, such as teaching assistants."

The judge goes on to say:

"A teacher's work is done both inside and outside of the classroom. Teachers must prepare lessons and learning materials, assess individual student progress, arrange special assistance for students in need, perform administrative tasks and marking, and meet outside of classroom hours with students and parents to discuss learning outcomes and disciplinary issues. Increases in class size not only impact the management of the classroom; they also result in a greater workload. These effects are compounded the greater number of special needs integrated into the classroom and the fewer the supports from non-enrolling teachers — specialist assistants and other support staff."

The judge goes on to say in the next paragraph:

"The number of hours of work required of a worker to perform his or her job is one of the most fundamental of working conditions. In Health Services, the Supreme Court of Canada referred to the typographers' strike of 1872, calling for a nine-hour…day, as initiating legislation which marked the beginning of the era of tolerance and protection of workers' organizations in Canada…. The Canadian Trade Unions Act of 1872 protected workers from criminal prosecution for conspiracy based solely on attempts to influence the rate of wages, hours of labour or other aspects of the work relation."

One can see from these comments that the right to bargain work conditions indeed goes back a century and a half in Canadian law.

The judge goes on to say in paragraph 290:

"Here, all of the subjects of subsections 8 and 9 of PEFCA" — that's the relevant legislation at the time — "and section 5 of the amendment act dealing with class size and composition, non-enrolling teacher ratios and workload directly affect teachers' hours of work. The more children in a classroom, the greater the number of special needs children in a classroom or reduced support from other teaching specialists correspondingly increases the amount of time the classroom teacher must spend outside of the classroom in preparing for the class, marking and preparing individualized lesson plans."

The court goes on to say:

"The length of the school day and the days of the year that the teachers must work…are also clearly fundamental to a teacher's working conditions. School boards were given virtually absolute power to determine these issues, by virtue of section 15 of PEFCA.

"It must be acknowledged that the teachers retained some limited processes after the challenged legislation. Teachers could negotiate in a very limited and undefined way some 'manner and consequences' of school board decisions regarding class size and composition, non-enrolling ratios and workload. Teachers could file a grievance if the school board exceeded the legislated class size limits. Local teachers also had to be consulted on a school calendar that varied from the standard before a board could exercise its absolute powers regarding hours of work and days of work.

"I will return to the impact of these matters when I analyze the issue of whether or not the legislation minimally impaired the Charter right to freedom of association. However, these matters did not preserve any process similar to collective bargaining over the matters removed from the scope of collective bargaining by the challenged legislation."

Then the judge goes on to say:

"Taking away the right to bargain these matters seriously eroded the bargaining strength of teachers and increased the bargaining
[ Page 9743 ]
strength of the employer. Without the ability to collectively bargain these issues, teachers can have little individual influence over these matters.

"Commentators, commissioners of inquiry such as Korbin, labour tribunals nationally and internationally, as well as the courts, recognize that a fundamental precept of collective bargaining is equality of bargaining strength. In Health Services the court cited an early article by then professor Bora Laskin as follows…."

Bora Laskin, many will know, went on to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

"'Collective bargaining is the procedure through which the views of workers are made known, expressed through representatives chosen by them, not through representatives selected or nominated or approved by employers. More than that, it is a procedure through which terms and conditions of employment may be settled by negotiations between an employer and his employees on the basis of a comparative equality of bargaining strength.'"

[1705]

The judge then goes on to say, in paragraph 295:

"It is clear from the history of teachers' labour relations that they have long considered their working conditions a significant priority to be negotiated collectively, and this includes the conditions of class size and composition, non-enrolling ratios and hours of work."

This is the important part:

"I conclude that the legislation purging the collective agreement of these matters and prohibiting future collective bargaining over these matters interfered with the teachers' right to come together to collectively pursue goals and significantly undermined the teachers' 2(d) Charter guarantee of freedom of association."

The position of the judge becomes very clear. One can well understand why the government might be fearful of further legal intervention in these matters, given that — as I'll deal with somewhat momentarily in my remarks — the impugned section of the legislation that refers to just the bargaining, just those matters, is in fact included in the legislation that we have before us in the Legislature.

The court, after careful analytical, rational and legal analysis of the previous provisions, struck them down. Yet here in this legislation what's proposed is that the very same provisions…. In many cases, the subparagraphs are identical to those in the legislation that was struck down by the court.

I'm not quite sure what the strategy of the government is or why they've chosen to disregard, apparently, the decision of the court. Clearly, they've a vast array of legal talent that they can draw on in the Ministry of Attorney General. There are legislative drafters, and doubtlessly, the minister has received legal advice on the legal peril, or not, of implementing these provisions. Or maybe they just don't care. Maybe that's a risk they're prepared to run.

Notwithstanding what the court has said, they're prepared to re-enact those provisions and find some comfort in the position that these are allegedly temporary, although that's not included in the legislation. The government has, I believe, stated that as of July 1, 2013, teachers would have the right to bargain class size and composition, but this particular bill doesn't guarantee that.

Again, it's difficult to speculate. It's not something that the minister addressed directly in his remarks. But it is rather striking that after waiting…. One can understand the position of teachers, after waiting for legislation that was passed ten years ago, which eventually makes its way to the courts and is conclusively and in detail examined by the courts. And those provisions are struck down as violating the fundamental laws of the land, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would expect everyone here, unless there are a few who don't support the Charter…. But there's a separate argument for that, I suppose. For the most part, as legislators, we're obliged to respect the laws of the land, and certainly the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the supreme law of the land. It's a legal instrument against which legislation is measured and assessed by the courts. If it's found wanting, the courts have remedies, as the court chose in this particular case.

It is, I'm sure, galling in the extreme, when one considers that wait, that legislation and the results that are now before us in the legislation. The court goes on to say…. Again, I think it's important. I know I'm quoting the court decision a lot, but I think it is important to have that detached perspective here, because this is not political rhetoric. This is the statement of the court.

[1710]

The judge goes onto to speak of the benefits of the ability to negotiate working conditions and that beyond the mere legal requirement, under the Charter, for freedom of association, there are also recognized benefits from the power to negotiate collectively.

In paragraph 301, the judge — and I'm quoting from the court:

"The historical evolution of collective bargaining as a protected right recognizes that there is a psychological benefit to workers to be able to collectively bargain over their working conditions, a benefit that goes beyond the economic benefits they might obtain. As held in Health Services, at paragraph 86, recognition of the right to bargain collectively as part of the freedom to associate 'reaffirms the values of dignity, personal autonomy, equality and democracy that are inherent in the Charter.'"

So that's a fairly strong and, I would say, dramatic statement by the court of the benefits of collective bargaining. This is, again, not political rhetoric. This is the considered decision of the B.C. Supreme Court, Madam Justice Griffin.

She goes on to say:

"Allowing workers a process to have a voice in their working conditions, regardless of the outcome, is thought to have a mediating or therapeutic impact on industrial conflict. It has been regarded as a form of industrial democracy, where the worker gains a sense of worth and freedom by ability to participate."

There's an article that's cited.

"It is only common sense that citizens who participate in lawful collective bargaining process, resulting in an agreement that affects the way they earn their very livelihood will feel more like partners in the employment relationship, to the benefit of the entire community."

The judge goes on to quote from the Korbin report, which was a report which was commissioned back in the '90s about collective bargaining. She goes on to say,
[ Page 9744 ]
in paragraph 305:

"Conversely, the inability to participate in collective bargaining about one's working conditions can exacerbate industrial conflict. Workers who negotiated and relied on the give-and-take of negotiations and the resultant collective agreements will likely feel betrayed, disrespected and disheartened if their negotiated collective agreement is subsequently torn up by the state."

So this is, again, a decision of the court. These are the words of the judge. These are not my words. These are not ideological words. This is not political rhetoric. These are the considered words of the judge in a legal decision of the B.C. Supreme Court. I'm going to repeat it. "Workers who negotiated and relied on the give-and-take of negotiations and the resultant collective agreement will likely feel betrayed, disrespected and disheartened if their negotiated collective agreement is subsequently torn up by the state."

If that advice from the court is taken to heart, one can begin to understand some of the emotion that surrounds the actions of the government, particularly when one hears from teachers on these issues. Many of my colleagues have placed before the Legislature individual representations from teachers. It's not surprising that that is a result, but it is confirmed in these observations by the judge.

The other part of the judgment that I want to quote is…. There's a reference and a suggestion in the bill — I should say more than a suggestion; it's a direction — that certain aspects of the proposed new collective agreement will require that a mediator is appointed to assist the parties. That's section 6. It reads: "The Minister of Education must appoint a mediator to assist the parties in settling the terms and conditions of a new collective agreement in accordance with this section."

This judgment also has some comments about mediation as well, which I think are intriguing, given the way in which this legislation relies upon mediation.

[1715]

I want to turn now to…. The judge goes on to say — and I think this is a particularly insightful comment that applies in this case as well — in paragraph 367:

"The government has also not explained how legislation removing the right of employees to collectively bargain class size, composition, non-enrolling ratios, workload, and hours and days of work was logically linked to any ongoing labour dispute. Why was the legislation so broad? Why did it not provide for a traditional solution to solve a labour dispute? If the legislation was due to urgency, why was the legislation not structured as temporary?

"It appears that the BCPSEA considered that other options were available. As of August 30, 2001, the BCPSEA's internal documents were considering the options available if they reached a bargaining impasse…. The BCPSEA recognized that there were a number of traditional labour solutions…under the Labour Relations Code, including mediation, the appointment of an industrial inquiry commission that can impose resolution processes such as final offer selection, or arbitration, or a third party could be appointed with an authority to conclude a collective agreement.

"All of these traditional labour solutions would involve a process that would allow the BCTF to negotiate and argue its positions before a decision or recommendation was made by a party independent of the employer. BCPSEA recognized that at this early stage in the negotiations an appointed third party would likely find the parties had not yet bargained sufficiently. "

So there's again a recognition of the mechanisms available in the Labour Code. It's not necessary to enact legislation to impose mediation in the way, with the very limited ambit, that is imposed by this bill, but the recognition of the traditional labour remedies.

Indeed, both sides in this dispute, prior to the introduction of this legislation, agreed that a mediator ought to intervene and were prepared to accommodate that. Yet that offer wasn't taken up by the government, and no mediator was appointed. That would be the Minister of Labour who would have that discretion. Instead, the reaction of the government was to introduce this particular piece of legislation.

Again, one has to contrast what is said in the decision of the court, and the best advice from a very knowledgable Justice of the Supreme Court, with what the actions of the government have been, which appears to set aside very traditional labour remedies, the full range of options — simply rejects them and barrels forward with legislation which very narrowly circumscribes the mediation that will be done here.

One wonders whether there is a sincere commitment to mediation on the part of the government or whether it simply put it into the bill to provide some legal cover if and when this particular legislation is going to be challenged — legally in the courts, if that's the case.

It is very striking when one looks at what was in the original bill back in 2002. It looks like I'm about to be wound up, but if I could turn to just page 16 of the decision. What the bill sets out there is a number of terms. Particularly, I think the most dramatic is the amendment. This was the section that was struck down, section 8 and subsection 3(d): "restricting or regulating a board's power to establish class size and class composition must not be included in a teachers' collective agreement."

What do we see in the particular bill before the House now? The identical provision. It goes on. There's other language, which in section 8…. The bill in 2002 makes its way very slowly all the way to the Supreme Court, is struck down by the court, comes back to the Legislature, and the identical wording is before the House here.

[1720]

No wonder there is cynicism in the public. No wonder there is cynicism in the teachers union. And no wonder bargaining is so dysfunctional when, after that legal rebuke, the government feels that it can simply re-enact the identical legislation after ten years.

I'm loath to make any predictions, but I predict that this legislation will go back to court — I think the government seems to be indifferent to that — and that it will be struck down. One can only hope that this approach might be abandoned and perhaps a wiser approach might be taken. I think there's still some time to do some bargaining, and one would hope that that opportunity might
[ Page 9745 ]
be taken up.

I think my time is about to expire. I had a number of further comments about the record of the B.C. Liberals over the last ten years in education. Their record really is an appalling one. I was about to enumerate a number of areas of that record, but since my time is running out, I'll sit down.

Thank you. I fully intend to vote strongly against this bill at every stage.

R. Cantelon: I want to thank the member opposite for his comments. I'm standing and speaking, acknowledging the great privilege it is to speak in this House. I intend to speak briefly but strongly in support of this bill.

I grew up in an environment, in a household, that was immersed in teaching. It couldn't be more of a teachers' environment. My mother was a teacher for some 40 years. She taught grade 1 and always, when approached — and she was approached often — to become a principal, to become an administrator, she said: "No. It's most important to stay in front of the kids." She changed lives, even at grade 1. My neighbours next door that I grew up with were two first cousins. Two of the three of them were teachers, as were four other first cousins.

Then, as an adult, I have my own family, and indeed one of my children is a teacher — a very, very good teacher. She was a very gifted student in mathematics, won the mathematics prize in high school. Of course, as a parent you have different aspirations — scientific, medical perhaps — but for her, teaching was a calling. She's an excellent teacher. She teaches in an alternate school in Vancouver, a very difficult environment, but thrives on it.

I got a call the other day. I looked at my cell phone. It was a call from my daughter. I put the cell phone to my ear, and a little voice, my grandson's four-year-old voice, said to me: "Grandpa, negotiate; don't legislate." I asked him to the phone a second time, and he repeated the same message. So I take it to heart, and I'm going to speak in a positive vein on this legislation which I hope is intended and will give us a cooling-off period. We've been unsuccessful. It's been a fruitless search to find common ground, but I'm an eternal optimist, and I feel that we can yet achieve that.

I want to salute and congratulate the Minister of Education for his tireless efforts in meeting with 60 school districts across the province to try and develop a dialogue, to try and find words where we could talk to each other and listen to each other's position. He visited both my school districts, 69 and 70, and visited, most recently, Vancouver Island University, where he talked to a graduating class of education students. A very open and candid discussion it was.

With respect to school district 70, which he visited last summer, I want to interject the fact that education is extremely important to everybody in that community. We recently had the chamber of commerce awards — they call them the Glassies — to recognize outstanding contributions to the community.

The Community Builder of the Year was the Building Learning Together program, run by Debbie Robinson. This is a program which acknowledges the importance of early learning. The foundations of learning start very, very early. They engage the community. They have some 200 volunteers helping on things like the WOW Bus, Words On Wheels, driven by seniors. The whole community is engaged in helping this early learning development, and they are to be congratulated.

[1725]

The Minister of Education was up there, and I said to him: "Why don't you come and visit the teachers union in Nanaimo?" I think for many Ministers of Education that would be a daunting challenge, to just be tapped on the shoulder, with no advanced warning, and dragged into Nanaimo school district 69, which hadn't always had a great reputation of cooperation, necessarily, with the Minister of Education. But the minister did, and we had a very interesting discussion.

From that springs my hope that we can develop common ground, that this legislation will give us the opportunity so that cooler heads can prevail. Certainly, cooler heads must prevail.

I mentioned the environment I grew up in. All of those cousins, my mother and my daughter consider themselves to be professional teachers committed to the profession of teaching. I know that we can reach out to them.

Now, one of the things that's on the table is the discussion of where the negotiations about regulations of class size…. What table will these be discussed at, class size and other issues?

The teachers union in Nanaimo — Derek DeGear certainly was very clear about it. One of the issues that concerns them is the post-and-fill process. We're committed to an open, transparent process. Certainly, that is what they're looking for.

I believe this is one of the things that if we look at a local table — and I understand that in Surrey and other areas they've reached agreements on how to fairly post and fill — we can reach this accommodation, reach out to different school districts and start to develop a dialogue where we can build together on working on issues like this.

Their concern in the Nanaimo District Teachers Association is that basically it's unfair. It's somewhat arbitrary. Their concern is that someone who might appear, and rightfully so, as a bright young educational student gets the job ahead of somebody else. They just don't know how these things happen.

Well, the process has to be open, and it has to be fair. We need to have the best qualified and best experienced person in all departments.

I used to them an example of a mathematics teacher. You need a mathematics teacher in a secondary school
[ Page 9746 ]
who can be a leader of that department. They didn't disagree. They were open to the suggestion that this person might not have the best seniority — they might even be from a different district, it was suggested — but you need to have the best qualified person to lead that type of department.

I'm sure that we can find these kinds of agreements. If we take the kinds of issues like post and fill and say, "You sort it out with your school district and build a model that we can live with," from there we can find other ways to build on common ground and develop a dialogue.

These are some of the issues. The other one, of course, that's been…. I'll try to be fairly brief, but classroom size and composition has long been an outstanding issue among teachers and school boards.

That's one of reasons we're putting forth the $165 million fund to help develop criteria and develop ways to come together — to develop criteria and to develop classroom compositions — because classroom composition certainly is a strain and very distracting. Teaching in high school is a lot different than it was when my mother taught some 30 and 40 years ago. It's a much different ball game entirely.

The $165 million fund will help us find ways to help teachers — whether it be developing higher training for learning assistants, developing more professional support for teachers — to deal with these issues.

These are many of the issues where I feel that we can develop common ground, where we can build together. The word, dare I say in the context of the discussion that I had with this union representative…. It was his word, not mine. We can begin to develop trust. That's what we need to do.

We need to work on things where we can agree and build on trust. From there we can develop and rebuild this relationship between us and the Teachers Federation, which has crumbled completely.

These issues and others…. I'm very confident. I'm an eternal optimist. I don't think I'd have run for this position if I weren't an optimist, and I am. I'm imbued, with my mother and all the people who are so passionate about teaching, that we can. They want to teach, they feel compelled to teach, and they want an environment where they can be most successful in teaching.

I believe that this bill will give us some room to manoeuvre, that we will find that common ground and that we will be successful.

[1730]

K. Corrigan: The previous speaker from the other side spoke about re-establishing trust, and unfortunately, I don't think this bill, which I will be voting against, will do that at all — in fact, quite to the contrary. This is a bill that furthers and continues and perpetuates a relationship that has been devoid of trust over the last decade or so, and I think that's very unfortunate.

I want to talk, in terms of context on this bill, about my connection with public education. I was lucky enough to stay home with four children. That's an unusual luxury for most people in this day and age, as it gets tougher and tougher. But I could, when my children were younger, stay home with my children.

I spent a great number of hours volunteering in my community. The greatest percentage of those hours that I spent volunteering in my community was volunteering in the public education system. I volunteered at preschools when my children were going to preschools, and then I volunteered many, many hours every year at Nelson Elementary, first of all.

I was the chair of the parent advisory committee for years — or other positions. I spent many years working very closely with teachers, with other parents, with principals, with the district parent advisory committee and as well with the board on many occasions — the school board in Burnaby. I did the same thing at Burnaby South.

For 18 years I was home with my children, and all 18 of those years I was involved in education in some way. At the end of that period, or towards the end of that period, I was so passionate about public education that I decided that I would run for the district school board, the Burnaby school board. Somebody said to me once: "You spend so much time at the board, you might as well run. You're here that much, anyways."

[L. Reid in the chair.]

So I ran for the school board and was lucky enough to be elected in 1999. I remember those nine years that I was on the school board and the quality of the many, many presentations that teachers made to the board about the wonderful work that they were doing.

I was so impressed over those years with the great quality of public education we have in this province but, more particularly, the very high quality, the professionalism, the dedication and the caring of the teachers that we had in the Burnaby school district.

While all of us want to think that our own districts are the most wonderful — and Burnaby really is a wonderful school district — I know that there is that same quality, that same professionalism, that same dedication, that same creativity, that same pride in districts throughout the province.

That pride of the teachers was then reflected in the quality of what our students could do, because the students would not be there presenting their work — award-winning work, winning a speaking contest or having an athletic achievement or winning hundreds or thousands of dollars in scholarship…. That would not have happened for those students if it had not been for those dedicated teachers that we had in the Burnaby school district.

I have to say that I come from a school district where there are challenges. In the city of Burnaby, it's one of
[ Page 9747 ]
the highest recipients of students who are refugees. We have students coming from around the world, many of them coming from impoverished backgrounds, some of them coming from war, some of them coming with very difficult backgrounds and often psychological issues and challenges in terms of income. We have many students in those circumstances in Burnaby and in my present constituency. In addition, we have families that are very affluent and students who have every privilege.

[1735]

All these students are put together in the public education system, often within one school. You'll have a diversity…. And I can think of a couple of schools in my constituency where there was a huge diversity of backgrounds, challenges, opportunities, financial wherewithal, what those children came to school with and what baggage they came to school with.

Through it all, this wonderful public education system manages somehow to bring it all together and have success for most of the students that are in our province. I think it's a huge testament to the public education system as a whole, particularly to those teachers and to those teachers who have become administrators — a testament to the great skill and dedication of those people.

Education is the reason I got into politics. I fundamentally believe — and I've said similar things before — that it is the most important public service that we can provide. It is the great equalizer. It is the way that those that come from challenging backgrounds can get a step up and say: "I really can make it in this world if I do well in school. It doesn't matter what my financial background is. It doesn't matter what war-torn country I came from. If I can get a good public education, I can do well in public school. I have a chance in this world to lift myself up."

It's why parents from around the world want to come to British Columbia, many of them. They see in British Columbia a wonderful education system, and they see the chance for equality for their children — even if, having been doctors or lawyers in their home country, they come here and don't get a chance to practise their profession. They drive a cab, they work at minimum wage, but they will do it anyways because they see for their children that there is more opportunity in this country. That is the context of the importance, to me, of public education, how we deal with our teachers and how we deal with this system that is so important to us.

Unfortunately, I believe, over the last decade or more, the way that we have dealt with teachers has been devoid of respect, essentially. Over and over again, a government has put itself in a position where it is at loggerheads with teachers. They have done that again with this bill, and I do believe that it's absolutely intentional.

I heard one of the ministers from the other side, speaking on the radio over the weekend, who was asked why it was that we didn't continue on debate, and there was no answer. We were ready to go to debate, but I believe that this government wanted to have a strike this week, absolutely was determined to have that and would not have it any other way. In order to ramp up the confrontation, for whatever political reason, they wanted to do that.

A contract between two parties, as I've intimated before, is not just about the terms of the contract. It's about the relationship that is involved. As I have said before, this relationship, I think, is fundamentally broken, because there is no respect for the teachers of this province. I think that's a huge problem.

More than the contract itself, it is the lack of trust. I find it quite ironic that the former speaker talked about building trust, because the actions of the government over and over again over the last ten years, if not designed to, have certainly had the impact of destroying any trust that there might be.

I want to read a part of a letter, a quote from a letter — a teacher in Burnaby who started teaching in 2002 — because it talks about this issue of respect and the trusting relationship. It's a teacher named Sarah Purdy, and she said:

[1740]

"At my school we have a large number of students living in poverty. We have food programs at the school that are essentially supported by teachers using their free time to collect donations and bring them to our school. We have teachers staying late at night to coach, to sponsor clubs or to give individual support. No one entered this job for the money, but everyone deserves to be treated with respect.

"I have never in my entire career felt respected by the provincial government, my employer. Even though my students show me respect, their parents show me respect, and my colleagues show me respect, my provincial employer has never shown me any respect, because I have only ever worked for the B.C. Liberals.

"I hope you will hold this government accountable. I don't want to work in an environment where students can't get the help they need and teachers are not respected by their employers."

Again, that was signed by Sarah Purdy.

It's interesting. Many of us met, last week or the week before, with representatives of our local teacher unions. One of the things that was pointed out in the conversation with my local president, Richard Storch…. He said: "Did you know that there is a decline in the number of male teachers in the system?" Now, I think he was talking about Burnaby, but he probably assumed that the same was true across the province.

I think that's a very interesting and unfortunate fact. Apparently — and I've heard this before — as the lack of respect as well as the remuneration in a profession declines, what you have is less males going into it. I'm not sure exactly why that is, but that does appear to be the truth, and that is what has happened in education.

So not only are we creating a situation where we have a lack of respect for teachers; we're also losing male teachers. We have so many single-parent families where there perhaps isn't a male person, a role model, at home. I think it's absolutely critical that we should have more male teachers in our schools.

Here I want to quote another very short quote from
[ Page 9748 ]
another teacher that contacted me, referencing the past ten years. She said: "In 2002, I lost the right to have a say in how many students would be placed in my classroom. In 2002, I also lost the right to argue for support for students with special needs."

We know now that those rights that were taken away by the Liberal government — on special needs support, the number of special needs, the imposing of class-size limits, and so on…. The things that were taken away from the ability of teachers to bargain collectively — this was struck down in 2011. In 2011 the B.C. Supreme Court struck down what had been the Liberal government's amendments to teachers' rights, because they were unconstitutional.

I just have to point out that throughout this period when the amendments were being made that created and increased the lack of trust and the poor relationship between the teachers of this province and the Minister of Education, the person who was the Minister of Education through that was our Premier.

You know, I was a school trustee during this period, and I have to say that that period when our present Premier was the Minister of Education was characterized by confrontation. It was characterized by a lack of collaboration and consultation, not only with teachers but with trustees as well. I remember well that things were imposed on boards without discussion — things that were not good for education. Yet it was done in a high-handed and sometimes arrogant way.

[1745]

So it wasn't just the actual legislation itself, which has now been found unconstitutional — that legislation and other legislation that was confrontational. It was the attitude and the lack of respect and the lack of consultation, not only with the teachers but, as I said, with school trustees as well. I remember going to several conferences where the then Minister of Education would impose yet another thing without consultation, things that boards knew were not good for the public education system.

Certainly, under this minister — the then minister, the now Premier — there was the legislation in the form of Bill 27 and Bill 28. The heart of that legislation was that teachers' collective agreements could not contain provisions that restrict the ability of a board to regulate class size and composition, determine staffing levels, determine the number of students assigned to a teacher or establish maximum caseloads or staffing loads or teaching loads.

As I said earlier, we now know that that legislation was unconstitutional. We had, again, this provincial government having been found to have brought legislation forward that was unconstitutional. I think that is very disrespectful. I don't know what advice government received with regards to legislation that was imposed upon the Hospital Employees Union — legislation, by the way, that was promised prior to the election in 2001 that it would not be brought, that there would be no contract stripping. And yet there was.

What else did we get? Well actually, I'd like to quote…. I was very interested in my colleague from Surrey-Whalley's comments about what the impact is going to be of the present legislation that we're talking about, the 2012 Bill 22. What is going to be the impact of the fact that many of the provisions that have been found to be unconstitutional, not constitutional, that they're back again in Bill 22? I certainly agree with my colleague that it's very odd. To me it is also like another poke in the eye of the teachers to say: "Well, we're going to impose that language yet again even though Supreme Court justices found that it's unconstitutional."

The judge in this case found that the Premier and her colleagues had trampled the collective bargaining rights of teachers by legislating away class sizes and other protections in their labour contracts, and by doing so without consulting teachers in the slightest beforehand. Again, a lack of respect and a lack of consultation.

Just a quote from what the judge said:

"The government consulted fully" — with the employers before passing the legislation — "over at least a seven- or eight-month period.

"Internal government documents indicate that at least some government officials expected that the teachers union would be very opposed to the legislation. The government has not offered any explanation as to why…it could not also have consulted with BCTF about the intended legislation."

The failure to do so was, in fact, fatal to the legislation, the reason it was found unconstitutional. Again from the judge:

"By passing this legislation without so much as consulting with the BCTF, the government did not preserve the essential underpinning of collective bargaining, namely, good faith negotiation and consultation."

Now, as my colleague said, we have pieces from that legislation that were found unconstitutional being replicated again in the legislation that is coming before us, saying again that you cannot have provisions — exactly the same as in the previous legislation — that you cannot have certain provisions to do with class size and composition, that you can't have those in the collective agreement.

I think that's very strange, and my colleague from Surrey-Whalley has predicted that this will again be challenged and will again be found to be unconstitutional. We will see.

[1750]

I want to go back to talking about, again, the context for this legislation, of what it is that we've experienced over the last several years. As I said earlier, I was a school trustee for nine years, from 1999 until 2008. I have to say that those nine years were characterized — certainly the early years, when the now Premier was the Minister of Education — by cuts. A change to the funding formula was billed as providing more flexibility but did just the opposite because the budgets were shrinking. There was
[ Page 9749 ]
no ability to do anything flexible.

Essentially, our main job year after year when we were setting our budgets was: what is it that we're going to have to cut this year? It was a tough time.

I remember budgets where we were cutting out maintenance. We were cutting out computers. We had to dismiss our settlement workers. I've talked about the diversity of our community. We had to cut the settlement workers. So there was no flexibility.

Over those many years, at the same time as we were not given increased money, what we were getting was downloaded costs. So MSP premiums increased. We got the HST. We got the carbon tax. We got the carbon tax tool that you had to pay for in order to determine how much you had to pay in the carbon tax.

All of this happened over the years that I was a school trustee, up until 2008. The present Premier was certainly a very enthusiastic part of the cuts to the public education system. I as a local trustee had to be the one that had to actually impose the cuts. There was no flexibility there.

I even remember one year where the now Premier, then minister, accused the boards across the province of having a surplus at the end of the year, saying: "You don't need any more money because you have a surplus." That was really frustrating as a local board, because the only reason we had a surplus was that just before the end of the fiscal year the Ministry of Education had provided a few more dollars. Then it was shown up as a surplus because you couldn't spend it within two or three weeks. It was a cynical way to deal with education.

That is the history of where we have gotten to now. I think, with that history, it is no wonder that it is difficult to come to an agreement through collective bargaining.

I do think collective bargaining does have to be respected, and I think it's unfortunate that we have this piece of legislation which imposes a contract on the teachers. Again, it retramples the collective bargaining rights of teachers. So that's where we are now.

I'm certainly going to be voting against Bill 22, because it doesn't address the many, many issues that I've talked about. It doesn't address the fact that we don't have appropriate funding in the education system. It doesn't address many of the things that we need to do in education. It takes the contract away from the bargaining table without respecting that process, and it should have done that.

I'm concerned, certainly, about the fact — the one that I already mentioned — that what was section 8 of the previous act, which has been found unconstitutional, is reimposed in this piece of legislation.

I think that this legislation, overall, does not make things better. It makes things worse for students and parents and teachers. It increases class sizes, which is not good for the classroom. It weakens the protections for special needs students, and it will ultimately hurt the quality of the education our children receive.

[1755]

I just want to say that through all of this — through all of the broken relationship that the teachers of this province have with this provincial government, with the Liberal government — I have such a great deal of respect for the teachers of the province. They do continue to provide excellent education. They do a fabulous job.

But it's getting more and more difficult for them, as education is obviously not the priority that it should be. We need to have a wonderful education system if we want to not only look after those children and give them the chance — every student the chance, which I was talking about earlier….

But also, it's critical to the future of this province that we invest in public education to make sure that we are providing students that are well-educated so that they can go out in the world, go to post-secondary education, go out into the working world at some point and be productive. I'm very concerned that this bill, again, does not lead us in that direction.

This legislation itself has led to this strike. So if anybody wants to say, "Well, why are we in this position?" it is because of the government's actions that we are in this position now.

As I said, this is a very significant bill. It imposes a contract on our teachers. We have wonderful teachers. We've had a history of wonderful teachers. I thank them for the work that they do, but it has been a very difficult 11 years with the Liberals, I think, mismanaging education. I certainly saw it over the years that I was a school trustee, and I have seen it in the 11 years that this government has been in power.

Unfortunately, I don't think education has been a priority. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a will or even a desire to have a good relationship with teachers. I think it's very unfortunate for education because we are creating people like the young teacher that I talked about earlier who said that in all of her years that she has been teaching since 2002, she has felt that her employer does not respect her. I think that's too bad.

Interestingly, we have students out there supporting their teachers. We know that the students, obviously — many of them are supportive of their teachers. I don't think that's any big surprise that they're frustrated at what's happening, and they're expressing themselves very publicly. Perhaps it's good for students. I'm not talking one way or the other whether they should be protesting. On the other hand, it's good to see students taking an interest in their public education system as well.

So with that, I'm very disappointed in this bill. I think it makes things worse for students, parents and teachers. This is entirely a product of the Liberals' actions, lack of respect for teachers, as I said, and mismanagement of education. That mismanagement is hurting students, it has hurt parents, and it's playing politics with teachers.

I think it was entirely desired by the Liberal government that there would be a strike. They forced this
[ Page 9750 ]
strike. I think it's very unfortunate that there wasn't an independent mediator, that the collective bargaining was not allowed to continue and instead that we have this legislation that is not going to be good. It's going to increase class size. It's going to impose provisions that were already found to be illegal. We're going to have them back again and probably will be found to be illegal again. Again, a lack of respect for teachers.

With that, Madam Speaker, I am going to take my seat.

[1800]

Hon. T. Lake: It is an honour, as always, to stand up in this House and speak on issues that affect all of us as British Columbians. I think that from the debate we have seen, this is a passionate subject — when we talk about education and our children and improving the situation for the education system in British Columbia and for our children.

I've heard lots of people talk about the importance of teachers. I think that's something all of us in this House would agree on — that teachers are significant in terms of the impact they have on the lives of children and their development. Everyone remembers, when they were in school, the teachers that made a big difference to their lives when they were at a very pivotal time in their development. It's a profession to which many people aspire.

I have three children, all of whom have gone through the public education system here in British Columbia, one of whom is still in the system in grade 12. She is one of the children that has been affected this year by the action of teachers. I'll talk to that a little bit later. But in terms of teachers and the importance and the passion that they bring to the profession, no one knows that better than parents.

As a young person, this was something to which I aspired. In fact, I remember very, very clearly a weekend spent in Victoria when I was applying to the faculty of physical education in order to become a history and phys ed teacher. If I hadn't almost drowned in the pool doing the swimming leg of the test, I might well be a teacher today. What may seem ironic for a person named Lake is I wasn't the strongest swimmer, so I failed to make it into the faculty of physical education at the University of Victoria.

But I certainly understand the passion and the importance of the teaching profession. Later in my career I was able to fulfil that personal ambition at Thompson Rivers University, teaching animal health technology, something that I enjoyed every single day. So I know, from my own personal experience in my life and from very close relatives and friends who are teachers, how passionate they are and what an impact they have on our children.

There are children that are impacted by what is going on in this dispute that we have between the employers and the teachers. I've heard people on the other side of the House say that it's the B.C. Liberal government that's to blame for this poor relationship. Yet it seems, when I look back at the relationship with all governments of all stripes in the province of British Columbia, the relationship between the teachers and their union and governments of every political party has not been a happy experience.

I wonder why that is. I'm not sure I know enough about it, really, to come to a conclusion about that, only to say that I think we need to move on and develop a more positive relationship between a profession that's so important to us, as a society, and government.

When you look at what's happened over the last year, it seems incongruous that there have been 78 meetings between the B.C. Teachers Federation and BCPSEA over one year, yet there has been absolutely no progress made.

The Teachers Federation was, as we learned early in the negotiations, demanding things that I think many members of the public found almost incredible — in terms of the demands that were made for time off for compassionate leave and other related things. But I think the crux of it comes down to the demand for a 15 percent pay increase at a time when government is not in a position to do that.

We are facing government revenues that have been challenging, to say the least, since the economic downturn of 2008-2009. Governments around the world are struggling to be able to meet the commitments that are made to the public service, and many people in many countries have lost their jobs, whereas here in B.C. we have, I think, made a valiant attempt to ensure that we have maintained a public sector — in fact, increased funding to key areas, including health care and education.

[1805]

In fact, funding to education in British Columbia since 2001 has gone up every single year, despite the fact that there are 54,000 fewer students in the system. Much of that increased funding has gone to pay teachers' salaries. When I look back on the numbers, I see that under the years of the NDP, the teachers received, on average, a 1 percent pay increase. Up until now under the B.C. Liberal government, they've received, on average, a 3-percent-per-year increase.

At a time when the vast majority of the nearly 300,000 people working in the public service in British Columbia have accepted the challenge of working to a net zero mandate, it seems unreasonable that the Teachers Federation has refused to consider doing what 130 other agreements have been able to do. That is to work within the net zero mandate — as has every member of this House, I might add. In fact, members of the executive council even take a decrease each year as the government is in deficit.

Under the last agreement, the teachers received a 16 percent wage increase and a $3,600 signing bonus, at a time when other members of the public service were getting increases more in line with about 8 percent. I think there's a sense of fairness that has to come into play when
[ Page 9751 ]
we look at the public sector and the role that we all have played — all of us in the public sector — in meeting the challenge of fiscal responsibility. We owe it to the taxpayers of British Columbia and, in fact, all of Canada.

I think we need to look at the act itself and say: "What is this going to do for the situation we find ourselves in at the moment?" Well, first of all, the Education Improvement Act will provide for a cooling-off period, which I think is important.

I mentioned that my daughter, who is currently still in the school system, is in grade 12. Her teachers, by and large, I would say have done a tremendous job keeping us informed, but they have been constrained in the way in which they've been able to do that. She's had marks provided but no comments provided. I haven't had the ability to meet with teachers to find out where she would perhaps need some improvement as she prepares for a university education.

It's left my daughter and the children of many people throughout British Columbia in a very precarious position, especially as they get near the end of their secondary education and look forward to a post-secondary education.

I think that the cooling-off period and an appointment of a mediator is an important part of this Education Improvement Act that will allow cooler heads to prevail and to work in an environment in which my child and the children of other British Columbians don't suffer. I think that we have to put children first in everything we do.

The other thing this act does is that it provides for a learning improvement fund. This learning improvement fund of $165 million over three years and then followed by $76 million ongoing will add to the resources, which now receive more than $850 million per year for students with special needs.

As society has grappled with the principle of inclusion, which I think every one of us agrees is a good thing, we have all grappled with how best to accomplish that in a way that makes sure all children are treated so that they can fulfil their maximum potential.

When I was out for a run this weekend, one of the friends said that his child was not receiving the kind of attention that he thought she deserved. She was one of the brightest and best in the class and was not challenged and not given enough opportunity to fulfil her potential because of some of the other issues in the classroom.

I think we always have to look to the classroom and find ways that we can improve conditions in the classroom so that teachers and students can both benefit. When I talk to members of my family that are in the teaching profession, they tell me that good teachers…. Sure, they want to be rewarded, but they want to be rewarded with resources in the classroom. This is exactly what this bill does.

[1810]

It ensures that the money, the increased funding that is going towards education in the form of the learning improvement fund, will in fact allow for the hiring of additional teachers and, importantly, for educational assistants, because they are critical to ensure that the students with challenges have their needs met and that the other children in the classroom also get the attention they deserve.

It will provide additional teaching time and also support professional development and training to help those teachers meet the complex needs that they have in their classroom.

The other thing that I think is important — and I've heard some other members speak to this — is the issue of striking a balance between teaching suitability and seniority. I don't think there's anyone that would say that it's not important to recognize the years of service that people contribute to their profession when decisions are made around moving through the system and being rewarded.

Experience is, of course, important. I remember that when I started my veterinary career, someone told me it would take five years to become a good veterinarian. I didn't think that was true. In fact, it wasn't. It took me about ten years to become a good veterinarian. But it speaks to the importance of experience — the things you learn every day on the job which make you better at your profession.

I don't think there's anyone who doubts that the longer a teacher is teaching, learning how to teach and handling different situations, they become better. But that has to be balanced against suitability, to ensure that the people that are teaching, specifically when you get to secondary education, are suitable to be teaching the subject matter for which they are selected.

Whether that is science or geography or mathematics — or English, for that matter — I think it's really important that the teachers that are teaching those subjects do have some knowledge of the subject and are able to balance that. At least, the choice of the teacher would be balanced against the seniority, as well, so that we can ensure our children have a teacher who is the best possible teacher that is available for that subject.

If we want to continue to move our society forward, we have to make sure that the brightest and the best are taught in a way that is reflective of the expertise that is available to us.

We have some amazingly bright teachers in our system. Sometimes they feel that they don't have the same opportunities because they simply haven't been teaching long enough. I think that's a barrier to improving our system.

I won't go on anymore, other than to say that I think we do need to foster a new relationship between the professionals that teach in our schools throughout the province and governments, whether it's this government today or government ten years from now.
[ Page 9752 ]

I think we do need to make sure that we have a more positive relationship for our children, but we also need to be realistic in terms of the immediate situation in which we find ourselves, where fiscal responsibility has been a key to ensuring that we have a prosperity for tomorrow.

It's something that over 200,000 public servants in this province have agreed to do. I think that the teaching profession should consider its role in our approach, as a province and as a team of British Columbians, to face the challenges that we find ourselves facing at the moment.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the opportunity to get up and take my place in the second reading debate on Bill 22, the Education Improvement Act.

The previous speaker talked about moving on and creating a more positive relationship to move forward. I think that's probably a pretty good piece of advice. The problem we have here with Bill 22 is that it takes us in exactly the opposite direction.

[1815]

It takes us farther away from creating that opportunity. It takes us farther away from creating that climate of trust and respect that we will require to move forward and deal with what are, admittedly, some of the very challenging issues around the education file over the last number of years.

I want to talk a little bit in my time today — I know I'll conclude my remarks tomorrow — about what's in the legislation. In particular, I want to talk about how the legislation deals with teachers and has dealt with this round of bargaining that has not been successful.

We know that the government, in this round, has essentially said that money is off the table, and they have said that they will bring in mediation. Now, in doing that, they've done an interesting thing with mediation. The terms of reference for the mediator are quite narrow — quite narrow for any mediator who is going to engage such a complex situation as the one that we face in education collective bargaining today.

What the mediator has been told, whoever this mediator may be, is that…. I think there will be some challenge in finding a mediator to do this job. Certainly, part of the challenge is that usually, when mediation is put in place, there's some agreement between the parties on who should be doing that mediating, some agreement on who the person is who can best balance those needs.

But we can fully expect that that won't be the case here. We'll have a mediator who will be appointed by the minister, and we will have a mediator who will be there fully with that understanding. They may do a wonderful job. They may be excellent at their skill. But they will be there without the confidence of teachers if the teachers have no role in making that choice of a mediator.

When that mediator arrives on the job, they are going to have terms of reference that are extremely narrow in terms of labour relations. They are going to be looking at non-monetary issues, and even more problematic than that, they are going to be looking primarily at the concessions that the employer has put on the table. Their job is going to be to do that. So you're asking the teachers to come to the table and mediate around the employer's concession list, and we know that that will be a problem.

The previous speaker spoke a little bit about the challenge around seniority. Let's be clear here when we get to the issue of seniority. We have a situation today where, essentially, seniority and qualification go together to make the determination on who the appropriate teacher is. Seniority and qualification are what come together. We know that's true. We know that the government can't produce a list of examples where that has been stretched at all.

I've heard some people talk about the example that in French immersion you have teachers who aren't skilled enough in French. Well, the reality is that the government hasn't trained enough French teachers to be able to do the job. But we're not finding that when we talk about sciences and we talk about math and we talk about those other skill sets. That's the problem with putting the word "suitability" in rather than "qualification."

Once you put suitability on the table, it becomes a situation where those people making the determination about suitability have a pretty wide range to be able to make that decision. Clearly, it becomes problematic when you start to determine that people are appropriate for a job through somebody else's interpretation of suitability, without measurements that are clear and available. So that's part of the problem here.

The other problem we see with this is that if this is about non-monetary items, it raises the question about why it is that a whole list of potential non-monetary items that the teachers would like to have be part of this mediation process are not on that list.

[1820]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Why is it that they're not included and as upfront as the conditions that the employer has put on the list? Issues like layoff and recall. Why isn't that a discussion point?

Qualifications, determining qualifications, educational change, job-sharing, the question of seniority, evaluation, temporary teachers' rights, supervision, transfers, professional autonomy, new-school planning, composition of staff committees — all of these are essentially non-monetary items. Yet they're items that we know are not going to be able to be discussed by this mediator at this time.

It is mediation that is simply not credible. It's not credible, and it's not legitimate. It's one thing to say that they're non-monetary items. It's another thing to say only one side of the table gets to put their items on the table.

The other problem with this that we know is that the determination about what constitutes or what is con-
[ Page 9753 ]
sistent with this non-monetary approach will be determined by the chief executive officer of the Public Sector Employers Council, who is an employee of government. They will make the determination.

So even if you get a mediator who is extremely skilled and comes in and finds an innovative way to try to get at some answers that might find some common ground, you now have an employee of the government, somebody who works on the employer's side and heads up the employer's side, who gets to make the determination whether in fact that's working or not. It's extremely problematic when that occurs.

We know that we have a situation where we're going to have big challenges to make this work. In the area of mediation alone we now have a situation. This mediation has been damaged by the decision of government to go where they want to go in order to get at this issue.

Now, hon. Speaker, I'm kind of looking to you for a little bit of guidance here as to whether we can go for a few more minutes. Very good. Thank you.

I want to move a little bit to the…. Actually, I'm going to save moving to the second issue here in order to talk about that more completely tomorrow, when I get to finish my comments. That's around the issues of class size and composition and that aspect of the bill.

I'm going to change gears a little bit to talk about the issue of funding. We know that the government has talked about the funding, and again, a number of speakers have talked about the $165 million. We'll talk about the detail of that more tomorrow. But let's be clear. What we're talking about here is the equivalent of that $165 million.

We need to know that when that money essentially got forced onto the table by the Supreme Court decision around the unconstitutionality of B.C. Liberal legislation, one of the things that Justice Griffin stated in her ruling was that it was her belief that the government was saving about $275 million a year by making the changes they made.

So the government comes and says: "We're going to provide $165 million over three years." In the first year it's $30 million, on top of what essentially is a frozen budget that was brought in by the Finance Minister.

Now, I understand that if you looked at the cost of inflation on education spending, K-to-12 education spending, probably $130 million or maybe $135 million to cover inflationary costs. So you have a situation where you've added $30 million, but arguably, you've excluded about $100 million just in inflationary costs to keep the status quo. That's the challenge we have — that the government has essentially eroded the budget by that amount.

Because we used the per-pupil funding formula that we're using, it puts additional pressures, I believe, on the system in terms of where we stand today. So the reality is that this claim that somehow the government has added $30 million to the budget…. It's not real in terms of actually covering off against cost pressures. It's not real when you talk about covering off against cost pressures.

[1825]

Now, I understand that the government…. The B.C. Liberals, may not understand the concept of inflation, considering how they grasp many financial issues these days, but….

Interjections.

S. Simpson: Absolutely. Look at how well they managed the costs of that convention centre.

Hon. Speaker, you should take a look at what the bookings are there.

Noting the hour — and I reserve my right, my place, to continue in debate — I will move that we do now adjourn debate.

S. Simpson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, 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. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY, SPORT AND
CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

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

H. Lali: I'd like to turn our attention to some local government grants we see. Now, can the minister tell me:
[ Page 9754 ]
have any programs been moved from the ministry into another ministry?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm just asking the member if he can be more specific, if he's considering…. As he may know — but it's not a change from the previous fiscal year — the ministry did receive authority to administer the community gaming grant program. That was done in March of 2011, so it's not new for this fiscal year.

[1440]

H. Lali: That would answer my question. I was just wondering sometimes…. I may have missed anything, if there were any programs that were moved.

Have there been any fee increases or new fees imposed that would be under her ministry? If there are any, what are they for?

Hon. I. Chong: There are no new fees.

H. Lali: Have any of the performance measures from the service plan been dropped or added from last year?

Hon. I. Chong: In terms of new performance measures that were being introduced, there is one new measure, performance measure 3. It's the percentage of local governments taking action to reduce corporate- and community-wide GHG emissions. This measure replaces the percentage of British Columbians living in communities that have signed the B.C. climate action charter. That is the one new performance measure that has been introduced.

Is that what the member is hoping to achieve?

H. Lali: I just want to turn the attention to the minister's office now, the budget. Is there any increase to the specific budget for the minister's office this year over last?

Hon. I. Chong: As a result of the Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development being moved over to our ministry, there has been an increase for the ministry office. I think that's to the tune of about $21,000 that will be included there to provide for support staff.

H. Lali: Could the minister perhaps provide a little bit more detail and turn to the breakdown for the $21,000? How much of that goes towards the pay for the parliamentary secretary, and how much of it is for the support staff? Could you give some details as to any kind of travel budgets for the parliamentary secretary as well? Just generally provide a general detail of the breakdown of the $21,000, please.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm advised that of the $21,000, $16,000 is provided for salary and $5,000 for benefits.

[1445]

H. Lali: From where would the travel budget for the parliamentary secretary come, supposing he or she will be doing some travelling in the next year to other places in British Columbia on behalf of the minister, or for a specific project that the minister might have? Perhaps I should have this with me, but I don't. Who is the parliamentary secretary for the minister?

Hon. I. Chong: The travel expenditures would be covered through the legislative comptroller's office, as all travel is for MLAs. The parliamentary secretary was transferred over from Jobs, Tourism and Innovation on September 26, 2011. That is the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

H. Lali: How many political appointees are employed by the minister and the ministry this year, and who are they?

Hon. I. Chong: I have two ministerial assistants and an executive assistant. The executive assistant is to provide half their time toward supporting the parliamentary secretary. But I should advise that that will be changing to one ministerial assistant and two executive assistants over the course of the next little while. Sometimes we take a look at the demands and the requirements in our office, and it was determined that we were able to go forward in this next fiscal year with one ministerial assistant and two executive assistants as opposed to two ministerials and one executive assistant.

H. Lali: I was going to say to the minister: that's still three people. So is there any reduction in pay or cost as a result of that? What's the pay structure for an MA versus an EA? The minister also mentioned that they're doing this in terms of a change of a role. I'm not going to talk about the AGLG but the fact that the AGLG's role is coming on board.

I would expect that perhaps there would be more work in the minister's office, but it seems like the minister is saying there is a bit of a reduction. Or is it just a change in roles?

Hon. I. Chong: As I have indicated, in terms of political staffers, as the member has asked, in total there are three. It's just the classification. In the past I had two ministerial assistants and one executive assistant. I am changing that to one ministerial assistant and two executive assistants.

There is a difference in pay scale, as the member will know. That is all disclosed in the public accounts because depending on their range or their time in office, it will depend on what their salary is. I don't have that figure with me.

H. Lali: Have there been any salary increases for pol-
[ Page 9755 ]
itical staff, or are you envisaging any salary increases in this year?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm not envisioning any changes to the salary levels other than what is provided for if there is change of duties and change of responsibilities. If that were to occur, there would be adjustment. If an EA, for example, is promoted to an MA, then obviously they would have a salary grid adjustment but not a salary increase as such.

[1450]

H. Lali: Could the minister tell me how much money was spent on travel for the minister and the minister's staff in the previous year? And how much is budgeted for the upcoming fiscal year?

Hon. I. Chong: Obviously, the public accounts haven't been concluded, year-end hasn't been concluded, so I'm assuming all the expenses are not yet in. But what is allocated in the minister's office for travel for myself and my staff is in the budget, in the blue book, in the STOBs — STOB 57, as I see it — for $98,000.

H. Lali: Has the minister done any international travel in the past year, and does the minister expect to do any in the upcoming year?

Hon. I. Chong: For this fiscal year the only travel I took outside the province, in my recollection, is when last November I went down to Los Angeles to meet with people in the film industry. It was apparently an important meet-and-greet with members of the industry, and they had expressed a strong desire to show support for the industry in speaking with the consul general down there. That is the only out-of-province travel I can recall that I have incurred this fiscal year, and it was two days, I believe.

H. Lali: Were there any benefits derived for the taxpayers of British Columbia in the way of any contracts or investments that may have resulted as a result of the minister's trip to L.A. last year?

Hon. I. Chong: As the member will know, oftentimes when you're meeting with stakeholders and trying to understand why the industry is investing or not investing, it is important to meet them on their grounds.

There have been opportunities for me to meet with the people in the film industry in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland, but the travel that I took last November was specifically to speak to two of the largest studios to ask them what it would take to entice them to invest more in British Columbia. We talked about tax credits. We talked about venture capital. We talked about a number of issues that they found extremely helpful.

It was easier to see four or five of them all in one day than I could have, again, if they were to come up to Vancouver, which they were not intending to do. So the purpose of my trip down there was to find ways to work more collaboratively with them and to find ways to see how we can attract more investment up here, to British Columbia.

H. Lali: Was there any follow-up to your trip, if any, in terms of trying to get more investment coming into British Columbia?

[1455]

Hon. I. Chong: When I did attend in Los Angeles last fall, I was there with the B.C. Film Commission, which is the agency through which much of the continuing dialogue takes place. Being there with the B.C. Film Commission and a number of our local producers, as well, and speaking to two of the larger studios down there, as I say, allowed us to open up dialogue on which the B.C. Film Commission continues to have discussions, and my staff do follow-up as well. Obviously, we are looking to increase film opportunities in British Columbia, and we certainly are moving towards that end.

H. Lali: Could the minister please tell us how many FTEs or staff hours were dedicated to meeting with lobbyists last year? And does the minister meet with lobbyists, or is it the staff?

Hon. I. Chong: There are no staff members who are designated specifically to meet with lobbyists. Obviously, when we get a request for a meeting, whether I get a request, I do so, not always sure whether they are lobbyists or whether they're registered as a lobbyist. As the member will know, that's not my obligation to ask. It is up to the person who is lobbying to be registered.

We do meet with stakeholders, as I'm sure the member does in his day-to-day work, and they often request things of government and request changes to legislation. That is in the normal practice of why people meet with MLAs, as a whole.

H. Lali: The minister said there are no staffers designated specifically, but that doesn't answer the question. Do staff members meet with lobbyists, then? I know that the minister said no one is specifically designated. So does that mean anybody who's available from staff meets with lobbyists?

Hon. I. Chong: The staff routinely receive requests, and they meet with stakeholders and clients of the ministry. All I can say is that when they have a request, generally they will try to fulfil those requests and determine what the nature of that meeting will be.
[ Page 9756 ]

H. Lali: Obviously, the requests come in for meetings through the minister's office, and staff who are responsible for scheduling schedule meetings, in consultation with the minister. And the minister says there's no way of knowing who's a lobbyist or a stakeholder or a client or just somebody who wants to talk to government — or opposition. But government does have more resources, way more resources, at its disposal than the official opposition.

My question to the minister is: would it be correct to say that there's nobody on staff who actually, when requests come in, goes through the list of registered lobbyists to see if these people are lobbyists or not?

Hon. I. Chong: As the member will know, whether you're a minister or a private member, there are frequent requests to meet with people — whether you're at an event and people ask if they can meet with you — and your staff do the best to schedule that.

There is no automatic question, if that's what the member is asking, that we ask to seek out whether someone is a lobbyist or not. That is up to the individual or organization to ensure that they've covered off the rules that they need to by the registration. So we don't assign staff to question, when I'm meeting with people, whether they're a lobbyist or not.

[1500]

H. Lali: That wasn't my question — whether one asks folks wanting to meet with you whether they're lobbyists or not. Rather, the question was…. When the request comes in, more often than not — having been a minister myself for three years — they're usually written requests that come in. And when a written request comes in, through a letter or e-mail or whatever means, the requests pile up.

Obviously, the minister's schedulers sit down with the minister to determine what time frames we're looking at, what the availability of the minister's time is and how many people you can meet with during those allotted time slots. Sometimes you prioritize who you can meet with or not depending on the situation or the severity of their issue or the problem that needs the attention. So there is that process.

But somewhere along the line…. Is the minister saying to me that nobody actually looks at the requests? You've probably decided who you're going to meet with — then take a look at the lobbyist registration to see who may be a lobbyist or not?

I know the minister said it's up to the individuals or the individual stakeholder that's meeting. It's up to them to sort of self-regulate, I guess, if I can invent a word here for this purpose. But is there nobody in the minister's office who says, "Maybe we should, just for accountability purposes, look and see who is registered as a lobbyist or not," when those requests for meetings come in and then those meeting are confirmed?

Hon. I. Chong: I know he does appreciate the amounts, the large amount of requests that come in, he having been here himself and in the same situation, although at the time he was here, there was no such thing as a Lobbyists Registration Act. So obviously, it is something new.

I can say that staff routinely receive — whether it's in the ministry or whether in my minister's office — requests to meet. I leave it up to my scheduler to make a determination, as the member has rightly indicated, whether there is urgency to some of those requests. If it's a local government, in particular, that needs to meet on impending doom of some sort, obviously we would meet with them, or if there are requests that when I'm in their neck of the woods, please to pop in and have a meet with their council. Those kinds of requests come in fairly routinely.

So I can only say to the member that my meetings are scheduled for me, as he well knows is generally the case. I'm not aware of the staff spending much time going through the Lobbyists Registration Act.

H. Lali: My questioning has not been regarding stakeholders. I mean, those are fairly easily identifiable because ministers are provided with a list of all the possible stakeholders. It could be regional districts, municipalities, First Nations, UBCM or some other group that the ministry deals with on a regular basis. That is not who I'm talking about.

These would be people who want something out of government, whether they're lobbying for legislative change, or it could be monetary, or it could be a combination of both. There are a number of things that groups or individuals may want to lobby the government or a particular minister on, even if, at the minimum, it is to try to get a number of ministers on board for a certain regulatory or legislative change that would be coming about in the future because that group is working with a particular minister or with the Premier's office on it, so it needs to line up their ducks, as they say — put the ducks in order.

That usually means talking to members, usually on the government side but sometimes on both sides because they want more support in order to pass a bill or a motion or something to that effect.

So I'm not talking about stakeholders, as I mentioned to the minister, but rather folks who want something from government. They're lobbying for something, as I've explained.

[1505]

Obviously, there's a lobbyist registry. And the minister is correct. It came in after the government that I was a part of was out of office. Then it came in after that, and it's a good thing that the Lobbyists Registration Act came into being.

Would the minister please tell this House if she has ever met with any lobbyists who have lobbied her, who are not stakeholders but people with a vested interest
[ Page 9757 ]
that want something from government? I'm not saying they're doing anything wrong, but they attempt to lobby for something. It's there in the lobbyists act that people are allowed to lobby MLAs and ministers, both sides of the House, for something.

Has the minister in the last year — or if the minister can recall — ever met with a lobby group or lobbyists? And if she would tell us in this committee: who is it that she has met with? The second question I've asked…. The minister says there's nobody in staff that checks against the registration act to see if anybody is a lobbyist or not with the requests coming in. Is the minister saying that there's no way for the minister to know if somebody she's meeting with is a lobbyist or not, because nobody is doing that due diligence?

Hon. I. Chong: I don't believe that's what I was saying. However, I want to say that the member will know that we meet with people on a regular basis — stakeholders, clients. We also meet with people who aren't necessarily our stakeholders but who think they are. As the member knows, I've held a number of portfolios, so I have people from the health sector who still meet with me. The member will know, as well, that even now B.C. firefighters meet with us annually requesting changes to their legislation dealing with the kinds of cancers that they have.

Those are not my stakeholders per se, but they are people that we get a request to meet with, especially if there is a particular group that wants to meet with all MLAs and all ministers to get support for legislation, as the member says. I don't have a list. I know it's frequently FOI'd. I think either the members opposite do it, or someone does it. They FOI our calendars, so you know who I am meeting with. That will indicate whether they're stakeholders or not.

As I say, sometimes people think they are stakeholders when in fact they're not. Once they come in and meet with me, I have to refer them to another ministry. I don't have staff who, as I say, diligently advise whether they are lobbyists and whether I should meet with them or not, other than the fact that they will indicate there has been a request to meet with me. I will generally accommodate that request. I'd need to find out why it is that they're wanting to meet with me.

I hope that's helpful. I'm not sure if the member has something more specific. I'm not trying to not provide him the information that he's looking for. I just don't have the information he's looking for.

H. Lali: I want to thank the minister for that answer. It's safe to assume that the minister does from time to time, whether knowingly or unknowingly, meet with folks who are lobbyists, who are outside the realm of stakeholders. Whether or not they think they are lobbyists or think they're stakeholders is a different matter.

I know that over the last ten or 11 years of this government, contrary to Gordon Campbell's promises before 2001 — to be the most open and accountable government in the country — that's not actually true. A lot of steps have taken place, especially in the realm of freedom of information, where massive changes were made to the act to actually keep people from having access to their information all across government, including agencies, boards and commissions.

I know the new Premier has promised to increase accessibility and also accountability. My question is to the minister. What specific steps has the minister undertaken to increase accessibility and public accountability in her jurisdiction?

[1510]

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I apologize to the member if I have not got his question correct. I'm trying to ascertain what his objective here is. If it's about providing open government, open information, I can assure him that our ministry is one of the higher volume of information that we provide through the open data, open government initiative that our government has undertaken. We routinely provide information to that website. As well, we are actively encouraging local governments to do the same, encouraging them to be more open with their data.

I also want to just say to the member with respect to his initial comments: if he feels there is not as much information being provided, I can only state that we are providing all information as is permitted with respect to freedom of information and protection of privacy. If there are privacy issues, we are adhering to those standards of privacy. If there are things that people want to acquire, I have to defer that to the minister responsible for that as to what information is permitted. But we are, as a ministry, providing as much information as we can through the open government, open data initiative.

H. Lali: From time to time other members will be asking some questions. My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings has some questions on community grants, so he'll take a few minutes.

S. Simpson: Thank you to the minister and her staff. I do have a few questions that relate to gaming grants. I'm going to draw largely from Mr. Triplett's report and some of his recommendations and his commentary in his report, Community Gaming Grant Review Report. I'm sure the minister was responsible, along with the Premier, for initiating this process.

We know that Mr. Triplett, I believe, did a good job in terms of reaching out to the community across the province. He had a pretty short timeline. I will acknowledge that I was a little skeptical of his ability to get that work done, and I think it was an extremely sincere effort. I know he put a lot of work in. Certainly, all of the people I've talked to in the community who participated
[ Page 9758 ]
in large part felt that they got a full and fair hearing from Mr. Triplett. They generally, while they may or may not have agreed with everything he put in his report, felt that it was a balanced report and that it was a good effort. I do appreciate the fact that that happened.

Now, of course, the question is: where do we go from here? We know the government did respond to the report, establishing the addition of $15 million, which the Premier had added for one year, to say that that would be an ongoing commitment — that additional $15 million bringing the total to, I believe, $135 million. Then there was also the addition of eligibility for a number of groups whose eligibility had been suspended and now was brought back.

The first question, though, that I want to ask…. I think this is a very important one. On page 9 of Mr. Triplett's report he says: "In the 'Context' section of this report I noted that I was unable to find a clear statement of purpose for the community gaming grant program. Since a clear statement of purpose would serve as the foundation for other options…." He went on to address that first, and he talked about the need to develop that clear statement for the program.

My question to the minister is: how does she respond to that request? Is there work being done to do that? If so, what kind of discussion is going on with the organizations, the recipients of the money, about the context of that purpose?

[1515]

Hon. I. Chong: I'm joined by Sandra Sajko, who is executive director of arts and culture gaming grants, and Ursula Cowland, who administers the gaming grants. I was negligent in not introducing them last week when we had some questions on that.

I do recall having a meeting with Mr. Triplett after he tabled his report, because I wanted to understand the nature and scope of some of the options that he provided. The one that the member speaks about is one that he said would…. It wasn't that it was mandatory, but he said it would be nice to have some clarity on that. I asked how important it was that we work on a statement of that nature, and he indicated to me that it would be nice to have but not something that we had to put in place immediately.

So we continued to work under the purpose and intent of what I would say the majority of groups who apply for gaming grants understand. If you're a non-profit and are looking to provide services to your communities, and you need to have access to the gaming grant dollars, you're able to do so. That's where the criteria are developed when people are applying for gaming grant dollars.

As I say, there are a number of things in Mr. Triplett's report that he identified. In speaking with him, he did not say that was an imperative. The areas that he did say were really important, which he heard we needed to address, were in fact the returning of the eligibility, which is one of the reasons why we did that. He indicated that the issue of multi-year funding, while he understood it was difficult to make it certain…. He felt that we should try to accommodate some form of certainty in that regard going forward.

So we continue to take a look at these options that he's provided. As we go forward, if there are others we can implement, certainly we would do that. In some cases, it's requesting significant dollars, and given today's economic climate, I am not able to…. I'm sure everybody would like for us to receive more dollars, but I'm not able to receive more than what has been allocated. I'm happy that we were able to get the extra $15 million permanently as opposed to going back to contingencies every year for that. But as I say, going forward we will be looking at the other options that he has provided to see what other ones we're able to move on.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the comments of the minister. I would note, again, that as Mr. Triplett said in his report…. I think this is valid, where he said that a clear statement of purpose would serve as the foundation for other options that he would pursue.

I know that discussion happens, and the minister will know this. I know I've had this conversation with Mr. Triplett when he was initiating his process. I know he met with a number of people and a number of members on both sides. We talked about the role that the non-profit community sector plays in the delivery of public services and that it's not simply a question of this being an add-on or a charitable exercise.

But many of these organizations deliver services that are essential to government. They deliver them in essentially a privatized way through the non-profit sector. If they weren't delivering those services, then government would have to find another way to pick them up either as a direct service or whatever.

I think a part of what we know, in the conversations that led up to gaming grants, is that many organizations felt there was a bit of a social contract around that — in setting aside how much money it would be and what the percentages and all of that. But just the principle that there is a social contract here and that this is part of the deal with gambling money.

[1520]

I accept that this is something that the minister doesn't see as an immediate need…. That might not be fair. But then my question would be: what's the process that the minister envisions going through to determine that purpose? There is a whole array of organizations — almost 7,000 — out there that receive grants and probably another that many again who would like to receive grants. There are all kinds of umbrella organizations.

So what's the process the minister envisions going
[ Page 9759 ]
through to develop that purpose so that it can in fact be in place in as timely a way as possible?

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated, the report that Mr. Triplett tabled with me and provided to the public provided a number of options as opposed to recommendations, because he didn't necessarily feel that he can recommend specific actions because some could be seen by others as…. They would not be in total agreement. However, his options were very strongly suggested in some cases, which is like the eligibility of the groups.

He was satisfied, as I understand it, with the guidelines and criteria currently out there with respect to the non-profit groups who are applying for dollars.

While it may be interesting to have a new purpose designed or developed, it was not an imperative of Mr. Triplett. Also, knowing that if we were to do that, that could certainly evoke some agreements and some disagreements as to what that should be.

More importantly, though, as I said, the guidelines and the criteria for which applications are made, Mr. Triplett felt, were sound and can be maintained. In the absence of making any changes, he felt that was satisfactory.

S. Simpson: I think one of the reasons around why I think that the purpose becomes so important, and it is really is…. The minister talked about eligibility. That's where I think the foundation for why the purpose becomes important. Mr. Triplett lays that out in his report, when you go to page 11, around eligibility options.

He talks about the key areas of eligibility, and his commentary here was that while a couple of those areas are covered off, the eligibility with respect to whether or not the purpose of an application aligns with the purpose of the community gaming grant program was one that he wasn't entirely comfortable with.

The recommendation, his option 2.1….We know Mr. Triplett chose to make options, and I had a conversation with him about whether that was better than recommendations. I'm of two minds about that, but it's absolutely a legitimate way to proceed.

In option 2.1, Mr. Triplett said that his option was to eliminate sectors and consider applications from any eligible organization where the objectives of its application align with the purpose of the community gaming grant program mentioned in option 1.1.

[1525]

This is when the need for a purpose becomes extremely valuable. If you're going to say that we're going to get rid of the sectors, we're not going to have sectors potentially in tension with each other over who got more money and who's getting funded and who isn't…. We'll talk about money in a little bit, and there is a challenge there.

As he said in his notes: "Developing a clear statement of purpose and relating grant applications to that statement would eliminate the use of sectors." He went on to say: "This option would reduce the problems, controversies and rivalries associated with sector eligibility. This option would also simplify the application process because applicants would no longer have to decide under which sectors their application was most likely to succeed."

My question to the minister is: was that option considered — to open this up and just have a clear purpose that groups would have to align with but that would open the door for any group that could make the case that if they met that standard, that bar or that purpose, they would be able to make an application?

Hon. I. Chong: One of the, I think, fairly consistent commentaries that Mr. Triplett heard — at least that was expressed to me — was that many of the groups he consulted with and the submissions he received indicated that they were in fact looking for certainty.

Looking at the option of pursuing a purpose statement would not necessarily provide that certainty. It could create more competition as a result and therefore reduce how much one sector would receive over another. We did review all the options. We took a look and considered which ones we wanted to consider.

I just want to say to the member, though, that part of this review has really shown the importance, as well, of streamlining. That's another big part of trying to assist with these kinds of applications. Maybe that will go towards finding a way to develop stronger guidelines as to the sectors and, in particular, the intents and purposes of various groups who do apply for these dollars.

As I say, all options that were presented, we did consider them. Again, the option to have a purpose statement did not appear to be one that we wanted to spend immediate efforts on, but we will continue to take a look at the other options with respect to ensuring that we can provide a system that does allow for more certainty and more predictability for the groups who are applying.

S. Simpson: I would note that around certainty I would expect…. If I look at the report on page 15, option 3.4 and in the notes…. I think this probably was the certainty that many groups were looking for. Mr. Triplett notes that both the Premier and the minister specifically asked him to review the funding option for multi-year funding. That was a request — that that be part of the work he would do. Review participants, it's noted, also focused on this issue and were looking for the stability that that would bring to them — multi-year funding. Whether it's rolling funding…. There are numerous options for how that could be entertained.

I certainly would appreciate the minister's comments around why that decision was not taken at this point in time on that. But maybe I'll ask the minister to just hold that answer.

I have one more question around the eligibility side in particular, and it relates to eligibility in funding. The min-
[ Page 9760 ]
istry added back in a number of sectors. I could be corrected on this. I believe it was sports, and environmental groups, I think, might have got added back in. Some arts and culture got added back in.

[1530]

So there were a number of groups added back in. There was $15 million kept in the pot from the previous year, which had been committed to by the Premier when she increased the amount from $120 million to $135 million. Could the minister tell us, then: out of the $135 million, what portion of that funding will go to those organizations that now are eligible and were not eligible prior to the report and the decision of the minister and the Premier to add that eligibility?

Hon. I. Chong: For the '11-12 year the $135 million is distributed, and these are rough numbers. In the arts and culture groups, $17.5 million; sports, I believe, $28.5 million — it looks like; conservation of the environment, $2.5 million; human and social services, $67 million; public safety, $7 million. PACs and DPACs are $12 million. That should add up to about $135 million.

S. Simpson: I might be quick, because I was writing these down. So when I look at arts and culture, sports, and conservation, I come up with —$30 million, $45 million, $47 million — about $48 million, $48½ million or something like that. About $48 million for those three categories put together?

So can I then assume that is $48 million out of last year's $135 million pot, when in fact those groups were not eligible to receive this funding? That's $48 million that would've gone to human and social services, to justice, to other groups? And if I'm not correct about that number, then what is the number that isn't going to those social service groups and other groups that is now being allocated over to arts and culture and sports?

[1535]

Hon. I. Chong: I think the member, if I understand him correctly, is trying to understand how we were able to distribute $135 million last year and this year, with eligibility restored to a number of groups this year.

What happened in the '10-11 fiscal year…. As the member will know, with the Premier just having been elected as our leader, she did say she decided that $15 million would be taken out of contingency, as a result of some savings, to provide to a number of community groups. At that time a number of groups got one-time money and were told it would be one-time money in that fiscal year. They had already received some other moneys, but this would be an extra top-up amount.

Let's see. I think it was $600,000 that had been provided to a number of food banks and Scouts and cadets; another $600,000, community centres; $3.2 million, programs for families and children; and then 900 PACs and DPACs received an increase, for about $3 million. That roughly amounts to $8.3 million. Those amounts were, as I say, provided one time in the '10-11 year.

We are now in '11-12. With the additional $15 million, we are not providing those this year. They were expressly, I think, told that it was the one time, which therefore allowed us to put about $8 million back to those eligible groups, such as adult arts and sports, environmental concerns and animal welfare groups. About $8 million has been allocated towards that.

S. Simpson: I know I have a number of colleagues who want to question, so I'm going to just change a little bit and come back and stick with this question for one more question on that.

What I'm trying to determine is…. We have $135 million. That $135 million went primarily to human services, social service groups, to justice organizations, to PACs, to a collection of eligible groups. Those eligible groups did not include adult sports. They did not include arts and culture. They did not include environmental and conservation groups, in large part.

The minister has now identified a little more than $48 million that those groups — probably youth sports are in there too — now will receive under the sector allocations that have come with this new model. All I'm trying to determine is…. The groups that were eligible before for the $120 million or $135 million received a pot of money that had a value. We have now added a whole number of other organizations that are going to get, in some combination, something in excess of $40 million or $48 million of funding.

The question is: how will that negatively impact the groups that received money before? Their allocation will be reduced somewhat, as these groups take a portion of that money, because of the broader eligibility criteria of organizations. All I'm trying to do is determine what the impact is on the human social service groups, the community justice groups — those groups — when they look forward and say: "We got X millions of dollars last time that came to our sectors, and X million dollars is coming this time. What's the difference?"

[1540]

Hon. I. Chong: I apologize to the member if I confused him in response to some of his questions. I think it's important that we start at the $120 million amount. That's the base amount that we were originally provided with. Those were the allocations that we were going to make in the '11-12 year, had we not received the additional $15 million. As a result of the additional $15 million, it is being distributed to a variety of eligible organizations that were previously ineligible.

As I've indicated, some groups last year that received some of the one-time funding are not in that category. But I think it's fair to say to the member that the sports
[ Page 9761 ]
groups and the arts groups were already receiving dollars, mostly in youth arts and youth sports.

As I say, the breakdown that I provided him will now show the amount that we will be looking to allocate towards. So essentially, the groups, if you start with the $120 million, will in fact have received an increase as a result of the extra $15 million being provided.

I'm hopeful that that helps the member. If he would like a more detailed briefing with staff, I'd be happy to arrange that.

S. Simpson: I still think it's not quite clear to me, so I'd be happy to take the minister up on her offer of a briefing from her staff. We can then go into some more detail and maybe see a bit of paper that kind of helps me to understand it all. I'd appreciate that.

S. Fraser: Hello to the minister and your staff. Thank you for being here for these exciting processes of estimates. I've got several questions.

I represent Alberni–Pacific Rim, as the Chair has mentioned. It's quite a diverse riding geographically, demographically and everything else.

My questions are going to span the riding. It's from Vancouver Island, the west coast, to the Alberni Valley — Tofino, Ucluelet, Bamfield and that area on the west coast. Then on the east side of the Island the boundaries change. I no longer represent Qualicum Beach specifically, but the catchment area surrounding Parksville and Qualicum I still do represent, which includes area H.

I'm going to start with a question about area H, sort of north of Qualicum Beach. There is an application in from that regional district area. We have a new representative from area H. Bill Veenhof and I met just the other day. A very good rep. I think he's doing a very good job.

He has an application in on behalf of…. This is the regional district of Nanaimo, area H. There was a $30 million grant announcement from the ministry not too long ago. I'm not sure if it's part of the $135 million in the gaming grants. It's not. The minister is nodding.

First of all, I'd just like to know the status of that grant program. I just haven't heard an update lately.

Hon. I. Chong: I think he is referring to the community recreation program that the Premier announced in September at UBCM. What was provided is $30 million to assist communities, primarily smaller and rural communities — for them to have an opportunity to look at enhancing recreation opportunities, more ability to have healthy lifestyles. The applications closed at the end of December, and we are just now going through those applications to see which ones are eligible.

I can tell the member, as he will know, that as with all grant programs, they're always oversubscribed. This was no different — almost 4 to 1, 213 applications requesting $110 million. As the member can appreciate, we have to whittle that $110 million down to $30 million.

[1545]

What I can say, though, is we are trying to take a look at those applications, as well, that really can provide for an immediate opportunity for recreation in the next short while, because the idea is to get these dollars working in the communities as quickly as possible, not only for job creation but for recreation opportunities.

S. Fraser: The minister has actually done a good job here in answering, because she's answered some of my questions already. Just on behalf of Bill Veenhof, the director, the application was for Henry Morgan Park. Your explanation actually fits right into that.

I just want to let you know it's for the community of Bowser. The director and others have worked with children and community groups to try to deal with this half-acre park. I think the total cost is $92,000, but the grant application is for $42,000 of that. The remainder, $50,000, would be from other sources, including the regional district itself.

The park is actually a half acre. It's well situated so that the children and other park users would not be required to cross either the highway or the railway crossing there. It's a well-situated, central park. So I'm putting a plug in for this application, if it makes any….

Interjection.

S. Fraser: I am lobbying you right now, hon. Minister. I will do it unashamedly. I'm lobbying on behalf of my constituents and the regional district director. It's a good park. I do recognize that the program is oversubscribed for. That's often the way these things work out, but I will go on record as lobbying for that.

It's a good program. I know you can call Bill for any details. He'll be more than happy to provide you with further…. If he somehow gets short-listed on this, that would be great.

I'm going to jump around. It's going back to gaming grants, specifically. The minister did mention wildlife groups. I missed the context of that, I'm afraid. I am going to put sort of a plug in and a request. Again, shameless lobbying maybe, but it's a very good cause. It's the North Island Wildlife Recovery Centre.

I had the wonderful opportunity to release a bald eagle that was recovered from a wing injury. This was just last April, so just under a year ago. They also are the only place on the Island that can deal with orphaned bear cubs.

For a while they were getting gaming grants. I think there was $30,000, a very small percentage of their total needs, especially when it comes to dealing with the bear cubs. It's very expensive care to provide. Just the feed is very expensive. Then, of course, they have to stay there long enough till they can be released.

I'm just wondering if the minister has any news or can
[ Page 9762 ]
apprise me of what the situation is with the North Island Wildlife Recovery Centre — if they are able now to be reinstated for those grants with the changes and, if so, if there's any status report on any applications that have come in from the North Island Wildlife Recovery Centre.

Hon. I. Chong: The short answer is yes, they would be eligible to apply. But again, I would caution the members that, like so many granting programs, there are always more asks than there are dollars. Sometimes the staff has to make difficult decisions and not provide the full amount requested.

I know that some groups don't understand why. That's because more and more groups pop up, some of which are doing similar things. Not entirely, but that's why the demand is as great as it is. As I say, they are eligible to apply.

On the first part of the member's comments with respect to the community recreation program, I should say that we hope to get those decisions made very quickly. I had wanted to have those sooner, but with $110 million asked, 213 applications, it was really not possible. It has required staff to go back in some cases to phone up and find out more information, as the member can appreciate.

What I also want to highlight — and this is important — is that for the first time this is a granting program that did allow for unincorporated areas, electoral areas, to apply. As the member will know, in the past so many programs were only provided to incorporated municipalities — cities, towns, villages. Regional districts could apply on behalf of an electoral area, but if you had seven or eight electoral areas, you had to choose.

We did open it up this time for, I think, up to three for each regional district. Perhaps that's why we have 213 applications. Perhaps we'll have learned from this that that's not the best way to go, but we did want to put it out there in a way that we could find out what the needs were out there.

[1550]

If someone is not successful this year, obviously we are always working with the federal government to take a look at other programs through the ministry. We're always looking at infrastructure needs and programs, so there may be others that are available in the next while. But currently this is the one that so many applications have come in for.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I do think it was a good idea to open it up. The grand experiment may have caused a flurry of applicants, which has caused other problems.

I would urge the minister, in her role on the executive council, to urge the government, your colleagues, to make sure that there's sort of a social contract with these funds. There's been an increase in revenues from gaming and gambling in the province, and these community groups should be getting a portion of that. It should be, I think, a consistent relationship there. If that were to happen, then there'd be more funds for these valuable organizations.

I don't mean that as a criticism of the minister. I just mean it's a reality on the ground and in communities, I think.

Just two other issues now. I'll deal with this fairly quickly, because it's not directly your ministry. I notice that the city of Port Alberni has had a consistent, repetitive problem with flooding, and the applications have gone in not through your ministry per se but I guess Public Safety's. They've got a flood protection program.

In the last year we've another series of floodings. My own MLA office was flooded twice down on Third, near Third and Bute, in Port Alberni, down near water level. The big storm in 2006 that took out half of Stanley Park took out my office. The flooding…. The water flows were so great from the creek systems, and the capacity of the infrastructure within the city, the storm sewers and such, are just not capable of taking this kind of flow.

That seems to be a consistent pattern now, with climate change. We're seeing more of this. I would submit there's some forestry activity that's probably accelerating it too. By some of the local experts, it seems to be the case.

So they did have an application in. The price tag for the program was $2.3 million. They applied to the flood protection program — again, Public Safety Ministry — for just two-thirds of that, so $1.78 million. They were turned down.

Now, I guess I'm looking for advice on behalf of the city of Port Alberni and Mayor Douglas. I know that they'll probably reapply. They'll try this again, because the needs are getting greater, as I've mentioned.

Does the minister have any suggestion? Is there anything else — any other ministries or anything in her ministry — that could assist, even in the planning for the further applications to get grant money? In this case the tag is large, and it's going to require a partnership, I think, with other levels of government for the city of Port Alberni.

Hon. I. Chong: I think perhaps the best thing I can advise the member is that if it is a public safety issue, it's something that will need to continue to be raised with the Ministry of Public Safety.

If this were not public safety but had to do with wastewater, things of that nature, then it could be eligible under the gas tax dollars that UBCM administers, where it's for cleaner air, reducing GHGs or looking at alternate transportation modes. He's welcome to put that forth to that committee and see if it's a possible eligible applicant. That would be the only other place that I know of.

The government is in constant dialogue with the federal government with respect to infrastructure programs. The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure is now
[ Page 9763 ]
the minister responsible for those negotiations. I don't know what may be down the road, but I would suspect it will be a number of years before we see another announcement of a major infrastructure program, unless the federal government decides otherwise. When that happens, as oftentimes, there are programs available.

[1555]

What I've told local governments is that sometimes what they need to do is share the information with senior levels of government as to what programs they think work particularly well, as opposed to those that do not work particularly well. That may, in part, help guide what decision is made at the highest level of government, in the federal government.

I would suspect local governments deliberate and speak through one voice, and that's through FCM. If FCM advocates for certain projects…. If they advocate for transit as opposed to flood protection as opposed to wastewater, then clearly that's who the federal government would be listening to. But it certainly doesn't hurt that UCBM, with other provincial municipal organizations, puts forward ideas to FCM when they talk to the federal minister.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that answer.

I shook my head when you mentioned if it was a sewer issue or there was other…. And I said no. But as I think back to 2006 when my MLA office was flooded the first time, we lost everything because the foot-high water throughout the office, of course, wreaks havoc with copiers, computers, furniture, drywall and the walls — everything — but more so because actually the sewage did back up. I mean, as just part of the general picture, the sewage backed up through the toilet system.

Maybe there is some eligibility through gas tax, because we were not unique in that case. It was largely a stormwater removal problem, but it certainly had a wastewater component. Trying to deal with paper files and retrieve them with gloves and stuff…. You had to dry them, but they were toxic, considerably, and so it was a horrible thing.

That being said, the last issue that I have time for today is, again, not necessarily directly related to your ministry. There may be others more involved, but I still think that there's a function here, and I'd like to get the minister's comment on that and/or advice again. It's dealing with the west coast of Vancouver Island and, potentially, Port Alberni too. Tofino raised the issue first.

There is an expectation that we're going to see debris from Japan hitting those shores. I mean, there have been some reports of it happening already. There could be a substantial cleanup cost to that. There also could be issues around toxicity, some material potentially coming from an area that was radiated through the reactor disaster in Japan due to that tsunami.

I know the government has been working with…. There are other levels of government — the Ministry of Environment potentially. I guess Fisheries and Oceans may have a role. Integrated land management might have a role. This is one that could kind of span everything. But as the minister responsible here, in your ministry, dealing with specifically local governments — governments like Tofino, Ucluelet, Bamfield….

Is the minister aware of any programs through your ministry that may be of assistance? We haven't seen anything tangible yet that I'm aware of from anybody to help should this continued disaster occur, and they will be substantial costs potentially.

Hon. I. Chong: The member was correct in identifying all the players, I guess, involved. Because it is an oceans issue, it isn't an area that we have direct responsibility for. Obviously, the federal government would, as a result of the oceans.

[1600]

Provincially, I believe that the lead ministry would be Public Safety, which would be the provincial emergency program — PEP. What we are able to do with our ministry is participate in defining what some of the issues are with respect to local governments.

With respect to the actual concerns that are raised, PEP would be very much involved. They would likely be the ones that are engaged with discussions with the senior levels of government, the federal government in particular on that, because of the oceans side of this.

H. Lali: Now we'll go on to some less contentious issues, such as contracts, advertising and consultants. My question to the minister is: what was the total value of contracts last year?

Hon. I. Chong: I suspect what the member was referring to was not last year but this year, 2011-12 — the current year about to end. That's right. For the fiscal year 2011-12, I'm advised that we have spent $1.1 million, representing about 161 contracts.

H. Lali: How much is budgeted for contracts in the coming year?

Hon. I. Chong: What is in the budget for this upcoming fiscal year is approximately $2 million.

Anticipating the member asking why $2 million as opposed to $1.1 million, I took a look at last year's book. In fact, last year we budgeted $2.5 million. You put in the budget, as the member will know, and hopefully you don't require all of that extra work or don't need to engage outside contractors to do some of the work. Last year we budgeted $2.5 million, and we spent $1.1 million. This upcoming year we've budgeted $2 million. We already believe we are driving that cost down.
[ Page 9764 ]

H. Lali: Has the ministry hired any consultants for the coming year's budget, and what is the value of those contracts?

Hon. I. Chong: For the upcoming year I don't have any information for the member because we haven't let any contracts out. But just as an example, last year Skip Triplett's review was in that contract basis, and the very good price we got out of that was $47,000. So a really reasonable amount, I would say, for the work he had done.

[1605]

H. Lali: Any other consultants, besides Mr. Triplett, in the '11-12 budget? Were any of these contracts for communications or public relations?

Hon. I. Chong: Obviously, with 161 contracts totalling $1.1 million, there are a lot of very, very small contracts. I don't have the list available, but it will be made available when the public accounts are all drafted up.

I think the member was asking specifically for communications and things like that. That is all handled centrally through the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services.

Just some small examples of what we were able to do — some larger amounts as opposed to those very, very small amounts. For example, we did engage Partnerships B.C. to look at a number of P3 models of various infrastructure programs. The Union of B.C. Municipalities — when we had the community-to-community forums, that was about $50,000. The CivicInfo B.C. Society, which I think the member is familiar with, were provided a small contract of $38,000. The Public Works Association of B.C., looking at the Build Canada fund, the water side of it — a $30,000 contract.

In essence, with 161 different contracts, many of them are very small. As I say, I don't have the full list here, but that will be made available once the public accounts are all drawn up.

H. Lali: Does the ministry do any polling, and if yes, is this the budget where the polling would come from?

Hon. I. Chong: We don't do any polling.

H. Lali: How many contracts were awarded by the ministry last year for advertisement or advertising? How many contracts were awarded for public consultations? Is there a breakdown available?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, we don't have any contracts for advertising. All that would be done centrally through government communications and public engagement through, I believe, Citizens' Services.

In terms of public consultation, the one public consultation that everyone is aware of is the Skip Triplett review — the $47,000 we spent. Apart from that, there are not, generally, public consultation contracts that we have to let.

H. Lali: How did the ministry spend its GCPE budget?

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

Hon. I. Chong: Because we don't have responsibility for that budget, we don't have an amount in our budget. So again, I would refer him to the appropriate minister.

H. Lali: How many of these contracts have been tendered, and how many were actually direct-awarded — if the minister could give me some examples?

[1610]

Hon. I. Chong: For the fiscal year 2011-12, I'm advised that the ministry did issue $287,000 in direct-award contracts, broken down as follows: 45 small contracts, all under $25,000, and one larger one for $36,000. That's to the Canadian Arts Data systems management for arts and culture for $36,000. In total, that represented about 46 contracts for roughly $287,000. Again, I would advise that these, while direct awards, were all done under the criteria, the guidelines and the principles under which direct awards are permitted.

H. Lali: Basically, about $800,000 worth of work tendered, then.

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps it's best to describe it like this. Of the other $800,000 that the member is referring to, not all of them are tendered. Some of them are ongoing kinds of contracts that flow from year to year. For example, as I've indicated, Union of B.C. Municipalities received $50,000 for their community-to-community forum, so that continues on.

Skip Triplett was not tendered because he was specifically asked to provide services for the review. CivicInfo B.C. Society, where they are providing assistance with respect to the UBCM convention, I think is about $38,000. So not all the amounts are tendered because of the nature of them being continuing contracts.

Perhaps one of the larger amounts is the contracts we deal with, with respect to dealing with wastewater treatment, and we're continuing to have a dialogue with respect to wastewater projects. That is ongoing. As I say, it's hard to provide a definitive answer to the member with respect to those which are required to be tendered simply because they are, in so many cases, a continuation. But they are not under the same category as direct award.

H. Lali: How many of the untendered contracts were not posted on B.C. Bid?
[ Page 9765 ]

Hon. I. Chong: I don't have a list available. I could see if I can provide that to the member. As I say, many of these contracts which are not tendered are a continuation of contracts from a previous year or contracts that I guess are habitual, like with UBCM…. Those kinds of awards are provided. If the member is interested in that, we can see what we can find for him. We don't have a list here today.

[1615]

H. Lali: I just want to turn the attention to audits. Have there been any audits done of any area of the ministry or the ministry's programs or agencies?

Hon. I. Chong: The member, I'm sure, can appreciate that there are ongoing audits in the ministry, in particular because of the kinds of programs that we do administer. Many of the audits are conducted through internal audit through the office of the comptroller general. When the provincial Auditor General, as well, conducts an audit, we respond to some of those reports that he provides.

Just as an example, in the past year we did provide an audit on our…. We had a look at our B.C. community water improvement program, at Towns for Tomorrow, at LocalMotion. Again, as the member can appreciate, these are not full audits of the entire program, but what you do is pull out random samples and you take a look to make sure that the program adhered to the objectives of what the program was, in order for the audit to have some meaning and for improvements as well.

Whenever we have programs where we partner with the federal government as well, generally we will be required to have an audit so that the federal government…. They come in and request that we provide them with information. Generally, that is what has occurred in the past. And as I say, based on the programs that we have, we'll determine what kinds of audits we need to have year-to-year.

H. Lali: Usually when these audits occur, there's a question or some reason to have the audit. And then often the audits come with certain recommendations. I was wondering if the minister could tell me what recommendations have come out of these audits. And what has the ministry fulfilled? Which ones has the ministry not fulfilled in terms of any recommendations that have flowed from these audits?

Hon. I. Chong: There was an audit that the provincial Auditor General had conducted. As a result, the ministry completed a self-assessment in July 2011. It can be found on the Office of the Auditor General website, whereby we have taken a look at those recommendations that indicated where we are with respect to them, and in many cases it will show that we are either complying or in a process of changing our processes to comply with them. So if he is looking specifically for Auditor General recommendations, those, as I say, would be on the Auditor General website.

H. Lali: Does the minister make these audits public — or the ministry? The minister just mentioned that the provincial Auditor General has a website that has some of these recommendations that were on there. But, in terms of these audits, are they routinely made public by the ministry?

[1620]

Hon. I. Chong: The member will know, I think — because I'm presuming he has been a member on Public Accounts — all the reports, all the audits done by the office of the provincial Auditor General will have published a report. Those are all public documents. As I say, his website allows us as a ministry to show progress on some of the recommendations.

With respect to internal audit, as I indicated, ministries — I would believe that all ministries, but certainly our ministry — are always taking a look at internal audit, on what we can do better. Those reports have not been posted anywhere, but if the member is interested in some specific ones, certainly we can take a look and see what we can provide. Sometimes the internal audit is very minor, so you don't spend a lot of time putting those out if it's just to correct something, you know, within an office branch or office division.

If the member is particularly interested in some audit, I would be happy to see what we can provide you.

H. Lali: I want to thank the minister for that suggestion.

Just to make a little bit of a correction, I'm actually not on Public Accounts. Mind you, I was once on Public Accounts. This was before the minister got elected. It was way back, 20 years. I can't remember a thing 20 years back, what we did or didn't do. In any case, there are other members who are members of Public Accounts. I think the member from the north up here might be one of them.

Crowns and public agencies. The ministry is responsible for, I understand, the Board of Examiners, B.C. Assessment Authority, B.C. Games Society, B.C. Arts Council, Property Assessment Appeal Board, Islands Trust Fund board, Provincial Capital Commission and Royal B.C. Museum corporation. Are there others that I might have missed?

Hon. I. Chong: It does sound like he's named them all off. It would be on our website as to those agencies or Crowns that we are responsible for.

H. Lali: For the Crown corporations there, what was the salary of the CEO last year?
[ Page 9766 ]

Hon. I. Chong: Unfortunately, we don't have a list of all the Crowns for which the CEO information is available. I can say that the Crowns do publicly report that on their website, with the compensation and the amounts as required under the Financial Administration Act. The member, if he needs to, can refer to that and find those amounts. I just don't have those figures with me right now.

H. Lali: Does the minister have the salary, including bonuses and allowances, for heads of the public bodies actually covered by the ministry itself?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I would tell the member that we don't have the information here, but it is all available on the website, as required for all executive compensation. All items referring or relating to the compensation package, I guess is the best way to describe it, would be on those websites.

[1625]

H. Lali: I thank the minister for that.

I just want to turn the attention briefly to taxation reviews before getting back to local government grants again. The province of British Columbia, as the minister well knows, is undertaking two reviews of direct interest to local government. One of them is the expert panel review of business taxation. That was announced on January 10, 2010. The Finance Minister had announced the appointment of….

Let me rephrase that, hon. Chair, before I go there, actually. I'm mixing up two here.

On March 10, 2010, the government had announced the joint review, along with the UBCM, of major industrial property taxation. So did that 2010 review produce any recommendations?

Hon. I. Chong: The report is being finalized, and hopefully, we are able to release it in short order. The member will know that it was a tripartite arrangement agreement where business, UBCM and the ministry were involved and therefore requires some consensus before we are able to release the report. But I understand it's being finalized.

H. Lali: I'll get back to the original question I was going to ask now. The province of B.C. is undertaking two reviews of direct interest to local government. One is the expert panel review of business taxation, and the second was the local government revenue source review.

It was on January 10 that the present Finance Minister announced the appointment of an expert panel to provide analysis and recommendations regarding the system of business taxation in British Columbia. I'd like to ask the minister: what role did the minister or her ministry play in developing the terms of reference for the expert panel review of business taxation?

Hon. I. Chong: The member will know that the announcement came from the Minister of Finance because it was with respect to taking a look at all of the business taxes or all the taxes that generally affect businesses and their competitiveness.

When we were made aware that they felt the need to include business property taxes, we were then consulted on the terms of reference as to what that should entail. So we were not specifically consulted on the other taxes, which the Finance Minister, rightly, would have more knowledge on. But we were, as I say, consulted on the business property tax side of the review.

H. Lali: I'm just looking at a release from the UBCM, dated February 10 this year. On the expert panel review, some of the members….

[1630]

The membership includes both the chancellor and the vice-president of academics from the University of British Columbia, two individuals; an individual from Goldcorp; an individual from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; also from KPMG; Ernst and Young; and also Dale Wall, who is a former deputy minister from the province of B.C.

The second review is the local government revenue sources review. Obviously, the present ministry has advised UBCM that in order to supplement the work of the expert panel, and to also fully meet the Premier's commitment to review the municipal tax formula, the ministry has embarked on this local government revenue sources review.

The terms of reference for that review, I understand, are not yet complete. But UBCM has been provided with some preliminary briefing material. I was just wondering if those terms of reference are now complete.

Hon. I. Chong: My understanding is that on the latter review dealing with local government, their sources of revenue, the terms of reference have been provided to UBCM, and we're just now waiting for their response to that. Once that's concluded, we can put out the terms of reference.

H. Lali: The UBCM letter also states that both of these reviews were topics of discussion during the meeting of UBCM's executive of February 3. During a portion of that meeting I understand that the minister was also present, and the executive noted that local governments were actually concerned that a panel investigating municipal taxation actually lacked local government representation.

The executive also commented that the composition of the expert panel might lead to questioning of its recommendations. I'd like to ask the minister why there was
[ Page 9767 ]
no local representation on these reviews that have everything to do with local municipalities, regional districts and the taxation that they're responsible for.

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated to the member, this commission is primarily the business and municipal taxation review by the Minister of Finance with regard to looking at those taxes that investors and businesses would be looking at in terms of being more competitive. So we were able to provide some information and assistance with respect to the terms of reference when we were advised that the municipal taxation, and property taxes in particular, was going to be considered because that does form a large part, or can form a large part, of decision-making processes, why businesses locate or do not locate.

[1635]

In providing the terms of reference, we made it clear that while there are property taxes which are urban, there are also property taxes which are rural that have a very different impact, which are more directly related to the Ministry of Finance.

In providing our terms of reference, we did indicate to the Minister of Finance that the recommendations, if and when they are provided, can address issues of affordability and sustainability for local governments within the framework of the Community Charter. So this is not to take away the ability of what local governments have within the Community Charter for them to deal with their property taxes from an affordability and sustainability aspect. We made that quite clear at that UBCM executive meeting that I was at — that this does not hinder their ability to be autonomous and to deal with their local property taxes in the way that they saw fit.

H. Lali: Well, you've got two reviews that have been taking place here at the same time. During the leadership of the B.C. Liberals last year, the Premier, after meeting with the business lobby that wanted to support the Premier, cut some sort of a backroom deal — Canadian Federation of Independent Business — that if she would lobby on their behalf or when she becomes a Premier to make sure that local business taxation, industrial taxation at the local level, was going to basically go on a downward spiral as opposed to going up.

As a result of that, you've got two reviews that have now come into play. Obviously, there is a direct correlation between the Premier's promises during her leadership campaign and what is taking place here.

Then you have these two reviews. You don't have any membership from local municipalities or regional districts or the UBCM, which is the representative body for member municipalities and regional districts. You have these major reviews on not only business taxation, because the Premier's backroom deal with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business…. Then you have this local government revenue sources review, where both the Premier and the minister have been on record to say that a lot of these problems that are occurring are because of a non-steady flow of revenue to local municipalities and regional districts.

You have two major reviews with all sorts of people from various groups — from business, from accounting firms, from universities, a former deputy minister. Yet the very folks that it's going to impact the most — well, obviously the local taxpayers, the property taxpayers all across British Columbia, and the people responsible for that taxation to either raise it or lower it — mayors, regional district reps and regional district chairs, the UBCM…. There's no representation.

I mean, what actions has the minister taken, or what lobbying has the minister done on their behalf? Obviously they talked to the minister in this meeting on February 3 — that's the UBCM — and yet we've got no representation for this group.

Obviously, the recommendations coming forward from both these reviews would be suspect to anybody, and the UBCM executive let the minister know that in this meeting. It's here on paper. The president writes this is in the paper that they put out, the release that they put out.

So I just want to ask the minister: what has the minister done, or what is the minister prepared to do, or is doing, to make sure that there is representation on these panels from the very people that it's going to impact the most, and that's the UBCM and their member groups?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, the Minister of Finance is conducting the business tax review. For that reason, he will primarily be focusing on all of those taxes that impact and affect businesses and business decisions that are made.

[1640]

When he indicated that it was important to include property taxes…. Obviously, Finance would have had that ability to do that because they deal with the rural property taxes. It was clear that when he looked at that and included the urban side of things, it was important to have a perspective from the local government side.

It was for that reason that we recommended, and he accepted, the individual that is serving on that. That is Dale Wall, who was a previous deputy minister for local government, who has had decades of service, I believe, in this ministry. I think he perhaps has the largest corporate memory of all the changes that went through local government over three administrations, four administrations.

He is there to provide advice and information. But at the end of the day, the panel that reports out with its recommendations must not provide recommendations without regard to the affordability and the sustainability of local governments within the framework of the
[ Page 9768 ]
Community Charter. So that is still in place. Any recommendations that come forth, as I say, must take that into consideration.

With respect to the second review that is being undertaken by our ministry staff, it's not so much, as the member may be thinking: "Oh, we're going to change the way they tax." It's about looking at the sources of revenue, which is what he said. We have heard and found that small communities to some extent rely heavily on government grants. We need to understand what would happen if those government grants were no longer available.

We have some communities that have a specific program that they receive that is dedicated to them. The member will know — it's no longer with me but now under JTI. — the resort municipality initiative, where some of the hotel room tax is returned to local governments. They were five-year agreements, and they will come up for expiration in some cases. Some have been renewed. Others won't be.

The objective was to take a look at all the sources of revenues as well — the small communities in particular. The member will know that there are some 90 communities under 5,000, and there are some which are under 20,000 — under 50,000 as well. A variety of them receive the small community protection grants. The member will also know that we doubled that in our term of office.

What would have happened if we did not double that? Those are unconditional grants. The objective that our ministry has with the local government, the municipal taxation sources, is to take a look at those sources to have a better and clearer idea of what would happen should those funding sources change, should they be improved or even if there should be other alterations to it.

Who would have known when we doubled the small community protection grants what that has provided for? Has that created more pressures on municipalities? We don't know. The Premier also indicated…. When she made the commitment to review the municipal taxation formula, she made a comment that it was important that municipalities have the resources they need to provide all the services that their citizens expect. How can we possibly know that without at least identifying the sources of revenue, the sources of income, that a municipality has?

In part, that's what we are attempting to do. We have so much of that information within government. We have the financial statements that we get from the local governments, and we need to take a look further. So it's not a question of them being there. We want to move on this, I would say, fairly quickly to find out what there is so we can come up with some possible ideas going forward, and that may affect future grant programs even going forward. I'm not going to predict or speculate, but there obviously is a wide range of possibilities once we review the municipal tax formula.

H. Lali: I think the minister is skirting the issue. The minister did not answer the question that I specifically asked, which is: what is the minister doing to make sure that there's representation available on these panels from the UBCM or somebody who is a mayor or an administrator at the community level or regional district — anybody that's in the municipal government and the UBCM?

That was my question, but the minister seems to be skirting the issue and talking about all sorts of things. I'm not saying they're irrelevant, but in terms of the question that I'm asking, it doesn't hold the same relevance which maybe subsequent questions that I might ask will.

So my question is…. You've got an investigation taking place of the issues, starting with business taxation. You've got people who are going to formulate ideas and recommendations. They're going to write a report. There's the local government grants review, as well, in terms of the revenue sources that local governments need.

[1645]

And yet, who knows better than somebody who is either an elected official or works with the elected officials in municipal government or at the UBCM level where they deal with these issues on a day-to-day basis? Of the 200-plus municipalities and the regional districts that there are, there's constant dialogue that takes place back and forth between those two individuals and those groups and the entities that form the umbrella group called the UBCM.

It's clearly stated in the UBCM's release of February 10 that they're very concerned that there is no representation. When you look at the membership of the expert review panel on business and taxation, there's lots of representation. Sure, there's a couple of folks that are independent — from UBC, the university. You've got good representation there from business and the accounting world. The minister tries to pass off that having Dale Wall there, who's a former deputy minister for municipal affairs, is good enough.

It's one thing to have somebody who actually works directly and sees on a day-to-day basis the impact that either taxation or the grants have on municipalities and regional districts. It's another one who's an administrator on behalf of the provincial government, be it for five, ten or 30 years, and have lots of credentials at their disposal. That's not the same.

Business gets to have people on these reviews to represent their interests. Who's on these panels from regional districts and municipalities that's going to represent their interests?

It seems like it's already preloaded that the results might be predetermined. UBCM warns of that — that the recommendations coming forward might be suspect.

Again I'm going to ask the minister: what has the minister done? What is the minister doing now or prepared to do in the future so that there is representation from the UBCM group on the reviews that are taking place, so that their interests are going to be looked at, that it's not go-
[ Page 9769 ]
ing to be a one-sided report with one-sided recommendations that meet the political objectives of the Premier because of the backroom deal she's cut with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and this is the payoff in return now for their support that she got when she ran for leader of the B.C. Liberals?

Hon. I. Chong: I would actually caution the member to use his words carefully at the very end there in his commentary about the Premier.

I wasn't skirting the issue. I actually did directly respond, but I guess the member didn't hear me in the way he wanted to.

He asked what involvement we had in terms of representing UBCM's interests. He may disagree, but I do believe that Dale Wall is a noteworthy and experienced person who can best represent all the interests of UBCM, insofar as having been a deputy minister, understanding rural and remote, urban communities throughout the province. I'm sure he has visited many of them, and he has spoken to many throughout his years, heard from them throughout the years at UBCM conventions.

If the member had suggested that we get one person from UBCM, there's no guarantee that person would have the wide-ranging expertise that I believe Mr. Wall has. In providing a name to the panel, I did provide that name for Dale Wall to be on that panel, and I do believe that he will provide us with extremely valuable input.

I also want to say that…. The member makes reference that this was about having somebody there to protect UBCM's interest. This is a business tax review. So the idea is, of course, that there will be businesses there, because they are looking at the business taxes.

They want to be able to tell the Finance Minister what the taxes are that keep them away from British Columbia, the taxes or other business matters that keep them from investing here.

As I say, when we were advised that the property taxes were to be a part of that, we then immediately asked to be able to submit a name — that's the name that I provided — and provide, as well, a terms of reference, that the business taxes that they look at…. While they can make comparisons, any recommendations that they make must be made with regard to the affordability and the sustainability of local governments within the context of the Community Charter.

[1650]

As for the second review that is being done internally by our government, again, it is about knowing where all of the various programs and services are. While UBCM is certainly free and able to provide us with input, we certainly feel that because we are the funding source for a majority of that and we have the information available, we can move on it fairly quickly and develop, you know, a summary of data that will allow us to consider what changes, if any, need to be made, going forward, to help those communities be more sustainable.

H. Lali: I mean, over the last dozen years or so or even more than that you've had…. Large businesses have had their way with levels of government, not just in British Columbia but in Canada and even across the United States and most of the western world.

If you look at the experience in Canada, the large corporations and the big businesses have had their way in terms of getting tax concessions, tax credits or reductions in their corporate taxes with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government over the last six or seven years now. They've had their way with Gordon Campbell and the B.C. Liberals here. Interest was stripping away the revenues first federally in Ottawa — provincially, the same thing.

The amount of money — I guess Tommy Douglas used to call it corporate welfare — going in the way of tax credits and breaks in taxes to corporations is in the amount of billions of dollars per year. No wonder this province is having a tough problem not being able to finance its health care and its education and its social services and the kinds of municipal grants that municipalities need, because Mr. Harper and Mr. Campbell and now this Premier have continued to give away the store. They've given away tax revenues after tax revenues.

In B.C. alone you're looking at, over the last 11 years since this government has been in office, tens of billions of dollars that have gone into the pockets of large corporations. They've had their way with the federal government. They've had their way with the provincial government, and now this next level of attack is on the municipal governments, with the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce leading the way.

That's what's happening here in this province, and that's why you've got this one panel that is loaded with business interests. But who is looking after the interests of the member municipalities and regional districts of the UBCM? I'm not questioning the credentials of the former deputy minister Dale Wall, who is going to represent the province's interests as a retired deputy but still appointed by the province. From the provincial angle, there's nobody who is looking after or standing up for the interests of member municipalities and regional districts.

If Dale Wall knows municipalities and rural B.C. and all of that that the minister had said, and I'm not questioning that, who better than somebody at UBCM — perhaps a senior administrator or somebody who has been there at UBCM or a mayor or somebody who is a regional district person who has been there for a long time, who has been part of the UBCM and has been elected at the local level for a long time — to be able to be a part of that group and look after the interests of folks at the municipal and regional district level? It's not there.

This minister is not showing a commitment, because I've asked twice now. What is the minister doing to make
[ Page 9770 ]
sure that as an advocate for the UBCM and for municipalities and regional districts and people at the local level, the millions of people who pay taxes into the provincial coffers, the property taxes, the homeowners and that…? Who is also going to look after their interests?

Or is this just another way to shovel some more money off the pickup truck, be it at the municipal and regional district level, onto the friends of the B.C. Liberals and the folks who put the Premier in the leadership chair of the B.C. Liberals? Because that's what is happening here. It's the relentless attack, starting at the federal and then the provincial level, where they've had their way, and now it's on to the municipalities and the regional districts. The minister is doing nothing to actually stand up for the municipalities for which she should be an advocate.

[1655]

So again, I'm going to ask the minister for a third time. Is the minister willing to talk to the Premier and the Finance Minister and say: "I want somebody to sit on this business taxation review panel that's there, this expert panel, and also to be a part of the local government revenue resources review, who is going to be from the UBCM group or from a member municipality"? Will the minister do that?

Hon. I. Chong: For the third time, I will say that I have indicated to the member that I believe that Dale Wall is the person who can serve on this panel, who can represent the interests of UBCM. Dale Wall is a life member of UBCM, in case the member wasn't aware, so I do believe he has the ability to represent the interests of UBCM. He is also able to take input from them, if they wish to provide it, and especially if he's dealing with rural communities versus urban. Dale Wall has that experience, and I am satisfied he is a very good candidate to serve on this business tax review.

Again, I want to reference the fact that this is about business taxes, about business competitiveness, and in large part, it will be dealing with provincial taxes and even federal taxes. When we heard that there were some concerns about whether they should take a look at the property taxes…. Because the Finance Ministry, as the member will know, doesn't in fact collect rural taxes on behalf of the local areas. When that was included, we indicated what terms of reference needed to be considered. So I am very satisfied that Dale Wall will provide that.

In terms of the member's, I guess, rant about the taxes and such, I guess we're going to agree to disagree on this. We currently have the lowest personal income taxes in the country here in British Columbia for under, I think, $119,000, so we are in fact considering the everyday tax person.

I'd like to know whether the member is considering — because it sounds like his leader is — raising personal income taxes. That affects the millions of people around this province, and if that's what he's suggesting, he should say so. We are looking at a competitive environment for business and what keeps them away from bringing in those investment dollars. And this tax panel, this business tax panel, will give us an opportunity to find out what it is.

Yes, there are business people there. The business people will tell us what those business taxes are that keep them away. Now, whether the Finance Minister is going to be able to change that, I don't know. I'm not going to speculate. But we have to get to the heart of what it is that is not allowing for a competitive environment. Right now we do have a competitive regime here, but that can slip away very quickly if other provinces move ahead of us. We need to make sure that we can maintain that level of competitiveness, and that's what this tax panel is about.

Again, with respect to the other review, that is undertaken by our ministry staff. That is being done so that we can conclude it in the fastest way possible, to take a look at all the sources that do affect a budget for local governments. If UBCM members are desirous of sending us information and input, we're more than happy to receive that, if they feel that that would be useful. In fact, when I travel around the province, when I attend some of the AGMs at the local area associations, as well as the newly elected workshop, I very frequently ask them to provide input and feedback — especially on programs, especially on grants that we provide — to see the difference that they are making in those communities.

I'm happy to receive that information, but at this point I'm not considering including a member of UBCM on that second review panel. The first one is the business tax review. They are going to receive input, and they are going to share with us what it is in the business tax world that makes it very difficult for them to make decisions, to come to British Columbia. We want to attract businesses. We want to create jobs.

H. Lali: Well, the minister has made it absolutely clear. She is not willing to actually stand up for the UBCM and for municipalities and regional districts and have somebody from that representative group on these panels. The minister is on record for saying that.

[1700]

It's unbelievable that the very people that the minister is supposed to be an advocate for…. She is not going to stand up for them. Absolutely unreal.

You know, the minister says that they have the lowest personal taxes of any jurisdiction in B.C. She could not be further from the truth, because that's absolutely wrong.

When you look at it, since they've come into office, ICBC rates have gone up about 70 percent. Tuition fees have more than doubled and, in some instances, tripled and quadrupled. B.C. Hydro rates have gone up about 70 percent since they've taken office. MSP premiums have now gone up 87 percent. Fees and licences. There
[ Page 9771 ]
are about 675 fees and licences, whether it's marriage licences, birth certificates — you name it. All of those have all gone up, and on top of that the amount of off-loading that this province has done in the last 11 years, which ends up meaning that folks are raising their property taxes at the local level.

All of that is hurting those people who she says have the lowest taxes — people making less than $120,000 a year, the lower- and middle-income earners. So we have the highest taxes of any jurisdiction of anywhere in Canada right here in B.C., and it has happened under the Liberal watch.

The minister…. When it comes to municipalities, to stand up for them. it's a stern no. She's not going to stand up and be an advocate for the very people that she's supposed to be an advocate for.

I want to ask the minister: This local government revenue source review — what is the makeup of that particular panel? Who is on there, and what are the backgrounds of the people that are doing this review?

Hon. I. Chong: I do take exception to the member's comments, because I have met with the UBCM executive in my time as the minister responsible. At every single executive meeting, I hear their concerns. But you know, they don't get everything they want, and there have been things we have given them without their asking.

I didn't hear the member talk about the fact that in 1997 it was his government that unilaterally stripped local governments of the unconditional grants. We restored small community grants. We have provided the B.C. community water improvement grant program. We provided Towns for Tomorrow. We provided LocalMotion, Spirit Squares, EMRIP program.

We have provided more dollars than ever before to UBCM, not only for the local governments to provide for necessary services but also to enhance the quality of life in their communities — the tourism dollars we provided them some years ago, $25 million to UBCM, the traffic fine revenue-sharing dollars that we have returned.

So for the member to suggest that we have not stood up for local governments when we have provided the massive amount of dollars, I do take exception to it. He can disagree, and that's fine. But there is no denying the fact that these are all grant programs under our watch.

With respect to the municipal local government tax review, it is being handled by staff. There is not a panel, as I've indicated to the member three times now. So if he would listen, he would know that what I said is that the staff are conducting an internal review because we have the ability to take a look at all the sources of income that we provide directly to municipalities, because we want to know how that may have an impact. If they're collecting dollars in other areas, that will be up to them.

We can also have a look at their financial statements, which they provide to us, as well, to have a clearer idea of where their ratio of revenues is coming in with relation to the government dollars they receive.

We are conducting that internal review because the Premier believes it's important that we understand why it is some communities are not able to provide some of the services that other communities can provide. It's not always about taxation. Is it about other services? Is it about other programs? Is it about government grants from senior levels of government? That's what we're going to be taking a look at.

H. Lali: I do take exception to the minister's remarks as well. She made a comment that they have given all sorts of grants to municipalities, even grants that they hadn't asked for, and revenues — sort of like the auditor general for local government, which they didn't ask for, and it's $2.6 million of money going down the toilet, basically, because the Premier made a backroom deal with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and other business interests in terms of her leadership.

In terms of the amount of grants that have gone, compared to the last ten years or the ten years before that or even ten years before that, it's the lowest level. Just because you rename a bunch of grants and you make different categories and say, "We've put out a dozen different types of grants for communities," it doesn't mean they're getting more in terms of the absolute dollars.

[1705]

If you look across British Columbia, it was either sharing provincially and municipally or a tripartite agreement — so they're federal, municipal and provincial programs — between 1991 and 2001. If you look across British Columbia, you'll see all sorts of arenas — community arenas — and you'll see swimming pools, library complexes, playgrounds and all sorts of communities that applied for grants. They're coming out in record numbers.

This government has never been able to keep up in the last ten years. As a matter of fact, communities are crying because they can't get access to moneys that the people actually pay their taxes into at the local level, and they're not getting their fair share back.

I've got a question for the minister, and it has to do with…. What overlap, if any, is there between the 2010 review and the 2012 review as announced in February?

Hon. I. Chong: You know, the member will know that I'm not going to just let some of those comments pass. I want to put on the record some of the investment we have made in local government.

Since 2001 our government has provided $3 billion to B.C.'s local governments over and above previously existing funding systems. That deals with our Canada-B.C. infrastructure program. That deals with our B.C. community water improvement program, which was a two-thirds, one-third arrangement. There was no senior level of government there. Our municipal rural infra-
[ Page 9772 ]
structure program, our Building Canada fund including top-up, the infrastructure stimulus program that we worked with the federal government on, the traffic fine revenue-sharing, regional district grants — those alone total $930 million.

It would go back to what the member is suggesting. That's $930 million that isn't available.

Our Towns for Tomorrow program provided $70 million. Again, that was a program not shared with the federal government. Our LocalMotion of $40 million, our Spirit Squares for $20 million, the community recreation program — $30 million. Not to mention the countless number of other programs that we provided to UBCM — the tourism one, as I mentioned, for $25 million. The crystal meth program, I believe, was another $6 million. I'm going on memory, but I know there were….

There was a book that UBCM had to publish because there were so many programs, and they were actually being exhausted because of the number of programs that they were finally allowed to administer. They hired extra staff as a result that they got these dollars to do that.

So I will disagree with the member if he suggests that we haven't provided additional supports to local governments, because that is absolutely incorrect.

With respect, again, to the reviews that are being undertaken, the one that the Minister of Finance announced is about business taxes, taking a look at all the competitiveness issues that relate to business and the taxes that businesses pay. The review that was undertaken two years ago was one that was on industrial taxes only, major industrial properties. I understand it's class 4, if the member will refer to….

When you take a look at the property tax assessment, it's called class 4. Once that is finalized, we will be providing that to the tax panel as additional information for them to consider as they go forward taking a look so that they do not have to duplicate work in that area.

It was not a major…. It was not a review of all taxes. It was not a review of all industries. Rather, it was on the major industrial tax class of class 4.

H. Lali: The minister has blurted out a whole bunch of facts, or supposedly. One of the things I know that the B.C. Liberal government has a penchant for is the message box, even though it's very low on facts. They just make up facts as they go.

[1710]

I was wondering if the minister can tell us if, once the present review is completed, the results of that review will be made public. Could the minister also give us a timeline when they'll be finished?

Hon. I. Chong: My recollection with respect to the business tax review is that the Minister of Finance has indicated he would like the panel to report out to him by August 31. If the member wants to canvass that with the Minister of Finance, he can find out the other details with respect to when it would be made public.

As to the internal review, this is being done within our ministry. It is about gathering information at present, and that's what we're going to be doing. Not a report as such, but it is about gathering information, and perhaps tabular amounts in eight columns of data that we will be looking at.

I don't know whether I can advise whether it can be put out in a report form. As I say, it's about gathering information and making a determination as to where all of the sources of revenue stem from with respect to local governments.

H. Lali: I just want to turn our focus back to local government grants here again. While the 2011-12 service plan forecasts static funding for local government over the next three years, this budget actually changes local government funding wildly over the next three years — for a total decrease by 2015 of 22 percent. This obviously does not bode well for planning and certainty for local government.

The three-year fiscal plan refers to a re-profiling of "discretionary grants to external entities, including local governments." This appears to be actually an indelicate euphemism for radical cuts to local governments and municipalities across B.C., just as the government engages in a review of local government revenue sources and also forcibly enacts the auditor general for local government.

I'd like the minister to tell us how this actually helps. You know, the wildly fluctuating increases, decreases in the budgets for the next several years — how this actually benefits or helps municipalities and regional districts, which have been saying for the last number of years that they want certainty and they want to know on a long-term basis what their funding is going to be and that it's not going to wildly fluctuate. Yet this budget does exactly that. It's forecasting by fluctuating the revenues that they're going to get.

Hon. I. Chong: The member, then, has misunderstood the budget document. By paying forward a number of the grants, we actually have provided financial certainty by being able to advance it to local governments sooner. In the past some of the local governments did not receive funding till June, July or August and in some cases — some of the small communities, in particular — couldn't even make payroll. So the budget will reflect the fact that we are advancing some of these dollars. Therefore, they do have that certainty.

[1715]

With respect to reductions in the out-years, some of that will be because infrastructure that maybe started five or seven years ago…. The payments for those infrastructure projects will now be concluded.
[ Page 9773 ]

Until a new infrastructure program is in place, we aren't able to put something in the budget. It's very possible that next year, if there is a new infrastructure program with the federal government, we would see that increase. Infrastructure is all about partnering with other levels of government. But with the grants that we provide, absolutely, the amounts are there. They are providing certainty because they are being paid forward.

H. Lali: The minister says that I don't understand, that the critic doesn't understand.

What they're doing is they're "paying forward." That's what the minister says. That's another euphemism for an election budget. The election is coming, and they're front-loading the moneys in order to improve their own chances of electability. That's what they're doing.

For instance, take a look here. Under "Local government," in 2011-12 it's $203 million. Next year, 2012-13, it goes up to $257 million. That's a $54 million increase. Yet in 2013-14 it drops to $118 million. It's minus 54 percent. Then in 2014-15 it's $157 million.

The total ministry budget in 2011-12 is $243 million. It goes up next year, 2012-13, to $300 million, which is a jump of $57 million. Then in 2013-14 it drops to $161 million — minus 46.4 percent. Then in 2014-15 it's $200 million.

So for the local government, it's a drop of 22 percent. For the total ministry budget, it's a drop of 17.5 percent over that cycle.

What they've done is decided to improve their chances of trying to win the next election by putting the money into the budget that is coming up. That's what's happening here.

It's not, as the minister says…. It's like these great words that they say — "re-profiling," "paying forward" — not coming out and actually telling us what it is. It's an election budget to try to push out money to municipalities during the election and then take it all away once the election is over and done with. That's what's happening here.

I just want to ask if the minister can explain what consultation was actually done in advance of the change.

Hon. I. Chong: I want to begin by saying that local governments actually are fairly pleased that moneys are being advanced to them early.

This is not just, as the member would suggest, about the provincial government. This is a process that I understand has been going on for the last three years. I was not the minister for the last three years, but I understand that this has happened. Local governments are quite pleased. When there comes an opportunity to advance dollars, they're more than happy to receive them.

It provides them with the certainty that the member suggests they need to have, so they have that certainty. Again, it lets them plan, knowing that these are the amounts.

Some of the things advanced, as I said, are the small community grants. Of course, if we're going to advance them one year, we're going to reduce it the next year. Overall, in the course of the three-year period they will have received the same amount. They have just received it earlier, something that they did welcome.

I understand that ministry staff have met with UBCM executive. They did not make a fuss about it. They were pleased to receive money early.

I can tell you that when I meet with local governments around the province, they've always said: "The sooner you can get us the money, the better." They like to put it in their bank account, and they like to earn interest on it. They like to be able to have that certainty. That is well within the ability of us to be able to do.

[1720]

It is not taking away revenues from the local governments. Far from it. It is actually providing certainty, and over the course of three years they are getting the same amount they would have received. If there were infrastructure dollars that were to come about, they would be amounts that we would add in at the appropriate time.

H. Lali: Again, I just love it — the Liberals' penchant for renaming everything. You know, it's re-profiling. It's moving…. What do they call that? Repurposing and all of this sort of stuff.

The minister said that the municipalities are happy they are getting this money next year. Why would a local government not be happy when they are getting an increase? But the minister is not telling the whole story. The whole story is this. When you look at 2012-13, there's $257 million from the provincial government going to local government. When you look at the year later, it's $118 million. That's a drop. That is a drop of 54 percent.

The minister likes to say there's no change. But if you look at the local government budget for this year — 2011-12, the one that's coming to an end — it is $203 million. If you look at 2014-15, which is part of this plan, it is going down to $158 million. It's $157.9 million. We'll give it $158 million. That's a drop of 22.3 percent, a 22 percent drop. If you look at the total ministry budget — $243 million today, this year's budget that is about to come to an end — to 2014-15, it's $200 million. That is a drop of 17½ percent.

I don't care how the minister wants to dress this up. A cut is a cut is a cut. Whether you call it moving forward, whether you call it repurposing, re-profiling or whatever the minister wants to invent or the Liberal government has a penchant for inventing, a cut is a cut is a cut. That's what's happening to municipalities. Why would the municipalities be happy?

You give them a bunch of money during the election year not because you're great guys or good guys and you're listening to the municipalities and regional dis-
[ Page 9774 ]
tricts but because there's an election coming and you want to try to improve your chances of winning. That's the only reason.

Can the minister explain to me that between 2011-12, which is $203 million for local government, down to 2014-15, which is $158 million…? Can the minister please explain to me what grants will be cut? I want the minister to specify which of these grants are going to be cut.

[1725]

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I will try to explain to the member one more time.

The grants that are being re-profiled, as he likes to call it…. It is about the change, where the small community grants in 2011-12 will be advanced to the amount of $30 million in '11 and then in '12-13 another $10 million. So that's the additional $40 million. Then what we will do is reduce '13-14 and '14-15 by the $20 million and $20 million.

So it washes out over the course of this number of years. It's traffic fine revenue-sharing. Again, $30 million and $10 million are being advanced for '11-12–'12-13. The reduction will come in 2013-14 and '14-15.

[J. van Dongen in the chair.]

But if you take a look, it represents the same amount. The goal here is to advance the dollars as early as possible. Again, for the benefit of the member, because he keeps making comments as to political posturing here, I can tell him that this has been going on for the last three years. Admittedly, I was not the minister for those last three years, but apparently, it has been going on for three years, and apparently, UBCM seems to like it.

If the member is suggesting that we don't advance the moneys, then we can easily talk to UBCM. Then they will go back to waiting and see when we do want to advance the dollars to them. It may not be as useful to them because of the smaller communities in particular. These are small community grants after all, and some of them do rely on the dollars coming in as quickly as possible, not in June or July. Some of them rely on these dollars so they can actually make a payment for payroll.

H. Lali: Really, the B.C. Liberals have given away so much of their revenue to their corporate buddies. The kitty is empty, and in order to actually finance their election promises that they're about to make and are making already over the next year, they're going to steal from the future, from local governments — from future years, from '13, '14 and '15 — claw that back and put it into the election year budget now. They've mismanaged the finances so badly so that in the future they're going to be witnessing cuts.

What we're looking at right now is $203 million in local government. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if you look at 2011-12 — $203 million…. In 2014-2015 it's $158 million. Anybody would look at it and say that no, this is a 22 percent cut, except if you happen to be a B.C. Liberal.

In order to finance their election agenda, they have taken from the future, and the minister has so much as admitted that on the record. I'm going to leave it on that one.

Now, the minister has written a letter that's gone out from the ministry to the municipalities and regional districts, to financial administrators and municipal administrators as well.

I have to get this right here. "Strategic Community Investment Funds" is the title of this letter. If there are no changes to the amount of the strategic community investment funds program, then where will the 22 percent decrease actually take place? Maybe the minister could be specific.

[1730]

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated, the advancing of dollars comes from the small community grant program and from the traffic fine revenue-sharing dollars. The member will know that the small community grants amount to about $55.1 million and the traffic fine revenue-sharings amount to $61 million, which is $116 million a year. So over three years they could expect to receive $348 million. That is exactly what they're going to receive over the next three years.

Again, this is a process. It has been a procedure that has been going on for the last three years. Local governments seem to enjoy this kind of arrangement, find it useful, because it does provide certainty. I don't know why the member seems to want to go back to the days where that flexibility is not being provided for. Local governments are, in fact, asking for advance payments to be made to them if at all possible. That's what we're doing.

H. Lali: What I know is that local governments don't like getting beat up by the provincial or the federal governments, and this is what they seem to be doing.

The minister talks about flexibility. They want to give flexibility, lots of flexibility, to municipalities and regional districts.

February 24, 2012. This is the ministry's letter that the minister directed to send out to all the municipalities and regional districts. I want to quote from this letter of February 24, 2012. It doesn't really have a signatory, but you send it back to Jennifer Richardson from the ministry. I want to quote.

"Under the funds agreement, the province agrees to pay local governments $308.6 million by June 30, 2014. Payments will be made in five instalments. These will include an immediate one-time grant, along with the second instalment in June 2012. Instalments will occur as listed in the agreement up to and including June 2014….
[ Page 9775 ]

"In order to access the funds, please sign the attached funds agreement to indicate your acceptance of the terms and conditions within and return to the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development as soon as possible and no later than March 23, 2012."

Then it says in bold letters here:

"The province cannot ensure payment of funds to local governments submitting signed funds agreements after March 23, 2012."

I think I just heard the minister, in her last statement, talk about flexibility, giving flexibility to municipalities and regional districts. When you read this letter, I wonder what kind of flexibility the minister and this Liberal government are actually giving to municipalities when they put a drop-dead date here of 23. It says: "We can't ensure payment of funds."

I'm getting calls from municipalities and regional districts, and they're saying that they don't want the minister to point a gun at their heads. This is what they're doing. "If you don't have this signed agreement, sign this now, get your funds now, or forget it." That's what this is. This is a drop-dead date of the 23rd, and the minister talks about flexibility.

Can the minister explain to me how pointing a gun at the heads of municipalities and regional districts is flexibility?

[1735]

Hon. I. Chong: I'm advised that in the past, in the last three years, as I've indicated, we have been able to flow money out early to municipalities. This is the form and shape of the letter that has gone out in the past, and we have not experienced any problems with it. So with respect, this has been an agreement that has been endorsed or accepted by local governments in the past. They've accepted it, and they've received the moneys in advance, and I don't expect them not to agree with the current year's letter.

H. Lali: Our next speaker is actually here in a couple of minutes.

I don't believe that the minister has given an explanation. On the one hand, the minister says and puts on the record, "We want local governments to have flexibility; we want local governments to have the certainty" — which, obviously, this funding does not provide because we've got cuts happening in the future — and that they wanted to be flexible.

Yet on the other hand, under this strategic community investment fund's letter that went out a couple of weeks back, local governments are being asked that by a certain date, March 23, they'd better get their agreements in, signed, sealed and delivered. "Get them in as fast as you can." E-mail them, fax them, whatever way — send them by pigeon — but they must be received by the ministry by the 23rd. If they don't — tough luck, you know — they might not be insured.

The words are: "The province cannot ensure payment of funds to local governments submitting signed funds agreements after March 23, 2012." When you read this — the gun that is pointed to the heads of municipalities and regional districts — it is not to meet the strategic agendas or the local agendas of municipalities and regional districts. It is to meet a specific political partisan agenda of this government in order to try to meet their timelines for the next election that's coming up.

Again I would like to ask the minister: how does this provide flexibility to municipalities when you're pointing a gun at their heads?

Hon. I. Chong: I want to correct the record, because the member has said on a number of occasions that there are going to be cuts to municipal governments with respect to this program. There are no cuts in the future to local governments. The amount that they would have received over the course of the next three years will still be the amount that they would receive over the next three years.

How it's being structured, in terms of it being advanced, is what we're talking about today. But I want to assure…. I don't want local governments to be concerned and worried and calling in because this member has inflamed the issue. This member has been irresponsible to suggest that there have been cuts when in fact there are no cuts. If the member wants a briefing, I would be more than happy to ask staff to sit down and show him where exactly those dollars are coming from.

He will see very quickly that the moneys for the strategic community investment fund, the traffic fine revenue-sharing and the small community grants are in fact still in place over the course of the next three years. I want to put that on the record, and if the member continues to suggest that there are cuts, then he is actually misleading and doing so in a very unparliamentary way.

The member talks about this loaded gun to local governments. Well, this is a letter that I understand has in the past been fashioned in this way, sent out to local governments. Well, they didn't seem to have a gun to their head in the last three years. If there is a local government that feels there is a gun to the head, then I would ask the member to point them out to me, and we could find out exactly who they are and talk to them and see what the problem is so that we can actually determine if there is a problem with them getting this agreement signed. Because it doesn't sound like there was for the last three years.

Again, the member can speculate, the member can throw out wild stories, but what he is doing actually is not helpful to local governments. He is not providing accurate information, and I want to make sure that we correct it for the record.

[1740]

H. Lali: You know, the minister's government is so
[ Page 9776 ]
concerned about providing accurate information to the people of British Columbia. What is it? They hired over a couple hundred people in the public affairs bureau so they can control the message box? That's what we seem to hear from this Liberal government time and time again when cuts are disguised as raises in grant moneys.

I don't need a briefing from the minister.

Interjection.

H. Lali: No, I don't. If there's anybody that needs a briefing, it's the B.C. Liberals in providing honesty to the people of British Columbia.

It is there in black and white in these documents that you see right here. When you look at the local governments, for 2011-2012 there is $223 million. But for 2014-2015, it's going to go down to $158 million. That's a cut. For the minister to say: "They're not any losing money because over a three-year period when we do the averaging, there is no cut there whatsoever…." When they claw forward moneys from future years to pay for their election that's taking place, to try to bribe the people of British Columbia because of election time….

They call it reprofiling. That's the term. That's a nice term — repurposing, reprofiling, moving forward, paying forward. That's what it is. Those are all little, key words that the public affairs bureau and their $25 million — or whatever the amount that keeps going up — and the 200-plus people working there to create a message box for Liberal MLAs and ministers to stay in the message box so nobody can deviate out of it, to try to tell you when cuts are actually putting more moneys into it.

Again to the minister. You know, the minister might turn around and repeat the same answer. But the fact of the matter is: why is it that the minister and this government are putting forward cuts in terms of local government grants, when you look at it from this year to 2014-2015, by 22 percent?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I would repeat. There are no cuts, and the member continues to fabricate that in his head. That's all in his head.

The Chair: I just want to caution the member to keep the language parliamentary.

H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Chair. If there is any fabrication going on, it's with the B.C. Liberals. It's been going on for 11 years.

I'm going to turn it over to my colleague the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, who's got a few questions on community grants.

D. Thorne: I would like to get some information on gaming grants and the levels of support currently. I'm going to make it more specific in my next question. I just want to find out…. I know that over the past couple of years — I mean, we all know — there's been a lot of changes in percentages and gaming grants and grants that were allowed to apply. I know there has been a task force looking into this. Mr. Skip Triplett was the head of the task force. I'm not sure if you call it a task force. I go back to my old days in education, and we called everything a task force.

He was looking into it. I'm not clear at the moment if there has been and still is an across-the-board decrease in the amount of gaming funding that's going to community groups or whether the levels have been brought back up to where they were a few years ago. I'll just wait for the answer to that first.

[1745]

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, the Skip Triplett review that took place that concluded this fall provided government with a number of options. What we did was we took a look at some of the more prominent options that he provided, based on what he consistently heard from the public, and that was to restore eligibility for some of the adult arts and adult sports groups, as well as for some environmental concerns and animal welfare groups; in addition, to allow us to top up some of the groups that had had reduced funding.

Going forward, we had in our budget $120 million which was established for last year, this year and next year. What has occurred is a $15 million amount has been added to our base budget. So we now will have certainty as to $135 million going forward.

There have been some comments about the fact that that is not an increase, but I would disagree. It is an increase because without it we would have been left at $120 million. The Premier committed in January when we released the report that there would be a permanent $135 million going forward in the future.

D. Thorne: I'm just really confused about this, because the society I'm specifically asking about in the Tri-Cities is called the Transitions Society now. It's actually been renamed in the past couple of years. It used to be the Tri-City Women's Resource Society.

I actually was one of the beginning members of this society back in the mid-'70s. If not the oldest women's centre society in British Columbia, it's probably the second-oldest, which might make it actually the second-oldest in Canada. It was originally known as the Port Coquitlam Area Women's Centre. So the program, the drop-in centre for women, has been running for almost 40 years.

Apparently they are closed right now. They just closed to review the program and the funding source, which is gaming, and it looks like they're not going to be reopening the program because of cuts in gaming dollars.

This has been on the front page of our local paper now
[ Page 9777 ]
for the last two editions. The community is up in arms, and of course, I've been getting the phone calls, or my office has, because of my association with the women's centre, my long-time association, and the fact that I'm the only female MLA in the area. It's a combination of both of those. So I did say that I would come in this afternoon.

I attended a public rally there on Friday and spoke with a number of women who attend the drop-in fairly regularly. All of the comments, all of the responses from the board of the Transitions Society and the staff, have been that, basically, the women's centre drop-in program is operating with…. I mean, it's a culmination of losses, really, but they're operating with about 75 percent less funding than they were a number of years ago, and of course, like everything else, their costs have gone up.

They're just not sure that they're going to be able to reopen this program at all. They're saying that their gaming is not what it was, and they're expected to run all of these programs and pay their bills with less money. So here I am asking the question.

Hon. I. Chong: When the $15 million was added back to our budget, we were able to, through — I guess the best way to describe it is through a contingency request — ask for the additional $15 million, not just next year going forward but add it to this fiscal year.

We made the announcement in January. Between January and the end of the month — now — we have been working very hard. Ursula Cowland, who's here with me, has been receiving numerous amounts of applications from those groups that were previously ineligible, who are now eligible, to determine what amount of funding they should get.

We had also put aside some dollars that would restore funding where there had been reduced funding. I'm advised that the group that the member is referring to, in fact, will have moneys added back to its budget, because it had been one of the groups that had a reduction.

[1750]

I don't have the amount in front of me, but a number of groups did, as the member indicated, have reductions. Of the $15 million, I think $7 million was set aside to help and restore some funding, and that would be where it's coming from. I understand they'll be able to have a look at it, as well, and the due diligence questions as we need to go forward. But if the member wishes to go back to her riding and advise them, I think the amount should be deposited by the end of this week.

D. Thorne: On the face of it, it's good news. I'm still a bit confused. Are we saying, then, that they have not been told this? That this will be a surprise? That they don't know?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, in January when the announcement was made with the Premier — I was there in attendance — and the news release had been issued, we did in fact say that eligibility for some groups would be restored. I can tell you that people immediately called in and asked about that.

We also indicated that those who had received reduced funding in the past year can look towards having some increase in their funding come back this year. I don't know how much attention people pay. Apparently, people pay a great deal of attention to these kinds of announcements. So I would have suspected or thought that the group that the member is referring to would have been kept abreast of that — that there was going to be restored funding.

The amount, as I say, might be a surprise. I don't know the amount either, and I don't have that with me. The staff would have made the recommendations or changes based on their assessment process of what should and can be provided as additional funding.

I hope that helps the member. They likely were aware. They may not have been aware entirely as to what the amount should be.

D. Thorne: I remember the announcement. If I'm not mistaken, it took place in the Tri-Cities — in the Premier's old riding in Port Moody. But I can't believe that they would not have contacted your department in the meantime to find out. This afternoon I had a call from our local paper again, as well, and they're wondering when this is going to come up and when I might get some clarification. It would certainly be helpful to the staff in my office to have some public clarification.

So can your office send me an e-mail or something tomorrow clarifying that they'll be getting the same amount as they did before so that they can reopen the drop-in? That would be very helpful for me, and it would certainly be good news, obviously. They're a bit in the dark at the moment.

Hon. I. Chong: That would not be a problem. We should be able to provide some information to the member. My staff will be on that very quickly.

I just want to clarify for the member. I'm not sure if the organization that she is referencing…. Whether someone did call…. It could be any number of people sometimes who represent an organization who decide to pick up the phone and find out. My staff don't keep track of all of the inquiries, necessarily, that come in.

But what they have been doing as a result of the $15 million injection to the gaming grant dollars…. They have, in fact, for those that were eligible…. There was an actual intake process. After they dealt with that, then they dealt with those that had reduced funding and took a look at all those that had reduced funding.

That's what they have been working through, which is why the member can likely see an amount deposited at the end of the week. Now, whether it's the same amount
[ Page 9778 ]
or not, again, I can't provide the member that amount. The objective was to at least provide some funding for those that had reductions. Again, it would still be based on an assessment of what those needs are.

Some organizations had received reduced funding but, over the course of the last number of years, may have changed their structure, may have changed the way they have done things. So it wouldn't necessarily be the appropriate course to take to just provide the dollars back if, in fact, they no longer provide certain services and programs because someone else has taken them on.

[1755]

I don't know the exact dollars, but my staff, as I say, will look at and send an e-mail or note to the member so that she has that.

D. Thorne: That's great. I mean, I really appreciate that, as will they. I'm assuming that your department, also, when they're…. I mean, with any of these groups, community groups, but particularly women's groups like this, with the many issues that we have today around domestic violence and different issues like that…. Certainly, these drop-in centres that provide peer counselling and resources and community information are more valuable than ever.

I'm making a statement here now. I realize that. But, you know, we have to try to take into account the loss of funding in many other areas over the last number of years. The fact that they're operating with 75 percent less funding than they were a number of years ago, ten years ago or whatever, is pretty dramatic information. Everybody in the community will be most pleased to get this information.

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated, a member of our staff will provide that information to the member.

I just want to add that one of the reasons why…. As I say, you know, the member talks about the difficult times and reductions. In today's difficult, challenging global economic times I was very pleased to see that we actually had a lift to our base budget of that amount. Again, I want to state that for the record, going forward, it was supposed to be at $120 million. The $135 million will be there, and it will allow us to have more certainty going forward as we take a look at all the organizations that do apply for gaming grants.

H. Lali: I want to turn our attention to vote 50, the auditor general for local government. It's not about the bill. It's about the line item that's in the budget. That's quite appropriate, I have been told. The House Leaders have checked it out.

The Chair: The committee will recess for two minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:59 p.m. to 6:02 p.m.

[J. van Dongen in the chair.]

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister a few questions about the Victoria wastewater treatment project in greater Victoria and just some questions, really, about a status update, because I think the public has been looking for details and had some trouble finding some of them. The first is really around completing the tripartite agreement between the regional district, the federal government — who has been very consistent in their support, in terms of the funding commitment — and the province, who has been sending out different messages, I would say.

I know that the minister has responded through the media, primarily, to questions about the project and the status of it and the funding for the agreement. So if I could maybe begin by asking the minister if she has a complete timeline about when the tripartite agreement will be formalized and when the provincial funding contribution will be going to the Treasury Board. I think, maybe, that's where I would like to start.

Hon. I. Chong: I do want to, firstly, acknowledge that the commitment that we made as a government in 2006, where the province would help fund the capital costs required to provide effective sewage treatment for the capital regional district, is still there. We have been working with the CRD and the federal government to take a look at a number of things, not the least of which is the business case, where all the funding should take place. And he's correct. The federal government has been extremely helpful in that regard.

[1805]

The CRD recently completed a revised business case for the project, and it's in the final stages of review by Partnerships B.C. and PPP Canada. Once we have that, we'll be in a position to go forward and take a look at the common understanding of what that arrangement will be.

R. Fleming: I know the minister caused a little bit of confusion in the fall by suggesting that the next step for the project to proceed was to "nail down" the federal government's level of support and to "know that it is secure."

It is secure, as the minister admitted later. She said that Ottawa has been there all along and that it's really the province that is going through the process to determine how and at what level the funding commitment will be made.

I would ask the minister to clarify so that people at home who are following along with the proceedings can have a clear understanding of the commitment that's actually being made by the province. Is it a one-third share of the estimated $782 million capital cost of the project? Is it something less?

Surely, these details have been long worked out and discussed with their federal counterparts, her constituents and elected officials in the capital regional district.
[ Page 9779 ]
If she could put that on the record this afternoon, I think that would be really helpful.

Hon. I. Chong: As the member will well know, this is a very huge and extremely complicated project that is extremely costly for all of us here in the region, for the seven municipalities that will be undertaking this particular project. As I've indicated, the province is still committed to providing our share of the cost associated with the agreement that we had made back in 2006.

There is discussion that is ongoing. I'm advised that the CRD is still in those talks with PPP Canada and with Partnerships B.C. They're in those final stages.

I know the member, obviously, is anxious. I'm sure he would like to report out. But I can't provide him that assurance until I know all of that discussion has taken place.

Once I know the outcome of that and the business case analysis, then we are able to work with the CRD on the provincial participation. I am awaiting that information. I don't have it yet.

R. Fleming: The federal government has not indicated that there are any deal-breakers or conditions with regards to its own internal reviews that it's doing. There is a working agreement with the capital regional district.

There's also been the establishment of a wastewater project commission which now rests with the province and with the minister to make comments on the governance model for this project going forward. The service provisions…. Obviously, the debt responsibility will remain with local government.

Really the missing ingredients in this project moving forward — and this is to everyone's understanding who is involved in this project, either at the centre of it or even peripherally — is that the provincial funding contribution has not been secured; the signal has not been sent by the provincial government and by this minister.

[1810]

Can she confirm whether that is a debate that is happening at Treasury Board today? What exactly is holding up the kind of clarity that is needed so that the capital regional district can secure the federal money before it goes away, potentially — that's the risk here — and proceed with the project? Can she explain that today? Is it at Treasury Board? Why has the province been reluctant to put a figure on it when they have construction cost estimates and when there is a tripartite agreement that this government has already signed off on in 2010?

Hon. I. Chong: I don't know if the member has a specific direct line to the federal government. He seemed to indicate he was aware that they were all ready to go. That's not entirely correct in that while they have been very strong partners with us on this, my understanding is that there has been some updated information provided recently to PPP Canada through CERADISO. I believe the numbers have changed once again, so we are waiting to hear back to see what changes we need to make.

Again, the commitment to proceed to have the province help fund this capital cost required for sewage treatment for the capital regional district is still there. I will assure the member of that.

Once we have the outcome of the business case analysis, I would then be in the position to present that in full with all the information to members of Treasury Board as well as to cabinet. I can't provide him with the date that he's looking for, because I don't have the information available for me currently to make that presentation.

R. Fleming: I will just ask the minister, following on those comments she made, whether she is aware that there is a risk — and this is a view expressed by local government officials and others — that the federal government funds that it has committed are a time-limited offer. There is a risk that these funds, which, of course, are in the hundreds of millions of dollars to pay up to one-third of the project costs, could disappear. They could disappear based on the province taking a considerable amount of time to make a decision on its funding commitment.

I would ask the minister if she is aware of the consequences, potentially, of the lack of clarity and the continuous delays in letting regional district officials know whether her government can be counted on in this partnership.

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated to the member twice now, the government is still committed to this project and will provide its funding as required through the business case analysis.

I am aware that there have been conditions placed on the federal government funding, and I can also indicate that I've seen those dates change from time to time. But I am aware that we need to move very quickly on this. We are getting very close to making that decision. As soon as I'm able to do so, we will be able to make that presentation and provide for those dollars.

R. Fleming: I just have one question. I'll just shift gears for a minute and ask the minister about the Provincial Capital Commission. I know there have been a lot of government changes. I know it has been controversial. Three members of the Provincial Capital Commission have now resigned.

[1815]

There is an allegation — and she can comment on this — that the new operating procedure at the Provincial Capital Commission is that the appointed board and all of the board members must have their agenda vetted and approved by the minister's office. This would be an entirely new practice that's unheard of for me. I say that as somebody who served for six years on the Provincial
[ Page 9780 ]
Capital Commission once upon a time.

That that kind of political intrusion would occur…. I think the minister should let the public know whether in fact this Crown corporation and the work that it does is now being completely controlled and dominated in terms of even the things that it can talk about and put on its agenda by the minister's office. That's question No. 1.

The other one I want to ask the minister, and it's an easy one, is if she will agree this afternoon here to release a list of properties that have been identified for sale that is within the Provincial Capital Commission's portfolio of properties.

There are obviously a huge number of strategic assets and properties that have been traded and swapped with the federal government, consolidated here on the Inner Harbour, for example, that are of immense importance to the capital region for decades into the future for the planning of this city. People are rightly concerned that those properties are being put on the fire sale for this government's needs to plug a deficit hole — in the second year of the budget, in particular, as they go into an election — to show that the province is balanced when in fact it isn't.

If the minister could commit today so that we can have a helpful discussion out there in the public as to which properties are on the for-sale list that the Provincial Capital Commission owns today and which ones aren't.

Hon. I. Chong: Firstly, I want to correct the member. It is not true that we require the agenda to be published and vetted to us. What we have asked is that the CEO consult with us on any major, key decisions prior to them being made, in the event that they can impact other parts of our government ministry. We are not asking for their agenda to be vetted through to us.

With respect to the second question, the Minister of Finance is the lead for the properties sale, so he will have to ask the Minister of Finance with regard to those.

The Chair: Member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, noting the hour. The committee is beyond the normal time to rise. I understand the member has one quick question.

K. Corrigan: I do have one quick question. What I'm wondering is…. It has to do with the taxation committee. I know that it's the Ministry of Finance, but it affects municipalities in a great way. I'm wondering if the minister could tell me whether or not the minister had input into the makeup of that committee and, if the minister did, why it is that there is no municipal representation on that committee when the impact is going to be felt by municipalities across the province.

Hon. I. Chong: Unfortunately, the member was not able to participate in the debate that took place. We canvassed this at great length with the member for Fraser-Nicola. So I would direct her to Hansard on that.

But just for the record, I will say that I believe the person who we have asked to serve on the committee can best represent UBCM. Dale Wall is a life member of the UBCM and is able to bring those concerns to that expert panel.

So with that, hon. Chair, I need to know whether there are any further questions before we move the vote.

Vote 17: ministry operations, $300,265,000 — approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I do want to very quickly thank the members for Fraser-Nicola, Alberni–Pacific Rim, Vancouver-Hastings, Burnaby–Deer Lake, Vancouver–West End, Delta North, Coquitlam-Maillardville and Victoria–Swan Lake for participating in the estimates.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report resolution of Vote 17 of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:19 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