2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 11, Number 6

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

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2014

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1005]

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: I rise in the House today to introduce a group of representatives from the Health Sciences Association here in British Columbia. In particular, I would like to recognize Val Avery, who is a physiotherapist at Royal Jubilee Hospital here in Victoria and has been the HSA president since September 2013.

Many members of the House on both sides had the opportunity to experience the HSA generosity this morning, being hosted for breakfast and getting the chance to be introduced to members from all around the province. HSA represents more than 17,000 health care and social service professionals in over 80 different disciplines. So if it ends in "ist," they are likely represented by the HSA. They deliver health promotion, diagnostic, clinical and rehabilitation services throughout the province in acute, residential and community care settings.

I would just like to have the House welcome the HSA and thank them for the very important work they do for the people of British Columbia.

J. Darcy: I'd like to join with the minister in welcoming the Health Sciences Association here today. They represent, as the minister said, 76 different professions in every corner of the province, in every aspect of health care, from acute to community care to residential care. I know that their members work very hard and professionally every single day. I know that they also all give their very best every day, often under very stressful conditions, to provide the highest degree of professionalism in health care.

I enjoy very much working with them, most recently on issues like lab reform. I look forward to continuing to work with them on the many, many issues that they have to bring forward to the members of this Legislative Assembly.

Will the House please join me also in making the members of HSA, and especially the president, Val Avery, very welcome today.

J. Thornthwaite: I would like to welcome, actually, a daughter of a very, very good friend of mine, Ava Slykhuis. She and her school, Vancouver Talmud Torah, will be touring the Legislature today with their teachers Lisa Romalis and Becky Chan. I'd like for the House to please make them welcome. I'm sure they're going to be coming in shortly. Welcome them to Victoria, and welcome them to the Parliament Buildings here.

M. Karagianis: Although I know it's not common to try and single out people from the contingent that's here, with the Health Sciences Association today is actually a very good friend of mine. Ali Gaul served as a municipal councillor in Esquimalt for some time. She's a terrific woman, a great friend, and I'd just like to give her a special welcome this morning.

Hon. T. Stone: I would like to join with the other members who have spoken already this morning in welcoming all of the HSA members here to the House. In particular, I would like to welcome one of their members who is a constituent of mine in Kamloops–South Thompson, Carol Blake.

Carol is a social worker at Royal Inland Hospital. She works with about 900 patients at risk for kidney failure. Her valuable work helps keep these patients healthy and prevents or delays the need for dialysis. I want to thank Carol for the extremely important work that she does for patients in Kamloops. I would ask the House that you please join me in welcoming her here this morning.

K. Conroy: I have a number of introductions. First, I'd also like to welcome an HSA member. Gwen DeRosa is from Rossland, in our community. She is a community liaison for the West Kootenays and does an excellent job of that.

Also, I have a delegation from the city of Trail. With us, we have Councillor Kevin Jolley; the chief administrative officer, David Perehudoff; and also Mayor Dieter Bogs.

Now, Dieter has been active in municipal and regional politics for over 30 years. He served on Trail city council for 27 years and was first elected mayor in 1997, serving as mayor for 17 years. He has served on numerous boards and was a founding member of the Columbia Basin Trust. It's the last time, I think, that I will be introducing him as His Worship, as Dieter has announced he is retiring this fall from municipal politics. He will be sorely missed and will leave big shoes to fill.

[1010]

I hope everybody would join me in welcoming them all to the House today.

R. Sultan: In the precinct today are 32 representatives from Johnson and Johnson, a large health science organization which markets biopharmaceuticals and diagnostic, surgical and consumer products.

J&J are in British Columbia this week identifying partnership and investment opportunities. Their 160 local employees are engaged in almost 50 clinical trials with, for example, Julio Montaner's Centre for Excellence in
[ Page 3356 ]
HIV/AIDS at St. Paul's, the B.C. Cancer Agency, the Canadian Diabetes Association and our outstanding researchers at UBC. Their subsidiary, LifeScan, in Burnaby is a world leader in diabetes management. Would the House please welcome J&J to the precinct.

G. Heyman: I'd also like to welcome Joe Sebastian, the region 4 director for the HSA, on their executive. I had the pleasure of meeting Joe and talking with him today. He's a medical radiation technologist. He not only works in Vancouver-Fairview, but he's one of my constituents. Would the House please join me in making Joe very welcome.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased today to welcome my sister. Debbie Simpson is here, along with her son, my nephew, Liam. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

CYSTIC FIBROSIS AWARENESS
AND FUNDRAISING WALK

S. Simpson: I was happy to introduce my sister, Debbie, and nephew, Liam, earlier today. They've joined us here specifically around the commencement of Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month for this, the month of May. This is a critical event for the 4,000 mostly young Canadians who suffer from this most serious genetic disease and for their families and loved ones who support their care and are concerned for their futures.

CF causes mucus buildup that damages the lining of the lungs as well as blocking an enzyme required for the intestinal digestive system. Sadly, there is no cure today for CF, and too often this disease is fatal.

Since 1960, Cystic Fibrosis Canada has invested over $140 million in research, care and support for those suffering from CF and for their families. For Liam and the thousands of other young people with CF, this support is critical in so many ways.

While there is no cure today, we do know that real progress is being made through research, including treatments that are now in play that have had positive results around certain strains of CF. The research is ongoing to expand on these successes, with the hope that we will build on these current discoveries to soon find treatments that either cure CF or ensure that it becomes a chronic disease that is manageable.

That work is ongoing, but it does need more support. On May 25 the annual Great Strides event will take place again at Queen's Park in New Westminster. This five-kilometre walk raises money and awareness for the fight against CF. I look forward to participating again in this walk and want to encourage all members of this House and those watching to be part of the walk or to make pledges to support those who are walking.

I truly believe that we are making real progress on this tragic disease. However, we all want this work to come more quickly to a successful conclusion, a conclusion that will be realized when we win the fight against CF.

BONNY MAKAREWICZ

J. Sturdy: I rise today to acknowledge the passing of a long-time Whistler resident and award-winning photojournalist, Bonny Makarewicz, who lost her courageous two-year battle with melanoma on March 27 at the age of 51.

For more than two decades Bonny had a unique role in documenting pivotal moments in Whistler's history and its development into a world-class resort, while at the same time capturing the spirit and personality of the community, the people who came to work and play, and the natural beauty that inspired her work.

She received numerous provincial and national awards for her images, which were published regularly in the Vancouver Sun and Province, the Whistler Question and Peak newsmagazine, as well as national daily newspapers. Her work was also featured in Ski Canada and other magazines and in the book Top of the Pass: Whistler and the Sea-to-Sky Country.

[1015]

Bonny and her photos were incredible ambassadors for our province. Her work showcased Whistler, Vancouver and other B.C. locations in the New York Times in many articles, as well as assignments for the european pressphoto agency, including the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, which garnered international exposure for her work and for Whistler.

She photographed not only members of various royal families, world leaders, international athletes, celebrities and a politician or two, but also school children, aspiring athletes and other locals in their everyday lives, doing what makes living in the Sea to Sky so special.

Her contributions to her community are many and will live on in her photographs and in the hearts of her family, friends and peers and the countless people she came in contact with through the Sea to Sky and beyond. Certainly, that was reflected in her memorial at the Fairmont in Whistler.

She will be admired for her brave fight against cancer that took her life, as it takes the lives of so many British Columbians. As we leave Cancer Awareness Month, it's only fitting that we honour people like Bonny Makarewicz, and all those touched by this insidious disease, and recognize the people working hard to find a cure.
[ Page 3357 ]

CANADIAN MOTION PICTURE PARK
IN BURNABY

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to speak about the film industry in Burnaby-Edmonds — in particular, the Canadian Motion Picture Park. CMPP, as we call it, was created in the year 2000 with one stage and offices near Marine Way in Burnaby.

Over the past 14 years CMPP has built 11 first-class, purpose-built film stages and approximately 65,000 square feet of offices. Furthermore, CMPP manages a film production backlot which consists of a ten-acre site with five support buildings, studios and — the only one of its kind in Canada — a standing New York street set with six streets on 6.5 acres of land.

CMPP is one of the largest, if not the largest, purpose-built film production centres in B.C. and in Canada. Thanks to the leadership of president Alec Fatalevich, vice-president Wolf Isachsen and business development manager Jennifer Fatalevich, CMPP is expanding even further and just about to start the construction on a site called Cineprep. This new production centre will have a 45,000-square-foot stage, which will be the largest of its kind in Canada.

The film productions that lease CMPP facilities financially support hundreds of companies throughout B.C. and Canada. They employ from 500 to 1,200 specialists and tradespeople on site at any given day. In addition to creating green jobs, these productions are a huge benefit for the local community beyond what one can see.

With the necessary support from the federal and provincial governments, film production on site can be doubled in a very short period of time. I wish the CMPP a very prosperous future.

HISTORIC JOY KOGAWA HOUSE

Moira Stilwell: I rise in the House today to recognize the Historic Joy Kogawa House in Vancouver. This house, which is the childhood home of renowned poet and novelist Joy Kogawa, stands today as a symbol of reconciliation and a cultural and historic reminder of the internment of Japanese Canadians during World War II.

Author Joy Kogawa lived in this house as a child with her family until 1942, when the house was confiscated and the family was forcibly removed to the Interior of British Columbia. This injustice is featured in many of Joy Kogawa's books, including her award-winning and widely read novel Obasan. For her contributions to preserving Japanese-Canadian history, Joy Kogawa was awarded the Order of Canada in 1986 and the Order of British Columbia in 2006.

Today the Joy Kogawa House stands as a cultural and historic landmark of provincial significance. It has been reclaimed as a symbol of resilience and hope. The Historic Joy Kogawa House Society and land conservancy have reclaimed and transformed the house into a community arts and literary hub.

The Joy Kogawa House holds an annual writers-in-residence program, cultural and educational programs and regular public workshops and events. Today I acknowledge Joy Kogawa and the Historic Joy Kogawa House Society for preserving and maintaining this community treasure, and support them in their continuing work.

BURNABY SCHOOL DISTRICT

K. Corrigan: I'm pleased to acknowledge the accomplishments of the Burnaby school district — a leader in innovation, efficiency, academic excellence, inclusiveness and environmental sustainability, thanks to the wonderful teachers, administrators, staff and board.

[1020]

The district has one of the largest advanced placement programs in Canada, high rates of completion and transfer to post-secondary education and leading-edge literacy programs. Its vibrant visual and performing arts programs are the most comprehensive in the province, including specialized music teachers and band programs in every elementary school.

Specialized programs include French immersion, a Mandarin language arts elementary program, a fine arts elementary school and five sports academies in hockey, soccer, swimming, softball and basketball. Burnaby has an extensive on-line learning program and one of the largest community and continuing education programs in the province.

Burnaby is also an inclusive and caring district — as evidenced, for example, by the Hub program, school meal programs and eight community schools serving the more challenged neighbourhoods of Burnaby.

It's a highly efficient district, with one of the lowest administrative costs at 2.4 percent of the budget. In addition, revenue is generated through a variety of means, including a highly successful and carefully administered international education program, which brings in more than $14 million annually.

The district is also well served by many partnerships, including with the city of Burnaby, which has provided recreation facilities and playing fields at many school sites. As well, the city of Burnaby supports the eight community schools, in addition to adult crossing guards. There are 30 child care centres at district schools. Partnerships with B.C. Hydro and Fortis fund 1.5 positions and save approximately $1.2 million per year in energy costs. A partnership with the board of trade has meant that 1,500 employers offer work experience in Burnaby.

A strong parent advisory council works closely with the district and a very active district student advisory committee as well — all of this despite having the lowest per-pupil funding in the province. Congratulations
[ Page 3358 ]
to the board.

As well, I'd like to particularly congratulate James Sanyshyn, who was recently elected to the board of the B.C. Teachers Federation.

LIAM FIRUS

J. Thornthwaite: It's with great pride that I rise today to speak about Liam Firus, an accomplished athlete, North Vancouver resident and Canadian Olympian.

Liam started skating at the age of nine and quickly transitioned from hockey player to figure skater, competing at various levels before deciding to pursue his Olympic dreams. Since hanging up his hockey skates, Liam has found lots of success on the ice. He gained national recognition when he won the 2010 Canadian junior title and is the 2014 Canadian national bronze medallist.

Despite Liam's many achievements, his road to the Sochi Winter Olympic Games was long and painful. He suffered a debilitating groin injury in 2013, which forced him to stop training altogether. He was still undergoing physiotherapy and rehabilitation at a time when other athletes had already completed months of training and were competing in summer games. He held back, but he was back on the ice and practicing full programs by September, leaving him just five short months to train for Sochi and earn a spot on the Canadian figure-skating team.

His hard work paid off, and in January 2014 he nabbed the third spot in men's singles. He realized his Olympic dream on February 13 when he competed at the Iceberg Skating Palace in the men's short program, placing 28th overall.

I had the fortune of meeting Liam when I presented the Vancouver Skating Club with a gaming grant cheque, and I was immediately struck by his tenacity and determination. In Sochi he represented our country with passion and humility, and the entire North Shore is very proud of him. Many local sponsors, such as Western Stevedoring, provided donations and helped Liam make it to Sochi.

He now has his eyes set on the 2018 games and is looking forward to getting helped to PyeongChang. I want to encourage anyone who can give to sponsor Liam and help to send him to South Korea. I know we'll be seeing many more great things from Liam, and I ask the House to join me in wishing him well on his journey to the 2018 Winter Games.

Oral Questions

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition. [Applause.]

[1025]

CHANGES TO FOREST TENURE SYSTEM

A. Dix: Now who do I ask the question to? [Laughter.]

The question is to the Minister of Forests. Over the past 12 years B.C. has lost 30,000 forest jobs. We've seen the health of the forest degrade. We've seen raw log exports shoot through the roof. So you'd think that forestry changes would address these enormous problems. Instead, the government is essentially attempting to privatize vast tracts of public lands, without any real benefit to British Columbians, through an area-based tenure scheme.

Can the minister explain why he's rushing to give huge private corporations de facto ownership over publicly owned land when there is no good reason to do so?

Hon. S. Thomson: With the recognition provided to the Leader of the Opposition, I'm pleased to take the question.

What I want to point out and point out very clearly: the mid-term timber supply committee process toured the province, received input, brought forward a recommendation that said to investigate, to look at increasing the diversity of area-based tenures in the province. Very clearly, if you look through the recommendations of the committee, we are responding directly to those recommendations.

The recommendation said to "gradually increase the diversity of area-based tenure using established criteria for conversion." That is what we are consulting about currently. It said, "Before considering a conversion of the licensee's replaceable volume-based tenures, in whole or in part," evaluate the criteria. That is what we are doing.

We are in the process of consulting around those criteria. We are in an engagement process with communities, with industry, with stakeholders. In doing that, we are responding directly to the recommendations of the mid-term timber supply committee report and directly to the recommendations that were supported by the members opposite who were part of that mid-term timber supply committee.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: These changes simply make no sense. The ministry's own science disputes the minister's claims, and key players in the industry think this is a bad idea in forestry today and tomorrow. Don Kayne, the CEO of Canfor, for example, has said that making wholesale changes to the management of publicly owned land can't be done without the consent of the owners of the land. He says: "To Canfor, the public opposition to this proposal is a deal-breaker. It risks setting forest companies against…public land owners."

There are simply other priorities, and this will undermine public control of the land. Again, can he explain
[ Page 3359 ]
to whose benefit are these changes being made? For whose benefit? It doesn't appear to be the forest industry. It doesn't appear to be workers. It doesn't appear to be communities.

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the process — we are underway — responds directly to the recommendations of the mid-term timber supply committee, recommendations to look at increasing the diversity of area-based tenures, to take a walk-before-you-run approach, to look at how this tool can be one of the tools in the toolbox to respond to the mid-term timber supply committee recommendations. That is what we are doing.

I appreciate Canfor's perspective on this. I think if you look at that, it would clearly say that this is not being done just in the interests of the large licensees. If you look at the responses that we've had through this process and you look at companies like C&C and companies like Dunkley, independent companies through that region all believe that area-based tenures can be a tool in the toolbox that helps fill in some of the gap in the mid-term timber supply committee. It is not a panacea, but it's one of the tools in the toolbox that we feel is worth moving forward on, one that we feel is worthy of consultation.

That is the process we're in, a process led by a well-respected former chief forester of the province — a person who was directly involved in the mid-term timber supply committee review process. That process is underway, and the direction forward will be informed by that consultation process.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

[1030]

A. Dix: Well, what Mr. Kayne is saying is what the opposition is saying. It's what scientists are saying. It's what the Forest Service is saying, which is that the priority should be forest health. What does he say? He says:

"We believe that government resources should be focused on maintaining the health of the interior forest sector, completing an updated forest inventory to support planning and decision-making, resourcing smaller tenure holders and the B.C. Timber Sales program so they can access their timber tenure volume and assisting communities with any necessary rationalizations in primary manufacturing."

In other words, he's suggesting a completely different direction, as are most communities and most people who are watching this, including the minister's own staff. Can the minister explain why this is the priority, why the government is engaging in this scheme, when they should be focusing on the health of our forests?

Hon. M. de Jong: The Leader of the Opposition has raised an important issue that I'm sure will be pursued at length, but I think it is appropriate to recognize that there are changes afoot, and the next time the hon. member rises, it will be to ask a question in a slightly different capacity.

I frequently disagreed with the Leader of the Opposition but have always respected the passion that he has brought to this place and to public affairs generally and certainly recognized his abilities. He has held a post that is difficult, challenging and thankless, but it has also been a post that is integral and essential to the practising of parliamentary democracy and has made a unique contribution to this place. Question period is perhaps the most appropriate time for this House and this side of the House, all sides of the House, to say thank you. [Applause.]

N. Macdonald: The minister refers to the work of the mid-term timber supply committee, of which I was the Deputy Chair. I've been through this with the minister before. I just want to be clear that the committee did not recommend TFL rollovers. That was never a recommendation, and it's wrong to misrepresent the recommendations of the timber supply committee that way. It's not the case.

In an FOI asking for any information, any evidence, that the direction the government wants to go is in any way scientifically based, we got nothing back. The minister refers to studies that don't say what he says they do. There is no evidence this is the direction to go.

When he refers to industry desires to go in this direction, let's be clear. When you have both Canfor and the Coast Forest Products Association president, Rick Jeffrey, saying this is a terrible idea, it's a terrible idea. That's the fact of it.

Don Kayne is worried that this is going to set off another war in the woods. I'll just quote exactly what he says. To Canfor, "public opposition to this proposal is a deal-breaker. Changes of this scope require broadly informed public support, not a brief and limited consultation."

Will the minister admit that these changes are being rammed through precisely because he knows that any informed consultation would completely reject this terrible scheme?

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member opposite points out, we have debated this issue extensively through the estimates process. The member opposite is wrong to continue to portray what we're doing as a rollover of tree farm licences, a full conversion of tree farm licences, and continues to be wrong, continues to be inconsistent with the process we're under in terms of responding to the recommendations.

If you want to look specifically at the recommendations: "Gradually increase the diversity of area-based tenures, using established criteria…before considering a conversion of a licensee's renewable volume-based tenures in whole or in part." Tick. This is what we're doing. We're consulting on the criteria.
[ Page 3360 ]

[1035]

It also says to ensure that you look at the licensee's past performance; commitment to sustainable forest management; investment in forest management, including but not limited to silviculture investments; and community and First Nations support.

That is the process that we're undertaking. That is the engagement that is underway. The studies are all part of the engagement website. Those have been listed there for everybody to review. To be fair, some studies point to some concerns with respect to it. There are a number of studies there that point to the value of it.

That's the purpose of the consultation, again, led by a respected chief forester who was directly involved in the mid-term timber supply committee process. That process is underway, and very clearly, this is looked at to be a tool in the toolbox but one that will need to proceed with community, First Nations and industry support in those areas, focused on responding to the mid-term timber supply committee challenges.

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Let's be clear. All we're talking about is TFL rollovers. That's all we're talking about. We saw the legislation that came before this House before the last election. That is all that is being talked about.

Everything that the minister wants to do around community forests or woodlots — that law exists. The minister can do that at any time. All that we're talking about is — let's be frank — a sham consultation to get to a point that the minister and this government has already decided upon, regardless of what is said.

Let's just review the pattern here. The ferry consultation — sham; the ALR consultation that apparently is going on now — a sham; TFL rollover consultation — let's be clear: it's a sham. That's all that this is.

Look, Don Kayne, the CEO of Canfor, says that the government should be focused on forest health, on inventory, on putting more efforts into smaller tenure holders. Instead, the government is moving to privatize the Crown lands that we have.

The question is: can the minister tell us the real reason he's pushing ahead with changes that are only going to hurt industry and are only going to further degrade this province's most valuable asset, our public lands?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again the member opposite is wrong. We have a consultation process going through the communities, ten different communities, meeting with key stakeholders, key organizations, industry representatives, and the member opposite continues to point out one company's views. Those views will be considered in the consultation process. They've communicated directly. They've communicated publicly on their views.

If the member opposite cares to look at the responses that are coming in, he will see clearly that there are a number of companies that support the conversion of whole or in part…. And again, emphasis on conversion of renewable licences, because that was the recommendation of the mid-term timber supply committee, of which the member opposite was the vice-Chair.

We are responding directly to the recommendations, and as I've said clearly, the way forward will be informed by those consultations and by the recommendations of Jim Snetsinger, a well-respected former chief forester who is leading the process for us.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF
NATURAL GAS PLANTS AND
CONSULTATION WITH FIRST NATIONS

D. Donaldson: On April 11 this government signed an order-in-council exempting new natural gas production facilities and ski hills from the B.C. environmental assessment process — no public debate, no consultation with First Nations. Then 48 hours later the Minister of Aboriginal Relations visited Fort Nelson First Nation, where many of these new gas facilities are planned. For two days he met with Chief Sharleen Gale and her council. He said nothing about the new law. Chief Gale described it as getting stabbed in the back.

[1040]

Could the Minister of Natural Gas Development explain how such behaviour by his government is an example of building relationships and trust?

Hon. M. Polak: Very often in this House I've had the occasion of being able to stand and be very proud of something that I've managed to accomplish, or together with my colleagues. This is not one of those occasions. I felt absolutely just devastated to find out that actions of mine and my ministry had had this impact. There is no way that that order-in-council should have proceeded without discussions taking place with Chief Gale and, indeed, likely with other First Nations as well.

I have apologized. I realize that doesn't undo the damage. There is work that will have to be done there. I have written to Chief Gale also apologizing. We will certainly be engaged with First Nations to ensure that something like this does not occur again. But I take full responsibility for it. I should have been on top of it, and I was not.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Well, I'm certain that the minister is sincerely sorry, but this is a betrayal of First Nations by her government and her ministry. You can understand why Chief Sharleen Gale said, in connection to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations' and the Minister of
[ Page 3361 ]
Natural Gas Development's apologies, that "'sorry' ain't good enough."

A declaration signed by 28 First Nations after this backstabbing behaviour came to light puts this government on notice that their liquid natural gas strategy is on hold. The declaration was also endorsed by the First Nations Summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the B.C. Assembly of First Nations.

To the minister: how can any First Nation or member of the public now trust what this government is promising on LNG?

Hon. M. Polak: Again, I understand that apologizing doesn't undo the damage that occurred as a result of my inability to process this in the appropriate way with First Nations.

Over many years when I have fulfilled roles in Children and Family Development, Aboriginal Relations and even, to a certain extent, in Ministry of Transportation but certainly, again, in the Ministry of Environment, I have developed very personal relationships with many of the leadership who are involved in this issue, who are concerned about it. I know many of the chiefs and leaders in the northeast of B.C. on a personal level.

I understand there is work to be done now to rebuild that trust. I am committed to playing a role in doing that. Again, I apologize for what this has done to that relationship. Certainly for me personally, it has also had just a devastating impact to know that I was the one responsible for that.

R. Austin: If B.C. First Nations are not brought on board, it doesn't matter how often the Premier goes to Asia. We will miss out on our LNG opportunity. Chief Sharleen Gale made that clear when she said: "All agreements with the province are under review, and we're looking at all options regarding our relationship with the province and industry." Yet an e-mail from Doug Caul in the environmental assessment office suggests that this is not the only order eliminating environmental assessments in the works.

Can the minister tell this House whether the Liberals plan to further undermine the LNG industry and public trust by unilaterally lifting requirements to do environmental assessments?

[1045]

Hon. M. Polak: My mandate letter — indeed, the commitment from our government — is that we have work to do in the field of LNG that not only involves having the cleanest liquefied natural gas industry in the world but also reviewing our environmental assessment to make sure that it is working well — not only to protect the environment but to ensure that it is working well for those proponents and for environmental organizations who are engaged as we go through the environmental assessment.

Part of that work has to be finding new and better ways for First Nations to be involved. We have had ongoing discussions with First Nations such as Nisga'a, for example. We will continue to look for new and better ways for First Nations to be involved in our environmental assessment, because we know that just as all of British Columbia will benefit from liquefied natural gas, there is a huge opportunity for First Nations to benefit from the prosperity that can be brought in from liquefied natural gas.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPACTS
OF PROPOSED U.S. COAL TRANSPORTS
THROUGH B.C. COMMUNITIES

V. Huntington: Last summer a trade delegation led by an American governor arrived in B.C. It didn't come to meet with the province or with municipalities, and we heard about it only through U.S. media. The delegation met with the port about exporting Wyoming's thermal coal — eight million tonnes of thermal coal annually.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is curbing coal generation plants. Referendums have been held to stop thermal coal from transiting U.S. communities, state and civic leaders have taken stands on the export of thermal coal from U.S. ports, and the state of Washington initiated the most in-depth environmental review ever undertaken in that state to assess whether a thermal coal terminal should be allowed at Cherry Point.

Now, our government won't even talk to us about it. Study the issue? "You've got to be kidding." An environmental assessment? "Not our jurisdiction." Health impact study? "Not our problem."

We need our government to respond to demands from the public and its own chief medical health officers for an independent health impact study on the movement of thermal coal through B.C. communities. Participating in a non-binding municipal review is fine, but ignoring calls for a full health impact study is nothing more than negligent.

Will the ministers of our health and our environment stop passing the buck, do their duty and initiate a full health impact analysis of the movement of thermal coal through Lower Mainland communities?

Hon. T. Lake: I thank the member for the question. Our public health system here in British Columbia is one of the finest in the country, and our public health officers have done a remarkable job. We have seen that recently with the measles outbreak in the Fraser Valley, and there are many examples of that.

Our public health officers have been engaged, because they know there is some concern around this proposal. Our public health officers in both Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health Authority have engaged with Port Metro Vancouver and have encouraged them to look at the im-
[ Page 3362 ]
pact on public health of this proposal.

Madame Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

V. Huntington: We now learn that the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway is double-tracking its line all through Delta just so it can carry that annual eight million tonnes of thermal coal. These tracks sit below major residential subdivisions.

They go through a park. They are beside a walking trail. They follow the Metro Vancouver linear park and sewer line. They go through the Delta Nature Reserve, which is part of the Burns Bog conservancy. And they are right beside a fish-bearing stream that has already been damaged by BNSF, which has just paid a hefty fine to DFO for that damage.

Railroads may fall under federal jurisdiction, but the people of this province, the health of our streams, the quality of life in our communities and the protection of the Burns Bog conservancy are the jurisdiction and responsibility of this province.

Will the Minister of Environment assess whether B.C. should be conducting an environmental review of the double-tracking of the Burlington Northern rail line, and will she approach her federal colleague to request an environmental assessment of the proposed expansion in Delta?

Hon. M. Polak: I know it can be frustrating for members of the public and, indeed, for ourselves, when we have to deal with the multiple jurisdictions that arise in the event of a proposal that involves a port and involves rail.

[1050]

However, in Canada we have an established set of jurisdictions that operate under our federal constitution. That means that the federal government, acting in its agent of Port Metro Vancouver, has the jurisdiction to make the environmental assessment of a proposal that involves the port. They have the jurisdiction with respect to the rail.

With respect to health, the Minister of Health a moment ago spoke about the work of the medical health officers. It is also true that in the event that the medical health officers come to the conclusion that there is going to be an adverse impact on human health, they have the authority to make orders that would confront that challenge. So we can respect jurisdiction, and at the same time, we can respond in the event that there are human health needs.

I will add that the Ministry of Environment is also participating on the group that the mayor of Delta has formed up in order to assess what kinds of concerns there are in the community and if there is a place for us to act.

INCOME ASSISTANCE POLICY ON
CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS

M. Mungall: A few weeks ago the Minister of Social Development said he was angry when answering my request to end the B.C. Liberals' cruel clawback of child support payments from B.C.'s poorest kids. He was angry, but he has taken no action since.

That is making the single mothers of these children angry. It makes them angry to say no to soccer for their kids, to needed school supplies, to fruit and healthy food. Moms like Angelina Gilroy in Kamloops. She's upset because she can't afford a bed for her three-year-old child.

My question is to the minister. Will he take action now to end the clawback?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm proud of the actions of this government as we try to support the needs of the most vulnerable people in British Columbia. I know I don't need to talk about what the Minister for Housing does and the investments that they do in that ministry. I don't need to talk about, through the Minister of Finance, the lack of income tax people in low income don't pay. Definitely the Ministry of Health…. There are 800,000 British Columbians who do not pay MSP premiums.

In this ministry we spend about $2.5 billion to support vulnerable British Columbians. We do things through income assistance, through persons with disabilities and employment programs.

We also have about 70 programs where we work with individuals to provide assistance for those in need, including — as the member opposite mentioned, there are some issues — for example, the food and vegetables in the classroom program that reaches over 500,000 British Columbians in almost every school in the province. It's an amazing program, and it's just recently been expanded to include milk. That's an example of how we evolve a program to better serve British Columbians in need.

I've said it before in this House, and I'll say it one more time. We continue to look at the supports that we provide vulnerable British Columbians. We know that a support program is never going to be perfect forever. As the needs of British Columbians change, our programs, too, will evolve to meet those needs.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: We're talking about the government taking away money from B.C.'s poorest kids. That's one of the programs that the minister failed to mention just now on his list.

The well-being of these children is a very serious issue, and it requires government action now. Single moms like Charlene Quinney in Kamloops rely on charity as much as it is available, and what is available isn't always suit-
[ Page 3363 ]
able. To be sure, expired food from the food bank is not suitable for children, but it's often the only option these families have.

Again to the minister, rather than get angry like he did a few weeks ago, can he get active and end the clawback? That would be an order-in-council the public would welcome.

Hon. D. McRae: Like I said in my previous answer, we continue to evolve supports for vulnerable British Columbians in this province.

[1055]

I think there are many programs that people not just in this province but across Canada recognize are really, really beneficial and leading. We've evolved programs, for example, like the bus pass program, where we help individuals of limited means, making sure they have access to public transit. Increased earning exemptions are examples of where we've made changes that we were talking through advocacy groups, because we heard what they needed. This is something they asked for, and we gave it to those individuals.

We have also heard that people want supports for child care. That's why, starting in April 2015, children under six will have access to a $55-a-month early childhood tax credit. Why? Because we continually evolve supports for vulnerable British Columbians, and we will continue to evolve those supports.

[End of question period.]

Statements

LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION

B. Ralston: I want to say a few words about the member for Vancouver-Kingsway on this particular day.

He took over the leadership of our party at a particularly difficult time and drew us together again. He has brought to the job that he occupies today an energy, a passion, an intellect and, I think everyone would agree, an unrivalled work ethic as he travelled relentlessly throughout the province in pursuit of his many policy interests.

He has served the people of British Columbia well. I know the voters and citizens of Vancouver-Kingsway are grateful that he will continue as their elected representative and bring all those qualities to the public life of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

A. Dix: I love it when you mention Her Majesty, hon. Speaker.

I'd say that it's true. I just want to confirm that sometime between five — for those of you who use the other clock, 1700 hours — and 17:01:30 today we're going to have a new leader of the B.C. NDP. The good news is that we're going to elect just an extraordinary individual who is going to make a great Leader of the Opposition and an even better Premier of British Columbia, my friend the member for Juan de Fuca.

Interjection.

A. Dix: We'll have that debate later on.

I wanted to thank the Government House Leader for his comments and my friend the Opposition House Leader for the comments.

It's a great honour. I mean, I couldn't have expected the honour in my life to lead a political party that had been led by people that I admired so much like Dave Barrett and Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark and Joy MacPhail and particularly my friend and mentor, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill. It's been a great honour in my life.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your comments today. If I had only known I could unite people so well, I would have left a long time ago. But thank you very much. Thank you to all of you and thank you to my friends across the way. I'll see you on Monday. [Applause.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Education followed by Social Development; and in this chamber committee stage debate on Bill 20.

[1100]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 20 — LOCAL ELECTIONS
CAMPAIGN FINANCING ACT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 11:02 a.m.

On section 82 (continued).

S. Robinson: I'm just wondering if the minister might be able to once again review item 2. We were right at the very end yesterday, and I didn't actually record what she said So if she wouldn't mind just repeating her explanation for 82(2), that would be really helpful — item 2.

Hon. C. Oakes: I would ask clarification on what the
[ Page 3364 ]
question was.

S. Robinson: It's interesting how quickly we sort of forget the whole orientation from yesterday. What I was asking about was section 82(2). There's a whole lot of language that isn't very simple. It's actually very complicated language and a bit circular. So I want to, just for clarity, hear how the minister understands that piece of legislation.

[1105]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question. This is consistent with what is currently within the Election Act. Really, what it is…. When the document is signed by the Chief Electoral Officer, it's admissible and submitted. So it's the signature of the Chief Electoral Officer that sets this in motion on this particular clause.

S. Robinson: If I'm to understand, the minister and her staff just took chunks of an existing act and plunked it in here rather than making sure that it's easy to understand. This is probably the most complicated paragraph I've ever read in terms of trying to understand that. I just want to check if that's what the minister and her staff did.

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question. It certainly wasn't…. We take advice of legislative counsel on how to move forward with drafting significant legislation such as this, and that was their advice on this.

Sections 82 to 84 inclusive approved.

On section 85.

S. Robinson: Section 85 talks about higher-penalty offences. I notice that if an individual commits an offence, there is imprisonment as a possibility, but in the next item, (3), there is no imprisonment for an organization that commits an offence. I'm wondering if the minister can explain. Why the distinction?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question. An individual of an organization can be held liable, but an organization in itself cannot be held liable. That's what the significance of this clause is.

Section 85 approved.

On section 86.

S. Robinson: This section refers to lower-penalty offences. Can the minister please provide some examples of what lower-penalty offences might be?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question. An example of a lower — say, failing to open a bank account or to apply a financial agent. That would be the example of the lower amount. The higher amount — providing false or misleading information.

Section 86 approved.

On section 87.

S. Robinson: Section 87 speaks to the role of the B.C. Chief Electoral Officer. Subsection 2(b) speaks to the Chief Electoral Officer having to prepare a report but doesn't specify when the report is due or how long it needs to be presented after the election. If the minister can speak to what they had in mind and what the expectations are.

[1110]

Hon. C. Oakes: This is up to Elections B.C., and it's not prescriptive in this act.

Sections 87 and 88 approved.

On section 89.

S. Robinson: In section 89 it speaks to minor corrections to disclosure statements and tries to make a distinction about the kinds of corrections. What caught my attention was: "…does not materially affect the substance of the statement or report…." What does "materially affect" mean to the minister?

Hon. C. Oakes: An example of this would be a mistake with arithmetic.

S. Robinson: I just want to make sure I understand the minister. Ones that don't alter the bottom line, the bottom number, where there might be a typographical error or inversion — that would not be material effect. But if there was an omission that actually changed the bottom number, that would require a different…. That would not fall under this. It's not considered a minor correction. It's considered…. They'd have to file a separate update. I just want to see if I have that understanding correct.

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question. Again, a minor one: a typo. Say you've made an error in some addition or how you put information in. That would be the minor. The more significant: if Elections B.C. determines that the error or the omission materially affects the disclosure statement, a supplementary report would be required.

Section 89 approved.

On section 90.
[ Page 3365 ]

S. Robinson: Section 90 is about late filing extensions and speaks to providing extensions. When is it appropriate to provide an extension?

Hon. C. Oakes: This was added or included. For example, say something, a significant illness, happens to the financial agent two days before an election, or there's a flood or a natural disaster that happens within a community. This clause helps to address that and provide a little bit of leeway.

S. Robinson: I'm assuming, then, that it's discretionary, based on the decision of the election officer?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, this does allow Elections B.C. the ability to do that. However, it prohibits the extension of the filing deadline beyond 120 days after the election.

Section 90 approved.

On section 91.

S. Robinson: This one is about retention of disclosure records. Are records to be destroyed after five years? Is that the intention of this?

Hon. C. Oakes: It authorizes the transfer of campaign financial records to the British Columbia Archives, once the initial retention period has ended.

S. Robinson: I sit on Public Accounts, and I've been learning about the destruction of records. Are records to be kept, then, forever and ever?

[1115]

Hon. C. Oakes: This would fall under the Document Disposal Act, which isn't within this document. We would have to get back to you on the specifics of that timeline.

Sections 91 to 94 inclusive approved.

On section 95.

S. Robinson: I have to jump up quickly before my colleague shouts out "no" instead of "aye."

This section on advisory committee meetings. Are there a minimum number of meetings that the minister is expecting this group to have?

Hon. C. Oakes: It was very important when they were looking at adding this new provision that there was the flexibility for the advisory group to determine the meeting schedule. I have no authority to implement any type of meeting schedule.

S. Robinson: So they could have this in the legislation, and it's possible that there would never be any meetings — that we would read this and perhaps make some assumptions there were some advisory committee meetings and would have no idea at all if they were even meeting.

I draw attention to item (6) that says: "The advisory committee must make available to the public, on request, a summary of the proceedings of a meeting of the committee."

It's on request. It's not even like it gets posted on a website. Unless you even know that this committee exists…. We would have no idea, unless we asked to see meeting minutes, whether or not a meeting was even held.

We don't really have an accountability piece, is how I'm understanding it. Perhaps the minister can speak to what accountability measures there are around this advisory group.

Hon. C. Oakes: Section 95, really…. When we looked at rules pertaining to the technical advisory committee, it was important we were making significant changes to legislation — the most significant in 20 years — and felt that having a technical advisory group to look at any things that potentially could come forward, whether it's increased need for education or something within the legislation that we need to be addressing, that a technical advisory group made of stakeholders from various organizations that this legislation will in fact affect is advisable.

As we go through this process, if something comes up, we've got a technical advisory committee that we felt was significantly important enough to frame up in legislation, which has the tools and ability to really act on any things that come out of this legislation.

S. Robinson: While I appreciate the intent, I do have some concern that it's only on request that any minutes or any reports would be made available to the public. If you have no way of knowing (a) that they exist or (b) whether or not they've met, you don't even know to even ask.

I would encourage the minister and her staff to consider removing the "on request," and that whenever they meet, it's public. It's on the website, perhaps. That will sort of let us know that they're working and that they're continually addressing these issues.

If you know, in fact, that there are issues, and you ask the ministry to address them and the advisory committee goes off and makes some recommendations, you don't know that has actually in fact happened, unless you ask if something has happened.

I think the intention is a good one. Just making sure that it's public and transparent is, I think, part of what's lacking in this.

[1120]

Sections 95 to 98 inclusive approved.
[ Page 3366 ]

On section 99.

S. Robinson: We're almost at the end here, section 99. I'm wondering if the minister can speak a bit to this one in terms of what the intentions were here and perhaps provide some examples that might help us understand what the intention of this section is.

Hon. C. Oakes: This just establishes that the minister "may make any order the minister considers appropriate to achieve the purpose of this Act" and first must determine whether special circumstances warrant making such an order. It also establishes certain restrictions in relation to the relief and clarifies the relationship with other election order authorities.

An example of this would be if a flooding in a region makes it difficult for a candidate in that region to file their disclosure statement, the minister may extend filing times for a specific geographical area.

Section 99 approved.

On section 100.

S. Robinson: Can the minister again, in this section, perhaps provide some examples as well?

Hon. C. Oakes: Broad regulation authority is necessary, given the untested application of campaign financing rules to electoral organizations, third-party sponsors and non-election assent of voting sponsors. These regulation authorities will provide needed flexibility to respond quickly to issues that may arise. An example of this: it allows for some customization of regulations for particular circumstances such as different requirements for by-elections.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the example, but I still didn't understand. Perhaps the minister can just explain that last piece about having to make special circumstances a by-election. It didn't resonate with me. Perhaps if she has another example, that might be helpful.

Hon. C. Oakes: It's difficult to think of another example. Really, the whole purpose of this section is to address those unintended situations that may arise. This just helps capture that and provides tools in order for those unexpected things that may arise. The one example we talked about in the by-elections was one of the items we specifically thought of. But it is really to address unexpected items that may arise through the course.

Section 100 approved.

On section 101.

The Chair: The member has given notice, on section 101, of an amendment.

Hon. C. Oakes: I move the amendment to section 101 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 101, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Commencement and application

101 (1) The provisions of this Act referred to in column 1 of the following table come into force as set out in column 2 of the table:

(2) This Act does not apply in relation to elections referred to in section 1 [elections to which this Act applies], or voting referred to in section 2 [assent voting to which this Act applies], held before the 2014 general local election.]

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Oakes: This amendment provides clarity regarding the effective date of section 34 and 35 in the bill that relate to anonymous sponsorship contributions.

[1125]

Currently section 101 specifies that these sections will come into force on the day after the day this act receives first reading. Through this amendment the actual date, which is March 27, 2014, will be identified.

This will provide clarity for election participants when the rules regarding anonymous sponsorship contributions for third-party election advertising will apply. The retroactivity of the amendment is limited to the anonymous sponsorship contribution roles that are new to third-party sponsors.

Amendment approved.

Section 101 as amended approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Oakes: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:26 a.m.
[ Page 3367 ]

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 20 — LOCAL ELECTIONS
CAMPAIGN FINANCING ACT

Bill 20, Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, reported complete with amendment.

Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. T. Lake: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — LOCAL ELECTIONS
CAMPAIGN FINANCING ACT

Bill 20, Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call committee stage of Bill 21, Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2014.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — LOCAL ELECTIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 21; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 11:29 a.m.

On section 1.

S. Robinson: Can the minister please provide us with the origins of this section?

Hon. C. Oakes: This supports the Local Government Elections Task Force recommendations to change the local government election cycle from three to four years. UBCM endorsed this resolution in favour of extending the term of elected local officials to four years at its 2013 convention.

This will be consistent with the term of office for local governments in all other provinces in Canada. A four-year term reduces the number of local elections over time, thereby reducing the potential for voter fatigue over time and increasing voter engagement with local elections.

[1130]

S. Robinson: Can the minister let us know if this change actually has broad support among the local governments that serve our communities across the province?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, the legislation that has been put forward — we followed with recommendations from the Local Government Election Task Force, which represents members from across British Columbia. As well, it was endorsed at the UBCM Convention. It passed, and UBCM represents members from small, large, urban and rural communities from across British Columbia.

S. Robinson: I'd just like to remind the minister that the year before, it failed; the year before, it passed; and the year before that, it failed. So I would actually argue that it doesn't have as broad support as she might believe or report.

I also want to remind, I guess, the minister — and if she's given it any thought — that while it might reduce the number of elections overall and this concern about voter fatigue, it also reduces…. In some ways, democracy might be put at risk as well — that when you have a council that isn't serving you well, you're actually with them a little bit longer. I'm wondering if the minister could speak to what some of those challenges would be with a four-year term.

Hon. C. Oakes: It's very important for me to stand on this, because the one thing that we are doing with both of these pieces of legislation is modernizing local government elections acts. Local government elections are changing. Things are being more modern.

When we look at reports from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and when you look at infrastructure investments that happen within local governments, they are…. The reason why the rest of the provinces in Canada have gone to four years is because of the cycle of time that it takes to move very important infrastructure projects, which are key to local communities, forward.

By moving to four years, it provides that time for communities to get those much-needed projects, those infrastructure projects, the things critical to driving local communities forward. This is what we felt — in alignment with the rest of the provinces across Canada, to ensure the greatest results for local governments in British Columbia.

Sections 1 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

S. Robinson: If the minister could perhaps share with us if there has been any push-back from any smaller communities that she has heard about regarding the shift
[ Page 3368 ]
from three years to four years, I would appreciate hearing about that.

Hon. C. Oakes: I travelled throughout the province, and I met with area associations. One thing that was critically important is I went…. In each of these meetings I would go around the room, and I would ask questions of each individual on their thoughts. Absolutely, there are varied opinions. There are opinions as varied as each of our communities across British Columbia.

What we felt, based on the task force recommendations, is that we needed to align with what the majority of individuals and local governments felt. This is what was put forward through the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.

We are also going to, however, work very tirelessly on the education campaign to support communities or individuals that may have felt that this move had significance. We'll be working with them to support that.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for her response. Given that there are such varied opinions and varied experiences — given the vast kinds, the variety, of local governments that we have across this province — is there any intention of the ministry to monitor these concerns to actually see if they do come to fruition?

Hon. C. Oakes: We will be continuing to monitor, and we'll be continuing to look at how we ensure legislation meets the needs of the people.

[1135]

One of the processes that we have talked about as staff is that you should always regularly look at legislation to see if it meets the needs of the population that it serves. So we'll absolutely continue to look, to evaluate and, if changes are needed, to modernize as we move forward.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the minister's response. I just want to clarify. I mean, I've certainly heard concerns that we're not going to find people to run in our small communities: no one wants to commit; there will be people who won't want to commit to four years; three years is hard enough; it might cause more by-elections, as people can't stay for four years. One of the other issues is that young people won't.

If I hear of any concerns, I am assuming that the minister would like me to forward them on to her for tracking. I would certainly encourage the minister to pay very close attention, moving forward.

Sections 22 to 74 inclusive approved.

On section 75.

S. Robinson: Can the minister explain section 75 and what this is doing to legislation?

Hon. C. Oakes: This is a consequential amendment that is more explanatory around the term of "assent voting." It just updates the terms and definitions from "other voting" to "assent voting." It just modernizes the language that we now use in accordance with this type of vote.

S. Robinson: So modernizing the language from "other voting" to "assent voting." I asked people in my family, because I was doing this work at home. I said: "Do you know what assent voting means?" They had no idea.

I'm interested to hear who or what prompted these changes. Whose language is "assent voting"? I don't think it's the language of voters. Is this just bureaucratic language or legal language? Where did this come from?

Hon. C. Oakes: It really is to be more prescriptive and to provide that greater understanding of what voting is. "Other voting" is so vague and general. "Assent voting" really defines and is descriptive. We'll be ensuring that we educate folks on what that means.

Sections 75 to 114 inclusive approved.

On section 115.

S. Robinson: Can the minister speak to this section and explain to us what it means?

Hon. C. Oakes: It's amending the Vancouver Charter to allow for the four-year term.

S. Robinson: Is there support in Vancouver for these changes?

Hon. C. Oakes: The Lower Mainland Local Government Association was the sponsor of the resolution that went forward to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities in 2013, of which Vancouver is a member.

S. Robinson: I just find it interesting that it's the Vancouver Charter. I would have thought that there might have been a phone call made to Vancouver. I mean, I recognize that LMLGA may have supported it, but I understand that there are some folks who sit at that table who aren't all that excited about going to a four-year term. I would have hoped that at least there would have been some consultation.

Perhaps I'm making the assumption. Can the minister let us know if she actually contacted Vancouver to find out if they fully support this change?

[1140]

Hon. C. Oakes: I've met with the mayor, and I've certainly met with members as well, including this area association that I alluded to, when I travelled throughout the province and talked to individuals on what their
[ Page 3369 ]
thoughts were. This was one of the items that came up in those conversations.

S. Robinson: I guess it's a little bit disappointing. I mean, I'm grateful that the minister spoke to the mayor, but Vancouver has a party system, and there are several different parties around that table. It's unfortunate that not everybody was consulted, given that there's quite varied opinions sitting around that table in terms of changing their charter to a four-year term.

Sections 115 to 136 inclusive approved.

On section 137.

S. Robinson: I have an amendment to this section.

The Chair: You can proceed on introducing your amendment.

S. Robinson: I move:

[To amend section 137 by deleting the text shown as struck through and adding the text shown as underlined

Division (8) [Campaign Financing] of Part I as repealed

137 Sections 55-65 are repealed and the following substituted:

Campaign Finance

55 (1) Council is permitted to enact a bylaw or bylaws in order to

(a) establish limits on election expenses incurred in a campaign period by candidates or electoral organisations;

(b) establish maximum limits on campaign contributions to candidates or elector organisations;

(c) establish a limit or a ban on a contributor class; and

(d) establish fines or penalties, including disqualification, for violation of a bylaw enacted under this section.

(2) Enactments and amendments of bylaws under this section are prohibited within a campaign period.

(3) For the purpose of this section, definitions are as established in the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act.]

On the amendment.

S. Robinson: In this amendment, given that we are speaking about the Vancouver Charter…. Vancouver is unique in that they have their own separate charter. They're very different from any other municipality that we have in this province. They have unique needs and unique challenges. I'm not saying that other communities don't have similar challenges, but given that they have a charter that governs how they operate and given that we are right now going through sections that deal with their charter — I want to really emphasize "their charter" — I can't see any reason why this government wouldn't address what they have asked for.

Clearly, the minister has met with the mayor. I am confident that the mayor reminded the minister that they are really challenged about campaign expenses and really do need some caps. I don't need to remind the minister, as well, that when you have contributors that give $1 million to one party, it actually skews the democracy and the opportunities for people to fully participate in this electoral process.

Given that she's met with the mayor, I would like to believe that she's heard what he had to say and certainly willing to go to four years, because that's what he wanted. The LMLGA as well, I believe, supported their request. In fact, the UBCM has as well. Yet they are not given the opportunity to set their own campaign limits, even if it's just for this election.

I don't think I need to remind the minister that this has been going on for years. The first time that they asked for some help was 2004. That's ten years ago that they were recognizing things were getting out of control, that this was not good democracy. Time and time again this government has failed them. It's fallen on deaf ears. There's been zero response, absolutely none that recognizes that in that community it is ridiculous the amount of money that has to get spent in order to participate in an election.

Given that they have their own charter, given that they're already seen as a special case, it is not that difficult to provide them with the tools that they need to just set their own limits. They can do that, and that's what this amendment is about.

The other things that we want for Vancouver are the opportunity, if they so choose, to establish a limit or ban on a particular contributor class; to provide maximum limits on campaign contributions; to establish limits on election expenses. Give them the power to do as they see fit. This is a real opportunity to make a difference for that community.

The minister earlier just talked about voter participation and voters sort of rolling their eyes and throwing up their hands. When voters see how much money gets spent, they are so jaded about it. No wonder they don't want to participate.

[1145]

Now, in my community it's an issue, but it's not a huge issue. It's still sort of manageable, as I'm sure it is in the minister's community. People aren't spending gobs and gobs of money. I think we can all agree it's gobs and gobs of money in Vancouver, and it's out of control, and it's been getting out of control. I am predicting that this next election is going to be outrageous yet again.

I think it's time that this government stood up and said: "Enough." If you really stand up for good democracy — at least in this community, which has its own charter — let them figure it out. There's no reason to be mucking in it. Let them muck in it. I think that's an opportunity for them to sort out.

They are continually mucking in it and struggling with it. Their electorate keeps coming to them and saying: "This is ridiculous." They just had a discussion this week — I was following it — about a voluntary expense limit. They recognize that they can't, that to do it voluntarily means that people who are outside of the current
[ Page 3370 ]
council won't be beholden. Like, they recognize that they are struggling, and right now the only barrier is this government.

So I'm asking the minister, on their behalf, to do the right thing and give them the opportunity to set their own limits.

D. Eby: I rise to speak in support of the amendment. I think it's an incredibly important amendment for a number of reasons, which I'll go into very briefly.

In 2011 in the municipal election, a single individual, Rob Macdonald, gave $960,000 to the Non-Partisan Association. It's important to note this donation wasn't just for anybody. It went directly to the campaign of the current Attorney General, when she was running for mayor at that time.

I've said that before in this House, and I'll say it again, and I'll say it until we get reform on this issue, because it's important to try to understand why this government will not act on the city of Vancouver's request over years to fix this problem.

I go home to my constituency, and people say: "I cannot believe what's happening with election spending and fundraising in our communities. We're losing control of what's happening here. Why won't the government act?" I can't explain it, except to wonder if it's related to the fact that the Attorney General received this huge donation. Otherwise, it's completely bizarre.

The Attorney General is one of two Vancouver MLAs who understands this issue firsthand. She lives in the community, and she ran for mayor. She was firsthand in those campaigns and yet, when in these cabinet discussions, apparently doesn't propose — in these laws that are coming forward before us to reform municipal campaign finance rules — that we amend the Vancouver Charter to give the city the power to fix these rules for themselves.

We're not talking about imposing something from Victoria on Vancouver. We're talking about simply giving them the power to fix this themselves and to be accountable for that at the polls in the upcoming election.

If you hear some frustration in my voice about this, it's because I'm frustrated. I have to go home and explain why we can't see any action on this. It would be so easy for the government to fix this.

I'll quote again — I've read this quote before, and I'll read it again, because it is true — from city of Vancouver councillor Andrea Reimer: "What I've learned from that is that in the absence of rules, be prepared to be shocked." She was talking about election spending and donations in Vancouver.

Vancouverites are routinely shocked. They will continue to be shocked. These donations and spending have gone up 175 percent in the last eight years, and it's been eight years that the city of Vancouver government has been coming to this level of government and saying: "Please, give us the power in our Vancouver Charter to fix this problem."

This is not at the municipal level. This is not a partisan issue at all. Every major civic party — the NPA, Vision Vancouver, COPE — all agree that this fix needs to happen, that the city needs this power and that it should be imposed. That's why city council has asked — not one time, not four times but six times, formally, through motions passed — for this government to act.

In the last election the NPA spent $2.5 million; Vision Vancouver, $2.2 million. As I said, they're not going down. These numbers are going up. To quote the NPA executive coordinator in terms of the feeling among the civic parties about what needs to happen: "We feel that it has to be legislated to bind all the parties to the same rules."

We wouldn't be giving Vancouver some kind of crazy power that we don't know what's going to happen, because there are many other jurisdictions that have these rules, and they work well.

[1150]

In Brandon, Manitoba, there's a $16,000 limit for a candidate running to be mayor — $16,000. In Toronto's ward 7, $27,000 for a councillor. In Mississauga the spending for mayor: $319,000. Keep in mind that the maximum donation as an individual donor in Mississauga is $750. So you'd need over 1,200 people to raise the amount that a single donor donated in the Vancouver election.

I shake my head, because I'm at a loss. I try to fill up my five minutes, but I just can't imagine what arguments I could bring to this House to convince the minister and the cabinet — including the Attorney General, who has firsthand personal experience with this — to act in this incredibly important issue that is not controversial in Vancouver. It's not. Everybody agrees it needs to happen.

The law needs to change. In the absence of that, every party will do the best they can to raise as much and spend as much as they can. Yet at the same time, they are coming forward, asking us to put the rules in place that bind all the parties to the same standard. This government must do it. It must do it. This amendment must pass.

I thank my colleague very much for bringing this forward and putting the government on the spot for their inaction on this.

G. Heyman: I'd like to add my voice in support of this amendment. Yesterday in this chamber we debated an amendment that would see some of the provisions of this particular amendment, which follows the requests of the city of Vancouver, enacted provincially. I still believe that's a good idea. I believe, as many do across the province, that it's not just a good idea for local government; it's a good idea for the provincial government.

It's in fact in place, in terms of corporate and union donations, federally, and quite frankly, the world hasn't fallen apart. One of the most important things that we can do in this chamber, one of the most important things we're sent here to do, is to represent the best interests of
[ Page 3371 ]
our constituents and to liaise with the local governments in the areas in which we represent and help them achieve their aspirations and their proposals for what they think will benefit the citizens in the smooth functioning of local government.

As my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey and my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville have pointed out, it is, in some ways, inexplicable to me that we are debating this instead of passing it. It's a great disappointment to me that friends on the opposite side of the House who are also from the city of Vancouver are not representing the wishes of a local government that was overwhelmingly elected by the people of Vancouver.

I think we have a responsibility here, and I'm concerned that we're not meeting it. I'm concerned, as my colleagues have said, about the complete ramping up out of control of spending on municipal elections.

We spend much time in this Legislature talking about effective use of money and responsibility to taxpayers, and what we are seeing is people being elected to local government in Vancouver with just absolutely gargantuan expenditures in order to out-campaign each other, to out-advertise each other. This, frankly, could be addressed by limits, which the city of Vancouver has asked for.

It could also be addressed by taking big money, whether it's union or corporate donations, out of the local electoral process. One very direct impact that this has is to make it almost impossible for well-meaning people with good ideas to get elected to municipal council in the city of Vancouver unless they're tied to a big moneymaking machine. That's not in the interests of democracy. It's not in the interests of the people I represent in Vancouver-Fairview. It's not in the interests of good government or democratic participation.

We know, I think, that massive amounts of advertising and excessive campaigning dampen voter participation. They raise cynicism among voters. It's simply wrong. And when the city of Vancouver asks repeatedly if the government is not willing or can't achieve a consensus among local governments across the province that this is a good idea provincially, despite the fact that I and many others believe it to be, at least let the city of Vancouver, Vancouver's largest community, set and chart its own course in the interests of its citizens. I urge that this amendment be passed.

[1155]

S. Simpson: I'll be very brief with this. I want to thank my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville for bringing this amendment forward. As a Vancouver member and one who's keenly followed and watched the municipal scene and been active in it, I've seen the effect of money.

It is true: Vancouver is a unique place. Maybe Surrey is getting there now. Maybe some other jurisdictions are getting there as they grow, but Vancouver is a place where money plays an inordinate role in local politics. Millions and millions of dollars are spent.

As my colleagues have said, there simply is no way, if you're not invested with people who can generate that money, that you're going to have any opportunity to be elected. We know the democratic processes, and we recognize them at the provincial and federal levels, where we do have spending limits in place, where we do have transparency around contributions and, in the case of the federal level, where they have put bans in place on certain types of donations — in that case, corporate and union donations — and put further limits in place.

Here, provincially, we deal with the matter, where we do truly have spending limits. It makes a difference. There's still enough money there for me to get my message out, but it's not just about money. It is about ideas. It is about candidates and the quality of candidates. Those things are bigger than the money at the provincial level. I believe that that's true, and it's true at the federal level.

It's not true in Vancouver. Money is a dominant force. As has been pointed out, this is not a partisan issue. Every major political organization in Vancouver understands what's happened there because of money and understands that money is hurting the democratic process in Vancouver. And they want the capacity to deal with that.

Vancouver is a sophisticated jurisdiction. It's a jurisdiction with lots of capacity to deal with this, to do it properly and to be politically accountable for it. A change to the charter would make Vancouver politically accountable for this. It would make the mayor, would make the political parties there, accountable to demonstrate their willingness to deal with this.

I would urge the minister to really just consider this one amendment. It would dramatically improve this legislation, I believe, and it would then allow the people of Vancouver to have a more fundamentally democratic process that is based on ideas, principles and values more than money. Sadly, today it's mostly based on money.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver–West End. Perhaps, noting the hour, we can resume after.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes. Noting the hour, I move that we adjourn debate, but I reserve my place to take part in this debate.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise and report progress, as my friend said, and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.
[ Page 3372 ]

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

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

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Dalton in the chair.

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

On Vote 18: ministry operations, $5,350,361,000 (continued).

R. Fleming: I have a number of questions in the remaining time that I'll try and make short.

First, where I'd like to begin is just to go back to Decoda Literacy funding. My colleague from Alberni raised it in regards to literacy outreach in his community. This is something that the minister has had to spend a lot of time on. I know he has received a lot of letters. The Select Standing Committee on Finance made a recommendation, which did not make it into the budget, to have multi-year stable funding.

I would ask him, given that there is all-party support for this…. There is a pattern in the ministry of making less money available for literacy outreach programs — cutting funds — and then the minister swooping in at the 11th hour and saving it because it will create chaos. It will reduce things that MLAs and everybody that represents communities and constituents, whether it's mayors or school trustees, want.

We're talking about a very relatively small, amount of money — because we've been talking about some big numbers in this set of estimates — $2½ million just to have the historic funding level guaranteed going forward, at least on a three-year basis. That gives the minister lots of time to review it. But it seems that we are stuck in this pattern where uncertain funding happens annually.

[1105]

The literacy problem is not going away any time soon in B.C. It needs a sustained, long-term effort in B.C., and therefore it needs a funding strategy that goes along with that.

We are lagging behind places like Yukon, Ontario, Alberta and Prince Edward Island in terms of literacy rates. There was, once upon a time, a great golden goal that this government had to have the highest literacy rates on the continent. You just have to ask yourselves: where has this all gone?

It's small communities in particular where improving literacy is essential for economic development, including goals that this government has set out, and they just can't do it when they're using duct tape and baling twine to keep literacy outreach efforts going on an annual basis. They're driving people out who are experienced literacy trainers. They risk losing and alienating their volunteer base, which is worth millions and millions of dollars to this government.

I would just ask the minister if he can answer, you know, in his own personal way, if he chooses…. These programs are valuable. I know he knows that. The ask is the same one that the Standing Committee on Finance had: stable multi-year funding. Can he find a way to do that in the budget that we're examining here in estimates?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Before I answer the specific question, I wanted to read a couple of things into the record — questions that were asked yesterday that I can ensure are on the record.

The usage of 555 West Hastings — the member asked the question about it and the cost. Just some statistics that can be on the record. We have 70 all-day meetings in boardrooms from January 1 to April 4. Estimated cost of $550 each for off-site facilities that might include catering, if we had to do that off site, off of that particular site.

The projected 12-month value of these all-day meetings is over $115,000. We have daily bilateral and small-group meetings of a short duration. We have office space for four full-time Vancouver-based ministry staff that are housed there. We have a drop-in office for use by Education and Advanced Education staff. The minister's office uses it on a number of occasions, as I've mentioned.

I think what's important here is the learning workplace strategy's lease savings. We calculated over $565,000.

The second one I wanted to read into the record was a question from a member from Surrey about the Punjabi language program. I was asked about that. We'll provide that in writing. I just want to say that the work is going on with the school district. The superintendent has had a number of very productive meetings.

Going to the literacy issue. The member said, and I do know, clearly, that we have a number of facets of literacy across our communities. We're focused on the K to 12.
[ Page 3373 ]
We've been working with other community agencies to make sure that Decoda and other agencies embrace those kinds of activities with other stakeholders, businesses and so on. Even in my own community, with the diversity of population that comes in, literacy for new immigrants is very important. We are looking at, as I said yesterday, the funding formula.

[1110]

I appreciate that Decoda would like us to make a commitment. But because of the way we have invested in literacy and continue to do it…. I think the member is aware that we have some of the best literacy outcomes in the K-to-12 system of any jurisdiction in this country. The proof of the pudding is the actual delivery of programs for students and their outcomes in their journey through education.

B.C. students have been ranked amongst the highest in the world, and we recognize that Decoda is doing good work. When I met with them and I was able to then subsequently inform them that we were able to find some additional funding…. One of the things I've challenged them to do, as I've done other community agencies, is to look at other ways to raise the support they need.

But I will say this very clearly. We recognize the value of community organizations, but our focus has to be on K-to-12. When you look at that since 2003 the ministry has invested over $33 million with Decoda to give them the opportunity to develop the infrastructure that they have, I think the proof of the pudding is that we have been very supportive. We will continue to work with them as we move forward. As we look at funding formulas and the delivery of services as they affect K-to-12, we will continue to see if we can find additional solutions.

R. Fleming: I hope the minister can do better than that. He knows literacy outreach programs benefit 400 communities in B.C. We've got 102 literacy outreach coordinators that are funded by Decoda. It's not about Decoda. It's about all of the regional-based literacy organizations, including one in his own constituency.

No organization can survive with a prospect of 35 percent funding and a 65 percent liability, zero percent funding, on an annual basis. They cannot recruit and retain boards of directors. They can't keep volunteer morale up. We will lose this. We will lose the services that they provide, which are extremely valuable to tens of thousands of British Columbians annually, many of whom are in the K-to-12 age or recently above the age of 18.

I think the minister also appreciates — and I just don't understand why he won't commit to fund it properly — that the services that are provided by these organizations are incredibly nimble. There is no way that a government–directly run literacy outreach system could do what this informal network of professional literacy trainers do for British Columbia every day. There's no way government could do it at $2½ million. They leverage tens of millions of dollars of volunteer services. They partner with the business community in their own regions and solicit donations. They are efficient. They've been willing to go through government's core review. I think they've done that.

They've made their case over and over again, and they've persuaded MLAs on the Liberal side of the House and New Democrats. They have an all-party appreciation — 85 MLAs know and appreciate what they do in their communities. It's the Minister of Education's job to make sure that that's advocated properly at cabinet so that we can move past this issue and have stable multi-year funding. I'm going to leave it there.

I'm going to move on to libraries — again, a service mostly funded by municipalities but one which is incredibly important to K-to-12 education. Here we have seen some funding changes that have had to be picked up by regional library services and municipal taxpayers, because beginning in 2009 the historic grant was cut from $18 million down to $14 million. Provincial funding is now only 5 percent of library budget totals, but it's an important 5 percent. I think that point has been made loud and clear by advocates of library services and by those who are making seamless the K-to-12 system schools and the public libraries that are in their communities.

I know from the minister's own advice that he's received internally that the funding decrease in 2009 "had a significant effect on the province's influence in the library sector" and that it "worsened trust relationships with libraries and key partners." Now, I know we're not facing a cut in this year, but we're keeping the historic reduction that has been ongoing and caused a lot of difficulties where it is.

[1115]

I wanted to ask the minister not about the grant per se but about ministry employees, library branch staff, in his ministry. It's my understanding that library branch staff in the Ministry of Education are now one-third of what they used to be, in terms of FTE numbers, just a few years ago. Recently the competition for the director of libraries position was cancelled. Maybe the minister could provide some information as to why that hiring was cancelled.

I think it's particularly interesting that it is a legal statutory requirement under existing provincial legislation. "The minister must designate as director of public library service a person who is appointed under the Public Service Act and is a qualified librarian." This legislation remains in place. The hiring posting was cancelled, and it seems to me that that is out of compliance with the statutes that he's sworn to uphold.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Libraries happen to be a passion of mine, as the member may know, having been the chair of the Fraser Valley Regional Library board. In all of the years, the eight years, that I served in that capacity, I ac-
[ Page 3374 ]
tually was an advocate for libraries with the provincial government. In those discussions at that time one of the things that we looked at in the library system was efficiencies. Are we providing the best level of service? How do we interact with the post-secondary institutions?

There is a lot of work going on in the library world — not to cut services but to realign services to meet the needs of people today. I'm a passionate supporter of libraries. In my former city hall we had a library. I used to go down and meet with people, and I saw some of the shifts that were happening. Libraries aren't just a place where you go and read books or whatever. They are a gathering place. They are a community centre almost, in effect.

A lot of discussion, I know, is going on with library boards and communities about what libraries really represent to those communities. I think that's a very important assessment of where we are today and where we need to go tomorrow.

On the case in terms of the competition for the director, that is on hold. It has not been cancelled. It has been put on hold as we go through our entire core review process within the ministry. We are looking at all of the efficiencies. Yes, indeed. I think it is a testament to the ministry, even before I was asked to be become the minister, how hard ministry staff have worked to show the example of finding efficiencies, of doing the job within our budget framework that we have to work with. I applaud ministry staff for doing that.

I can assure the member that libraries have not become less of a priority for this government or for local communities. Once we have finished our core review, we will indeed be looking at where we go in terms of hiring. As I said, that particular one is on hold at the moment, not cancelled.

R. Fleming: I appreciate part of the minister's response there. I know he has a lot of experience with libraries. There are not many government services that can boast half the population as active users. I think there are 2½ million British Columbians that use libraries. He's right. Libraries are changing, and governments need to align how libraries work with other institutions.

That's why it is so important that the Ministry of Education maintain influence, which is something that one of the ministry's own internal briefing notes expressed fears about — that this was eroding.

[1120]

I mentioned that the library branch inside his ministry is at one-third the staffing level that it was a few years ago. I'm pleased to hear that this position is merely postponed. Perhaps the minister can say until when. I think a lot of people are interested in knowing that.

There are some fears out there, because nobody can quite sense what the province's direction is on libraries, other than to trim funding and gap positions that liaise with municipalities and do the library planning work in the province. One of the fears is that the library branch itself is going to be eliminated entirely.

I wonder if you can just put on the record — hopefully, to allay fears that exist out there amongst libraries and municipal governments — that this is, in fact, not the case. Is the library branch here to stay? Is it going to remain in your ministry? I know there are some who feel it should be with local government. What is the future, as the minister sees it, for the library branch and for libraries within the Ministry of Education?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Libraries and the access to knowledge are an absolute core function within our communities and within our provincial government. Part of what we've done in the Ministry of Education — and it's not just the library branch; a number of other areas of our ministry in the past have been realigned — is we've been looking at how those services are going to be delivered most effectively.

I'm not in a position at this stage to say how that alignment is going to look as we move forward. But I will say this. A $14 million investment in local community libraries throughout the province is an indication of this government's commitment to libraries. I also recognize the relationship that local governments play and the important investment that they make.

Part of our review is working with local governments and with the library groups around the province to discuss, including with the Ministry of Advanced Education, how we can provide those services more efficiently but not at the expense of the quality of the product.

I will only say this. As we go forward in core review, it will become obvious as to some of the changes or realignments that we might make. But I'm not in a position today to articulate those because we haven't finished that work.

R. Fleming: I just want to ask a few questions about capital. I know there are a number of streams in different funds. The ministry's own analysis and advice to the minister suggest that the Ministry of Education hasn't had a routine capital plan approved by government since 2005-2006. So we're getting close to ten years here. Capital planning for transportation infrastructure became government's priority, and this fell off the radar.

We have 1,600 public schools in B.C. Most of those are of a certain age in terms of that building stock. The question I want to ask about relates to the backlog of deferred maintenance. I'll quote this ministry note. "The lack of capital funding in the education sector in recent years" — this is dated 2013 — "has resulted in some schools in growing districts operating well above their intended capacities and a backlog of deferred maintenance."

I'm just wondering if the minister can quantify what the value of the backlog of deferred maintenance is in
[ Page 3375 ]
total. I assume they have worked this out with superintendents and secretary-treasurers, but I don't have a number for that. Also, if there's anything in terms of the trend.

[1125]

Deferred maintenance grows in cost to address as the years advance if it's put off further, because building stock deteriorates even more and, of course, the cost of construction rises. So if he has any numbers that might show — say, 2012-2013 and going forward — that would be appreciated.

Hon. P. Fassbender: There are a number of issues relating to this. Our staff work with local school districts, and I'm sure the member knows that the issues of maintenance and the plans for maintenance by district and by school are, of course, done by them. The ministry typically provides $110 million every year in the annual facilities grant to boards for routine maintenance requirements. This is normally split between about one-third operating and two-thirds capital funding. I'm sure the member can do the arithmetic on that.

I think what is important is that we're just in the process of finalizing five years of assessment of every school in the province through VFA Canada, which is an organization that's helping us to develop a very robust and detailed database on the state of maintenance in our schools. To suggest we don't have a plan…. I'm not sure the member was saying that. We actually do have a very good plan. We are working, again, on a daily basis with school districts on that.

We've got 60 boards of education. They own over 2,000 facilities. For us to have a really robust plan…. That's why that five-year assessment of every state of every school and facility in the province has been important.

VFA Canada was contracted by us, as they have been by other agencies within government, to assist us with the school districts in that stewardship program. From what I am aware, it is a program that is going to serve us and all of the school districts very well.

R. Fleming: Now, according to the ministry's own characterization, assessments have been done, and they're updated. I understand that. The existing stock of schools in the province, based on recent assessments…. This is how the ministry puts it: "At current funding levels, deferred maintenance requirements will continue to grow each year."

[1130]

Surely they have a number, because there have been some five-year planning projects that the minister has described, on what the deferred maintenance costs are today, in total, for all of those schools across B.C. What is the annual growth rate of deferred maintenance — in other words, the shortfall over capital investments versus growing deferred costs?

Hon. P. Fassbender: We don't have a specific number, because the number changes virtually every day. Once a project is done, it comes off. Another one may come on. There may be re-evaluations. I will ask staff if we can come up with….

The problem with the number is that it does fluctuate. The difficulty in putting a number down is that tomorrow that number will be different. I will ask staff, as they drill into the assessment…. If there are more updates that we can provide the member, we will do that.

R. Fleming: I would appreciate that from the minister. Obviously, to do capital planning properly, you have to have numbers. That's what the assessments are done for, presumably.

I want to ask specifically about one program that is on the maintenance capital challenge for the ministry, and that is one that is managed by B.C. Housing, the building envelope program. This is done on behalf of the ministry.

My understanding is the building envelope program is a remediation program for schools built between 1985 and 2000. It's sort of the leaky-condo era of school construction, where there is significant water damage. The figure I have is that just in this category or classification of buildings — and I don't know how many there are; maybe the minister could enlighten me on how many schools were built in that era and have issues around water ingress — there is $160 million worth of work that remains to be done, and failing to do it will result in further deterioration and additional costs.

Is this accurate? That $160 million — how many schools is that estimated to be required to fix?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The total number of projects in the figures that I have is 181, and 63 of them have been completed at a cost of about $96 million. There are a further 118 projects. Indeed, the estimated cost for those is $158 million.

Again, within the funding envelope, we are working on those as quickly as we can within our ministry budget. I can't give you a sense of when those will be done, but we have done about a third of them already.

R. Fleming: Maybe just a final question on capital. I may be getting the program or the fund, if it's a fund, name wrong, but it's the school protection program. You can correct me in your response. This is something that, one would assume, helps districts plan for unintended losses — acts of God, those kinds of things — around fire or flood or loss, building component failures. It's like an insurance fund that is pooled between all the schools around the province.

My understanding is that if a school is lost to a fire, for example, costs over and above the insurance that the district may have…. This school protection program is not a provincial assistance program for districts that then need
[ Page 3376 ]
to rebuild an asset.

[1135]

I'm just wondering what this program does. Is it, in fact, a contingency? Is it a fund that has money sitting in it? If the minister could enlighten me a little bit.

Hon. P. Fassbender: This program, as the member is probably aware, is administered by the Ministry of Finance, so I don't have the actual numbers of what has been done. What is clear in it from the school protection program is that that insurance coverage is much cheaper than if districts were to go out and purchase their own.

I think an important point here is that in the event that we have a fire like we did in Prince George, it isn't automatically assumed that that school would be rebuilt on that site. What the ministry does in a situation like that is work with the school district to look at whether or not that school might be located in a different place, if there is capacity within the district where the school would not need to be replaced because there is capacity available.

If the member would like more details on the dollars and how the program is run by the Ministry of Finance, I would urge the member to ask those questions of the Ministry of Finance.

R. Fleming: I want to ask about curriculum review. I realize we have very limited time. I'll try and put this into one question.

I know that the ministry is convening a curriculum review committee. They have met a number of times. They've focused on K to 7 — I think maybe K to 9 now. I think there is a remarkable consensus about the need to revise the curriculum, to move from a sort of content-based system to a competencies-based education system.

One of the things, as you take sort of standard things that must be taught in the integrated resource plan model that we've had and move to something different, is that stakeholders will feel they may lose something. One of the controversies that has arisen — and the minister, I presume, knows about this now — is environmental education.

[1140]

In the first draft that was released — quite an overhaul in terms of how science is taught in regards to the environment, concepts of stewardship and sustainability and those sorts of things. I've heard an awful lot about it. Many of the teachers that care deeply about this and are experienced teaching it happen to live on the south Island, but around British Columbia this is a concern — and I think within the Teachers Federation now.

They have received a response that, I think, so far, is not satisfactory. I mean, it's a twofold response. "Oh, this is just the first iteration. There will be several more," I think is response 1.

Specifically, science and social studies and a requirement to have environmental education as a key part of that to develop inquiry skills in students, a sense of citizenship and those sorts of things…. It has been removed, and so far, there is a lot of concern that the big ideas around ecology, food chains and environmental stewardship have been completely taken out of the curriculum.

Can the minister — he's probably had some time to review this — give any assurances today that this has been heard, has been revised and is now included in the curriculum, and if not, when that might likely be dealt with by the curriculum review committee?

Hon. P. Fassbender: This is probably one of the most important things that the Ministry of Education is currently working on, moving to the future. I'm sure the member is aware that in the work that was done to draft the first look at K to 9, we had over 1,000 teachers in varying degrees of involvement through the BCTF, various committees at the BCTF that helped us to develop the new approach to curriculum and the draft that was out from K to 9.

I met with a number of stakeholders from the environmental community and also from the mining industry, as an example, who are used to seeing curriculum that was probably this deep, and there were lines for just about everything. What we're attempting to do here is to compress the curriculum overall to the big ideas.

Issues of environmental sustainability, what the core industries and what mining, for example, mean to this province, and so on, have not been lost. They haven't been detailed the same way as they were in the past, but for example, on the mining industry, one of the things in the draft curriculum that is there is taking those bigger concepts and spreading them out over more grade areas as opposed to just in, say, grades 6 and 7.

The bottom line here is any change to something as significant as the curriculum is very, very important, and we have been getting tremendous feedback. Clearly, we said that before we implement any new curriculum, we are going to take all of that valuable feedback that we're getting from a whole host of sectors, including teachers who have now had a chance to drill into it even more, from the BCTF and from other stakeholders to make sure that it meets the needs of young people moving forward in the future.

Our clear focus is about learning outcomes, about graduating students from our system, be they aboriginal students or new immigrants or students who have been born here. The bottom line is that they are well prepared for a changing world and that they have all of the core competencies they need but also a well-rounded educational program. That is the intent.

That's why it has been taking as long as it has — to make sure we don't lose what we need to have in it but we don't overload it with things that perhaps in this day and age are not as appropriate as they might have been 20 or 30 years ago.
[ Page 3377 ]

[1145]

R. Fleming: I want to ask a question about court costs, legal bills. The ministry is again in court. We've asked about this before. We've received a very unsatisfying response that the Ministry of Education doesn't have a legal budget, that they get it from the Ministry of the Attorney General, and therefore, it's somehow free.

Now, let's not go into that. The minister was accurate within the talking points that are used on this issue that there isn't a chargeback system used around legal bills in government — I understand all of that — and that government was using in-house legal counsel even up to the filing of the appeal that is ongoing and before the courts right now.

I think we did ask about this in question period. That was the response he gave. Then a couple of days later government changed its legal counsel, and they stopped using in-house legal counsel, and they went and hired Howard Shapray. Now, one lawyer I know in Vancouver told me, when I asked him how much Mr. Shapray costs per hour — because naturally, I would be curious, as the Education critic — "If you have to ask that, you can't afford him."

Could I ask the minister how much the taxpayers are paying now to switch legal counsel in the midst of the appeal for his services? What are his rates? What is the budget to carry the appeal — because we do have scheduled court dates now — to its conclusion, that the taxpayers can expect to fund?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Perhaps not a satisfactory answer, but I would refer the member to the Ministry of the Attorney General, who is responsible for legal counsel and any cases that are brought forward. It's not the Ministry of Education's budget, and I would urge the member to speak to the Ministry of the Attorney General.

R. Fleming: I'm not sure that that kind of system drives the most efficient uses of legal resources in government — when somebody else is "paying for it." We have been told and reminded countless times throughout this ministry's estimates and others that there's only one taxpayer.

I will leave that aside and just ask the minister about a debate that was quite lively at the B.C. School Trustees Association last week. We've talked about it here in estimates. It has become front and centre since the letter in early April from the deputy about "surplus funds" being used to rewrite the seismic funding policy.

I think the minister appreciates the difference between cash balances that show a "surplus" and surplus funds, because he's acknowledged that just a couple of days ago here in this chamber and then at the BCSTA AGM and in other public venues.

But in the media and, I think, in his responses to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant he's gone back to categorizing school districts as sitting on vast pools of surplus funds and therefore ripe to have situations where seismic policies are drastically changed and where the unfunded shortfalls of government are not a problem, whether it's the hydro rates, the MSP rates, the unfunded pension contributions or just the cost of inflation, which is tens of millions of dollars for school boards annually.

He knows better. He said that on a number occasions. In fact, I recall him speaking directly to a question asked by the chair of school district 61. She asked him in a hotel, with 300 or 400 people, through the microphone, and I'm paraphrasing: "Minister, will you commit to stop characterizing in the media and in public the situation that school districts have fiscally as being a situation of surplus?" The minister gave the shortest answer I have ever heard him say. He said: "Yes."

[1150]

There were some doubters in the room who said that that would last probably just a few minutes or a few hours, but I think he kept it going for a few days. But we've now heard him characterize, as we did in the estimates debate, Vancouver sitting on surpluses annually, year after year after year, as if they have a pile of money.

These are restricted funds. He knows that. They have committed expenditures applied to them. They come during the fiscal year. He knows the ups and downs, the flow and the balances, the cash balances. So I would ask him again to put on the record, as he did to 300 or 400 school trustees in Vancouver: will he stop characterizing school districts as sitting on a vast heap of unallocated surplus cash when he knows that's not true and he's acknowledged it?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I realize we're getting close to the hour, so before we finish, I want to make it extremely clear what I've said, what I've committed to and what commitments I made. I'm sure I have the member's undivided attention and probably those that may want to look at the proceedings of these estimates.

Number 1, the financing of school districts and provincial government ministries like the Ministry of Education is not a single answer. They're very complex, and there are a number of elements that go into it.

Specifically speaking to the school district in Vancouver, I had a meeting with the board chair and a number of her senior staff and my senior staff. Our discussion at that time was on the shared funding and the issues that came out as a result of the budget and the Auditor General's report.

We clearly know — and I will give this figure just so the member has this — that as of April 22, 2014, school districts had a total of $342 million on deposit with the provincial treasury central deposit program. Now, that was done to help school districts. The interest that they receive from that helps them manage their budgets.
[ Page 3378 ]

What I clearly said to the school board in Vancouver: their responsibility is to look at all of the issues that contribute to their budget. They have to look at their capacity issues. They have to look at how they manage the other sources of income that they have. That all goes into their overall budget.

What I do know is that when we look at their financial statements…. And I've read the list. Those are the facts of the accumulated surpluses that they had at the end of each year. I did not say, and I do not say here today, that that is money that's just sitting there, that is unallocated or is not accounted for. I clearly recognize the hard job that they have to manage their budgets, to manage through and to be able to bring in a balanced budget year after year.

Interestingly, last night…. I've read the media reports, and the Vancouver school board was able to bring in a balanced budget, albeit not without challenge, albeit with saying that they are using some surplus funds or contingencies that they had to balance their budget. And their concern is that that may put them at risk because they don't have what they would like to have in any form of contingency in case they have other issues.

Let me say very clearly and put it on the record. I realize how hard every school district works. Our ministry staff works with them. What we have clearly said is that if there are dollars that are available to reduce the need for government as a whole to borrow money, we would expect we'd have that discussion. We're doing it on a case-by-case basis. We're doing that with Vancouver. We're doing that with Coquitlam. We're doing it with every single school district across the province.

[1155]

I am not pointing a finger, saying that school districts are sitting there with huge piles of cash that they could be using. But I am saying that the entire formula for financing school districts is their responsibility, in conjunction with the provincial government. If there are dollars that can be reallocated or other priorities that can be put back in order to assist us moving ahead on capital projects, then we will have that discussion with them.

I clearly know that if there aren't dollars available, we're not asking them to come up with dollars that they don't have.

Vote 18: ministry operations, $5,350,361,000 — approved.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

R. Fleming: I would like to thank the minister for these past few days and, in particular, Ministry of Education senior staff who have been directly able to assist him and all of those ministry employees who are assisting from the ministry office. I appreciate their work and appreciate the minister's time during this process.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.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 © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada