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)

Monday, May 26, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 13, Number 6

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

MONDAY, MAY 26, 2014

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Sturdy: My new CA, Nicola Bentley, is in the House today. Please have the House make her welcome.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

SAFEGUARDING YOUNG PEOPLE'S FUTURE

G. Heyman: We have now entered graduation season. It's a time of transition for young people. It's a time they want to celebrate. They have a lot to celebrate — both what they've accomplished and their future. It's also a time when they're called upon to exercise judgment, often based on their limited life experience. It's a time their judgment is also often affected by their peers.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Shannon Raymond. Ernest Azoadam. MacKenzie Gortva. These three young people are the reason I'm speaking this morning.

It's been almost six years since 16-year-old Shannon Raymond died following a party which was followed by a trip on a party bus in which alcohol and drugs were readily available. It's been 15 months since 16-year-old Ernest Azoadam died at Surrey Memorial Hospital after being found abandoned at a Chevron station in Surrey following a ride on a party bus.

[1005]

It's been six months since 17-year-old MacKenzie Gortva and three of her friends were picked up in Surrey and given free alcohol while on a party bus. MacKenzie was then sucker-punched by a male passenger, and rather than being taken for care, she was taken off the bus and left in a parking lot, along with her three friends, while the bus drove away. MacKenzie survived, but there could have been another outcome.

There are undoubtedly countless incidents about which we haven't heard. Youth are vulnerable, particularly to those who provide them with drugs and alcohol and ignore their duty to offer protection.

Some time ago the former Transportation Minister, now the Environment Minister, promised to review regulations in order to increase the safety of the party bus industry. In March 2013 she said: "Should there be a narrowing, a specific type of licence? Those are the questions we're asking as we undertake the review." She also said: "As a mother and as Minister of Transportation, I will not tolerate unsafe practices that put our young people at risk." Yet there's still no action — simply a pledge to talk tough to the industry.

Party buses are usually licensed under the Ministry of Transportation's general authorization category, which is the most wide-open category. It requires no chauffeur permit, and fares are not regulated. They do not even have the level of regulation that applies to limousines and taxis. More and more of these vehicles are operating as little more than rolling bars, often targeting under-age customers.

This unregulated industry is operating on the fringes of the legitimate taxi and limousine industry, and it threatens youth and threatens public safety. We as legislators, as legislators around this continent are beginning to demonstrate, have a very special duty to protect the safety of young people.

In 2012 California passed laws to protect under-age passengers from harm and to end the practice of dumping sick or distressed passengers in isolated, dangerous locations. There is now a requirement for chaperones to be on board. They caught up to the rules for other passenger vehicles because their party buses, like here in B.C., operated in a great grey area. That legislation passed both the state senate and the assembly with no opposition whatsoever.

Recently in Long Island, New York, a bus driver claimed not to know that 42 teens on board had more than 100 cans of beer plus bottles of hard liquor. This was only brought to police attention following a 911 call from a bystander who heard a young girl's screams for help. As a result of this, in New York a state assemblyman and a state senator are introducing laws that would regulate the party bus industry, saying: "We are incredibly lucky that none of the children on that bus were hurt. We cannot afford to take that chance again."

In Washington State the Utilities and Transportation Commission looked at the United States and B.C., although they had not had much in the way of reported incidents, and they've decided to be proactive. They've begun the process to develop legislation for the next legislative session in January.

The commission's report was well received by both parties in a joint transportation committee, and they expect the legislation, when it's introduced in January, to have bipartisan support. The study they presented that was so well received noted that between 2009 and mid-2013 party buses were involved in 22 incidents in the United States and British Columbia, and 21 of those resulted in fatalities.

There is industry support for regulation. Tommy
[ Page 4090 ]
Cuscito, the longtime owner of Vancouver Partybuses and Limousines, wrote to the Transportation Minister recently, asking that he tighten the rules, saying that unsafe operators were giving his industry a bad name. "At least 50 percent are not playing by the rules. A general authorization licence to operate a limo or bus is practically turnkey. There are no background checks."

[1010]

We see ads for the industry that show open drinking. That is part of what sells this to children. We can't afford to turn a blind eye and simply say: "The law is there, and it should be enforced." It's clear that a greater level of regulation — at least akin to taxis and limousines — needs to be brought in to protect young people from unscrupulous operators who, unfortunately, are making up a large part of the expansion of this industry.

We need greater enforcement of existing laws as well as new regulation that should be brought in. We need stiffer fines, because we cannot afford to wait for another tragedy before we act. The time is now.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the member opposite. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to the issues raised by the hon. member, for the subject certainly is worthy of discussion.

Youth safety, especially at this time of the year, is a concern. But really, we should be thinking about it every day. Safety is about the quality of judgment and decision-making in a complex environment not just for government and industry but for each and every one of us at an individual level.

This issue is recent, current and compelling to me. Last year — in which, in the province, we had two grave incidents involving youths, party buses and substance abuse — my daughter was celebrating her high school graduation — and my older daughter the year before.

Really, what is a father to do? Perhaps we've forgotten, but I think we do all know what it's like to be young, perhaps naive and maybe impetuous, during a rite of spring — a graduation — when you feel as though you'll live forever. As a parent, you hope they make good decisions. You trust that they think critically and understand that every day they're making choices that have consequences and that, ultimately, they're the ones who will live with those consequences.

You trust that they understand the need to be aware of their surroundings, that they assess risk and make decisions appropriately. Be it in the mountains, on the ocean or downtown, be it biking or driving or gaming, meeting a new dog, a new boss or attending another party — we all have to keep an eye out to look and listen and make thoughtful, considered decisions.

My wife and I tried to incorporate the idea of a decision tree in our family discussions, albeit imperfectly. We talked with our girls about our lives and choices, both good and bad, the risks, and the potential and real consequences. I know my wife will comment that I have a tendency to be creative — or very creative perhaps — in my negative consequence generation. But you know, I don't like to be surprised, and I don't want my kids to be, either. Bad things can happen regardless, but there's little to be lost from thinking critically and understanding the risks you take.

As a parent, we just can't be there all the time, ready to help out. Right now my two girls are in Africa, and for whatever reason the Whip wouldn't give me leave for a month. We were on FaceTime with them yesterday, and they were telling us about what was going on with them, and it all seems good. But they're on their own way. We can only hope that with some good judgment and a little luck, they'll be home in no time.

Whether you're in Africa or Vancouver, in the mountains or on the job, hanging out at the lake or on a party bus, we all have decisions to make. As a society and as a government, we have a collective responsibility to legislate and regulate and create codes of ethics, and we do. From food to fuel, mediations to merry-go-rounds, the rules of conduct are most often clear — as they are in the circumstances of party buses. Open alcohol is prohibited in a motor vehicle, be it a car, a limousine or a bus. It is against the law.

I understand that the passenger transportation branch of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure contacted bus charters and limousine operators to review their policies regarding transporting liquor in vehicles, and reminded them of their obligations and responsibilities under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act.

[1015]

We must recognize not only that are there many transportation options that graduates will be making use of at this time of the year — transportation planning should be top of mind, given the usual intensity and duration of grad celebrations — but that there will be many other critical choices to be made that day or on any day. There isn't any substitute for vigilance and personal judgment.

Government has a part to play, as do parents. But ultimately, it's the responsibility of the individual to be their own best advocate, to keep an eye out for themselves and others, to plan for the worst and hope for the best. At least, that's what this farmer would do.

I do welcome the chance to ruminate on our collective and individual rights and responsibilities, and I do thank the member opposite for the opportunity.

G. Heyman: While I welcome the concern expressed by the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, we ultimately part company over the thought that in the end we have to, essentially, police ourselves. There are so many areas in which we don't apply that criteria to adults, let alone to young people who are feeling their legs for the first time as young adults.

We have had serious incidents in British Columbia.
[ Page 4091 ]
We have had fatalities. We have had incidents that could have been far more serious than they were and might have been fatalities. More incidents will likely happen if we do nothing.

The industry itself is calling for greater regulation. As I mentioned, Tommy Cuscito of Vancouver Partybuses and Limousines also said: "Government right now has their blinders on. I think they should open their eyes and realize these challenges aren't going to go away". Todd Curley, also a general manager in the industry, said that the industry has been "spiralling out of control" for three years now.

We have an industry that openly advertises that when you are on their bus, the liquor laws will be broken. They do this by running ads showing people standing up, holding open bottles of alcohol and open glasses of alcohol. We know this is illegal whether you're an adult or a child, but we are not taking action. Do we have to wait for another tragedy while parents of children who have died lobby and advocate and try to get some closure and respect for the loss their families suffered?

Vancouver city council has endorsed a call for regulation, as has Maple Ridge. Recently the Lower Mainland municipal government association passed a call for regulation, and this will now go to the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Support for government action in this area is growing because there's a lack of appropriate regulation for the limousine and party bus industry. There is no requirement for chaperones. There is no requirement that people not be dropped off in an unsafe manner in the middle of nowhere if they are in distress or in trouble.

It is time to make change. It is time to listen to the voices of parents. It's time to listen to the voices of other jurisdictions that are being more proactive than British Columbia after reviewing British Columbia's own history. We can do better than simply saying that if there's open alcohol on a bus, you're subject to a $234 fine and a liquor pour-out. It is time to bring in specific regulations.

AAA

J. Yap: Last year British Columbians chose a government that would continue to balance the budget, keep taxes low and set the right economic conditions for our province. Well, it has only been just one year since the 2013 election. This government is on track and delivering precisely on that promise. It's with great pleasure, therefore, that I rise on behalf of my constituents of the riding of Richmond-Steveston to acknowledge British Columbia's triple-A credit rating, the highest credit rating possible.

One might ask: what is so important about the province earning a triple-A credit rating? Is it some esoteric academic construct? What's so important?

[1020]

Well, in short, it is an acknowledgment by international credit agencies that the B.C. government is directly on target by balancing the budget, by keeping control of government spending and by taking a balanced approach to increased demands on core programs such as health care and education while at the same time respecting the taxpayer.

More importantly, it means that, through prudent fiscal management, our government has the fiscal freedom to choose its own direction. Yes, we have made some difficult decisions to balance the budget and return the province to a position of financial strength. Still there are many, many demands to spend money in program areas. But through a disciplined approach, we have been able to focus on the most important priorities that matter to the people of British Columbia.

It should be mentioned that we have not been able to do this alone. Our hard-working professionals in the public service deserve a great deal of credit, because they have agreed to modest wage increases over the past few years. After the market meltdown in 2008, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, there are very few jurisdictions that enjoy a triple-A credit rating.

Through prudent fiscal management, British Columbia has worked hard to regain our financial freedom. But what does that mean in real terms? Even during the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis, British Columbia was still able to finance spending on vital capital projects.

While other jurisdictions were forced to curb spending and make drastic cutbacks, British Columbia was able to use our triple-A credit rating to stimulate the economy. While other jurisdictions were forced to put off the replacement of worn-out bridges and roads in desperate need of repair, British Columbia, our province, was in a position to make those investments and save taxpayers a considerable amount of money in the long run.

In the years following 2008 British Columbia continued to make significant investments in infrastructure, including schools, health facilities, public transit and improvements to our highways and bridges, all the things that make British Columbia a competitive economy. That is the value of a triple-A credit rating.

We have earned that credit rating because we have adhered to a disciplined approach to spending. For the second year in a row, British Columbia has balanced its budget. This is a remarkable accomplishment for any government, especially in the wake of 2008. It's the reason why British Columbia continues to maintain the highest credit rating possible with Moody's, Standard and Poor's and Fitch, the leading credit agencies in the world.

While this is good news, we must remain cognizant of a fragile global economy. While it may seem like time to pull out the champagne and pop the corks, we are by no means in the clear. In its most recent report Moody's Investors Service reminds us that the B.C. economy remains vulnerable to fluctuating demand for our natural resources.
[ Page 4092 ]

Weaker commodity prices could threaten the general outlook for the B.C. economy. This is the reason why we must adhere to a disciplined, prudent approach to fiscal management. As much as the opposition would like us to, this is not the time to throw open the doors on public spending. This would threaten our future.

In conclusion, I invite members opposite to support the value of sound fiscal management on the basis that job growth and our provincial economy is benefiting from a triple-A credit rating. I look forward to the comments of the member opposite.

M. Elmore: Thank you to the member for Richmond-Steveston for moving the motion today. I'm looking forward to responding to his statement.

[1025]

The concern I'd like to raise and register — it was referenced by the member — was certainly looking behind the credit rating but also acknowledging that the outlook has been downgraded from our previous provincial rating of stable to negative. I think it's important to have an understanding of some of those dynamics that have caused that downgrading of the outlook and look into some of those underlying issues that contribute to our financial stability here in British Columbia.

Moody's Investors Service downgraded B.C.'s outlook in December 2012 from stable — previously we were stable — to negative, and with the recent report, it maintains that rating as negative. So we have not seen a return to that level.

What were some of the concerns, in terms of driving that decision? The key behind that was the citing of the increased debt that we have here in British Columbia, lower than anticipated natural gas revenues, which we experience from time to time with the fluctuation of commodity prices in the global market, and also the regular pressures of expenses on our budget.

I think we need to have an understanding in terms of what's behind the concern registered by Moody's with respect to the debt and our accumulation of debt. When we look at our debt, it has really been a situation of ballooning debt. We've seen, not only over the past ten years but even if we look at the last two years, last three years, under this government and with Premier Clark, that we've added $10 billion to our debt. With our current fiscal plan to 2016, we're going to be adding an additional $14 billion debt.

That means that by the end of the plan our debt will have increased by $24.3 billion or 55 percent, and this is, indeed, the biggest increase in B.C. history — that, in the face of the recent election promise of running a debt-free B.C. We see that not only do we not have a debt-free B.C., but we are experiencing the fastest-growing debt ever, and in terms of reducing that, that's not in sight.

In addition to the debt and that going out of control, with regards to the concern with the other factors that were driving the downgrade in the outlook, with regards to our weaker commodity prices, certainly we have the concern with respect to the negotiations around what is going to be the tax and pricing regime with our liquefied gas industry. That's a concern, as well, and has not been addressed.

Behind that, as well, we have the reality of…. I'd characterize it as fiscal, financial mismanagement in a number of different areas that have driven the debt up. This is with regards to investment in projects that have exceeded the proposed budgets. We've seen budget overruns. We've also seen quite dramatic mismanagement in our Crown corporations — B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferries. We've seen costs rising there.

Additionally, with regards to our fiscal abilities, we've seen, on the one hand, a restriction of our revenues but also an increase in taxes, particularly, borne by British Columbians. We've seen, overall, an expansion of debt. We've seen mismanagement on a number of infrastructure investments, mismanagement in Crown corporations, leading to concerns in terms of the management of our economy.

[1030]

J. Yap: I'd to acknowledge and thank the member opposite for her comments. I gather from the tone of the comments that it sounds like she and, perhaps, members opposite believe that we should certainly move forward and build a brand-new industry, liquefied natural gas, to ensure British Columbia's continued economic growth and prosperity, which is exactly what this government is pursuing.

I'd like to draw on an example of what it would be like to not have a triple-A credit, and that is the Ontario example. The province of Ontario, once the economic powerhouse of Canada, does not have a triple-A credit rating.

With a higher cost of borrowing, Ontario has to pay 9.3 cents out of every tax dollar on interest. That's more than double what British Columbia pays, which is four cents on the dollar. If B.C. was in the same boat as Ontario, we would be paying roughly an additional $2.2 billion on servicing the debt. That's a $2.2 billion hole in our budget if we did not have a triple-A credit rating. Thankfully, that is not the case.

I still hold out hope that members opposite will join me in supporting B.C.'s prudent approach to managing tax dollars by prudent fiscal management, by making tough choices, by spending discipline and by ensuring that we continue to maintain the triple-A credit rating that we have earned as a result of these initiatives.

It takes discipline to control our spending despite many, many demands placed on the public purse. British Columbians have made it clear that they value a prudent approach to the management of their tax dollars, and the triple-A credit rating that British Columbia enjoys is a re-
[ Page 4093 ]
sult of our concerted efforts.

THE PRIVATE SECTOR

H. Bains: It is my pleasure to stand up today and speak about our economy, jobs and the private sector. In order to have a thriving economy, we all, I'm sure, agree that you must have a thriving, strong, vibrant and diverse private sector to create jobs and to improve our economy. In addition to that, we need a strong middle class and working class. We have neither. That's the problem.

Statistics that just came in recently, two weeks ago Friday, I think paint a very worrisome picture. I want to talk about that because it's not just this one report; it's the trend. When you go back 31 months ago, for the entire period the trend is there.

The trend is that we are losing private sector jobs rather than building and enhancing private sector jobs in the province. It's at a time when the last election was won over the economy and jobs. We have seen quite the opposite after the election, largely, I would say, due to neglect by the government to deal with some of the fundamentals that our economy is facing.

We are trying to put all eggs in one basket — LNG. The high-tech industry is ignored. The forest industry is ignored. Many other manufacturing industries are ignored. Time and again the industry, from all sectors, have it in mind that this government and everyone who will listen…. The difficulty is and the challenge that they face in investing in B.C. is because of the shortage of skills in this province.

I'll give you some of the statistics — and these are quite alarming — the recent report that came from Statistics Canada. B.C. lost 3,700 jobs last month, including 5,000 full-time jobs and 9,600 private sector jobs. That's the worrisome number — 9,600 private sector jobs.

Month after month we have seen these reports. You don't see any light at the end of the tunnel. That is not a good sign for our economy or our youngsters coming out of schools and universities. For example, youth 15 to 24 lost 5,500 jobs last month. The youth unemployment rate increased from 11.1 percent to 11.4 percent, and 41,000 youth are officially unemployed.

[1035]

There's a large amount of underemployment as well. There are 342,000 people in B.C. who want full-time work but can't get it. In addition to 143,000 people looking for work, there are 136,000 who work part-time but want a full-time job and 62,000 who want a job but have stopped actively looking for a job. Mr. Speaker, 62,000 have stopped looking for jobs. That is really worrisome.

Since the jobs plan started 30 months ago, B.C. has had one of Canada's worst records of job creation — sixth place in overall job creation. We created 26,600 jobs versus the population growth of 103,700 — eighth place for private sector job creation and tenth place for wage growth. If those are not worrisome numbers to that side of this House, then I feel for everyone who is looking for a job. I feel for all those who are coming out of schools and universities.

On top of that, if you want to really measure how our economy and jobs are doing, you need to actually look at not the unemployment rate; you need to look at the employment rate. Those 62,000 will not be counted when you are looking at the unemployment rate. Right now the B.C. employment rate is around 59 percent, which is second worst of the provinces. How does anyone have any faith in looking at a job and having a hope or opportunity — those who are coming out from the universities and schools? It's so bad….

Just looking historically, B.C. had almost the same as the Canada rate when it comes to employment — 63.7 percent prior to the recession that hit us, 2008-2009. The decline during the recession was much steeper. By summer 2009 it fell to just 62 percent. Since the recovery officially began in summer 2009, things have only gotten worse. The employment rate has only bounced around in subsequent years with no discernible recovery. In fact, by March 2013 the provincial employment rate declined below 60 percent, slightly lower than the summer of 2009 during the worst days of the recession.

We are actually not recovering. We are going down from the worst time in the recession. That should worry everyone in this House and everyone outside. These are not numbers that somebody can pick from thin air. These are Statistics Canada numbers. They have been monitoring it for quite some time. That is a real, real problem for our economy and for the private sector.

There are many reasons. The C.D. Howe report that was mentioned earlier on…. They are also worried that the unemployment rate actually increased because of the introduction of temporary foreign workers. There are some policies in place that are actually adding to the unemployment in the province. That's why we have people leaving the province. Over 12,000 people left B.C. last year. Since the jobs plan was introduced, 12,000 have left — than people who came in. That is a very serious concern, and I urge everyone to start paying attention and build a strong private sector.

M. Hunt: Thank you to the member for Surrey-Newton for his comments and raising this issue. I'm absolutely delighted that he raised the issue, because I think the economy is extremely important to everyone in the province of British Columbia. That's why just over a year ago we ran on the whole platform of building a strong economy and a secure tomorrow. In fact, that's the mandate that the citizens of this good province gave to us to work on, and that's certainly what we're doing.

[1040]

I think it's important for us to always recognize, when we're looking at trends, looking at how things are map-
[ Page 4094 ]
ping out over time, is how long a space we are actually taking. As the member mentioned, the downturn of '08 is extremely significant in British Columbia. But the rest of Canada, the rest of the world….

We see the world's economy not going down as softly as it happened in Canada — and in western Canada, in particular. We see drastic downturns. We see unemployment in some areas up 30, 40, 50 percent when we get over to Europe. We see drastic situations. What we have here is we are very fortunate and we are very blessed compared to the rest of the world.

As a matter of fact, if we take that trend out a little further, let's look at things like the unemployment rate. Unemployment in the province of British Columbia is in fact lower than the national average across Canada. If we take it across a longer time period, we find that if we…. Let's deal with different regions of the province while we're thinking about this.

If we go to the Cariboo, for example, and what's happening in the Cariboo, if we go back to January of 1999, the unemployment rate was 16.3 percent. The unemployment rate today in the Cariboo is 6.3 percent That's a trend in the positive direction going the right way, creating jobs and employing our citizens.

If we look at the north coast and Nechako, in May of 2002 the unemployment rate was 16 percent. Today it's 7.3 percent. Certainly, we want to do better than 7.3 percent, but again, the trend is going in the correct direction.

In the northeast sector the unemployment in 2002 was 11.8 percent. Today it's 8.6. Again, depending on the time frames that we look at, if we look at longer terms, we see that in fact the trend is going in the right direction because we have a government that is committed to growing the economy.

When we talk about the jobs plan, certainly at any point in time these numbers can fluctuate, but the basic principles are solid and true. The basic principles of growing an economy are, first of all, having low taxes. That's one of the most critical areas for employment for businesses to be attracted to an area.

Second, of course, is having a balanced budget, which again is something that we put forward to the citizens a year ago. The citizens supported us in that, and we're working hard on accomplishing that.

Third, of course, is to create an atmosphere that is business friendly. That is why the mantra that you hear from this side of the House is working on the process of getting to yes — finding ways to see responsible, environmentally sound development happening within this province so that we can in fact build those jobs.

Of course, we need to be recognizing that we are a resource-based economy, so we have to be looking at trade. We have to be looking at our business partners around the world and what's happening there. I'm pleased to advise that we're finding our exports are in fact increasing. British Columbia total exports were $33.5 billion in 2013, which is an increase of 6.4 percent compared to 2012, while the rest of Canada only increased their exports by 3.8 percent. So we see a tremendous increase in the province of British Columbia.

Forest products alone had exports of $11.6 billion in 2013, which is, again, an increase of 14.2 percent over the 2012 number, which is $10.16 billion. We see that we're going in the right direction.

That's why we're also looking at education, right from kindergarten through to post-secondary education. We're remapping, and we're re-engineering how we do that process so that in fact we actually see more jobs, more skills being developed within our young people; so that they're there, available for those jobs as those jobs become available.

H. Bains: I knew if somebody was to stand up from there that they would find something to tell the public that all those statistics that I read from Statistics Canada somehow are wrong, and that somehow the investment they have made in spin-doctoring that they are….

I must admit that this crowd here is the best in the country when it comes to spin-doctoring. We've just seen it now.

[1045]

The sloganeering continues on. A secure tomorrow: that's how the election was run and won about a year ago. The statistics clearly say that there is an insecure future. That tomorrow is now, and that tomorrow today is not very good. That's what Statistics Canada says. That's not just what I'm saying or what anyone else is saying. Statistics Canada numbers are showing that it's a very, very worrisome situation right now.

We talk about the outlook. You take a look not only at the statistics on what we've done so far. The outlook that came just the other day is negative for this province. The reason for a negative outlook is because of the ballooning debt that this government has incurred.

When this Premier took office, the debt in the province was $45 billion. In the last two years that has ballooned by $17 billion, and there will be another $7 billion added in the next three years. Over 53 percent debt is added to us, to our children and their children, and they're talking about a secure future, a secure tomorrow?

Moody's clearly showed that that is not a very secure future — that they have no plan to reverse the increasing debt in this province. That's why the negative outlook. Also, they are talking about the commodity prices. It's worrisome. You can't put all eggs in one basket. That's exactly what's been happening here.

They are saying that weaker commodity prices — suitably cautious, including on the promise of liquefied natural gas. "The decline in commodity prices, notably natural gas, had a significant impact on natural resource activity."

"The United States" — Jock Finlayson's quote I'm go-
[ Page 4095 ]
ing to give to you — "will be energy self-sufficient in the next decade." If they do that, if they stop buying energy from the rest of the world, think what's going to happen to our commodity prices. This government obviously is not interested in looking at that part of the picture.

We need to do better, and we need to have a better private sector.

BEEF

D. Barnett: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to something of special importance to many — to myself and to rural British Columbia — the ranching and beef industry. May 29 is B.C. Beef Day. In partnership with the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, the B.C. Association of Cattle Feeders and the B.C. Association of Abattoirs, we honour all the cattle ranchers and farmers who work and make their living in the beef industry.

It's a tough job but one that is a way of life for many British Columbians. B.C. ranchers take pride in filling the first role in the beef production chain. Ranching is also an important part of the history, environment, economy and future of British Columbia.

The annual B.C. Beef Day is a great example of our government and the agrifood industry working together to promote local foods and generate economic benefits for B.C.'s food producers and communities. It is of great importance to our economy and agriculture sector, as there are 5,069 farms reporting beef cattle, and 1,593 were feedlot operations. There are 60 provincially licensed abattoirs, and 36 are for red meat. The total economic contribution of the industry is estimated at $600 million annually or 0.25 percent of the provincial GDP.

B.C. ranchers occupy more than five million acres of private land and have tenure on a further 21.5 million acres of Crown land. It's impossible to travel this province without noticing the beef industry, whether it's driving through ranch land, past a feedlot or stopping for a burger at a roadside restaurant.

As part of B.C. Beef Day, local community organizations are encouraged to have community barbecues and to partner with local grocery stores to celebrate. The B.C. Legislature also hosts a barbecue to celebrate on the back lawn.

[1050]

If you eat beef, then you have an interest in B.C. Beef Day. As more and more of us develop an awareness of where our food comes from, it is important that we stay informed about the cattle industry in British Columbia. Our government is committed to promoting local foods, and we look forward to continuing to work with the industry on a B.C. Certified Beef label. The B.C. Certified Beef logo on beef products, from prime cuts in fine restaurants to ground beef in the meat case at your local grocery, guarantees that the beef was born, raised, fed and processed in British Columbia. That is something to be truly proud of.

It is also worth highlighting the many positive effects the beef industry can have on the environment. The agriculture industry is closely tied with the environment. Ranchers know that a healthy environment and good business go hand in hand. Cattle, like all living things, have a place in nature's cycle, contributing to its balance by consuming and returning nutrients to their natural surroundings. Pasture lands used to feed livestock play a large role in cleaning our air. Carbon is absorbed through the extensive root systems on grasslands, in some cases working more effectively than trees.

Most land used in cattle production is unsuitable for crops. Ranching enables this land to contribute to food production. Ultimately, when you think of it, cattle production uses simple resources like sun, soil and grass to grow a healthy, safe and delicious product.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today on the importance of cattle ranching and the hard work B.C. ranchers do in our province.

N. Simons: I'd like to start by thanking the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin for giving us a good rundown on the cattle and ranching industry in British Columbia and pointing out the statistics and the importance of the industry on our economy. I always look forward to Beef Day here. It's one of those days when we're sitting in the Legislature, and we're always happy to smell the wafting fumes from outside at the back. It sure as heck beats the exhaust fumes of the Sysco truck back into the cafeteria.

I'd just like to say that it's also important at this point, perhaps, to point out some of the challenges that the industry faces. I think, obviously, since 2003 of some of the health concerns around BSE, which had a huge impact on all of us as British Columbians. We're still, I think, working out of that. I think there's still progress to be made as we emerge from that.

There's a role for government to play in supporting our ranching industry and our cattlemen. I think one of the main cornerstones of that support has to come with consultation and making sure that government is in constant conversation with the folks who raise cattle and who basically have a vested interest in the policies that impact them, wherever they live in this province.

The government's actions in the past have supported the industry, in terms of financing for fencing issues and around increasing our export markets. I think one of the things that I'd like to see this government do more of is promote the local domestic consumption of our own B.C. beef right now. British Columbians only consume about 20 percent of the beef that's raised in British Columbia. That's one of the angles that I would like to see government try to maybe put more effort into — the fact that B.C. Certified Beef could be a brand that attracts British Columbians to purchase it.

I looked at their Facebook page yesterday. There are
[ Page 4096 ]
only 93 likes on it. I know that isn't necessarily the final determinant of whether something's popular or not, but I think there needs to actually be concerted effort in promoting that. Maybe even a buy-B.C. program would be one that would be more effective in getting us back to the point where British Columbians are extra conscious of where their food is coming from.

[1055]

Some of the more recent comments from government have not indicated support for the industry and, in fact, have been somewhat insulting to the cattle industry and the cattlemen, in particular, who have been requesting some input into legislative changes that are being contemplated by this House. Some of the statements made by my friends and colleagues in this House, many from the government side caucus, indicate that there's a negative impression of ranching, because they talk about how unviable it is compared to farming in the south.

I think the government really needs to make sure that when they talk about the importance of supporting farming, it isn't to get out of farming. Our policy in this House should not be to promote farming by letting people do other things to make money. We should be supporting the farming and the ranching, not giving options for creating different industry on land that we need to preserve for agricultural purposes for generations to come.

We should have measurable outcomes in terms of how government's specific policies are working. Are we increasing our domestic consumption? Are we increasing the export? Are we supporting farmers in their fencing needs? Are we dealing with issues of invasive plants? Are we actually making it easier to do the slaughtering?

I don't think that the meat regulations were exactly a pat on the head for the folks in the cattle industry. Now with the most recent insult, being left out of consultations around how our agricultural land is protected, I think it does tend to make people realize that the relationship between the sector and government isn't something you can count on forever or take for granted.

In fact, I would like to quote from the most recent correspondence from the B.C. Cattlemen's Association to the ministry. They would have been pleased to be consulted on Bill 24. They would have been pleased to have some opportunity to discuss the changes that would have a direct and negative impact on their sector. But that opportunity was not afforded to the B.C. Cattlemen's Association.

"We kindly request that the minister delay any decision on Bill 24 until further information is provided and consultation can be had with the farming and ranching community. It is our desire to be included in developing both the legislation as well as the regulations." That, to me, shows a definite weakness in this government's relationships.

D. Barnett: Our goal has always been to support agriculture and the people who work in it. We are protecting valuable farmland and further supporting farming families in the farming sector. A one-size-fits-all approach to regulating the use of farmland does not reflect this reality. We want to help farmers and ranchers, many of whom are from my constituency, grow their business and earn a better living.

Initiatives by our government such as the provincial Buy Local program with the B.C. Association of Cattle Feeders are helping introduce retailers and consumers to the Certified B.C. Beef brand in order to build relationships and promote these fine local products.

B.C. beef is safe, as the industry practises safe and healthy methods in all production aspects, including animal health, transportation, food safety and traceability. The B.C. cattle industry is extremely diverse and includes small hobby farms, diversified operations and large cattle ranchers.

Most land in cattle production is unsuitable for crops. Ranching enables this land to contribute to food production. Many ranchers collaborate with environmental and conservation groups to develop and protect areas on both private and government lands. B.C. beef producers are true land stewards and work to protect and sustain lands through a variety of programs and management practices.

We support our farmers and ranchers and are pleased this week to celebrate B.C. Beef Day.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call for private members' motions.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, we need unanimous consent to proceed with this motion.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 20 — CO-GOVERNANCE
OF PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM

R. Fleming:

[Be it resolved that this House support the principles of co-governance of public education between the Province and the Board of Education.]

It's a pleasure to rise and speak a little bit about co-governance and the issues facing public education in British Columbia right now.

[1100]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

To begin with, I want to talk about what co-governance is, because not everybody understands that this is backed up by a protocol in government. There are references to it in the School Act. It's basically a series of obligations and principles between the unique shared governance of public education that has evolved in British Columbia over a
[ Page 4097 ]
long period of time, over many, many decades, and that were encoded in a protocol several years ago.

They outline some of the responsibilities as well as some of the norms for operating between the Ministry of Education and school districts. I'll highlight a few of, I think, the key principles that are incorporated in the school board.

The protocol states a number of points, but one of them is that the province recognizes and acknowledges that boards of education are democratically elected by their constituents to represent the public interest in education. It outlines that the minister recognizes the B.C. School Trustees Association as representing its member boards of education. In turn, the B.C. School Trustees Association recognizes the minister's right to determine public education policy for the province.

But I think one of the most key parts of this protocol document is that both parties are bound to "work in consultation with one another and with boards of education on new initiatives and seek to work cooperatively in the furtherance of public education in the province." The province must, in this protocol, notify the B.C. school trustees "on matters affecting boards of education and, in particular, on legislation, regulation, policies, programs, projects and initiatives; and individual boards of education on matters affecting them."

What's interesting about that — just to bring this right up to date — is that where we are here on Monday, May 26, with an escalation of job action, with a partial lockout being pursued by government, is that none of that was done. There's a letter from the B.C. School Trustees Association saying: "Where is the provincial government?" in terms of consulting with them on the implementation of a lockout.

Of course, things are unfolding rather quickly for those that are paying attention to this dispute, and there are millions that are in British Columbia because it affects their lives as parents, as students and as otherwise interested parties in public education. The government has completely failed to consult any of the interested parties in education, particularly school boards, though.

Government is now aggressively escalating this dispute and seeking to dock teachers' pay by 10 percent. School boards are the administrators and the employers of teachers and support staff. They have no idea and have received no consultation or communication about how this will be accomplished. There are so many questions about this measure now because it was not explained and their guidance was not sought by the Ministry of Education.

It is threatening to put the education sector into chaos at a time when people thought that this school year would be completed on an orderly basis. It now brings all of that into question. I suspect that this week could go disastrously if we don't see a change of course from the provincial government.

The backdrop to all of these latest moves at and away from the negotiating table by government — these carrot-and-club negotiating tactics, if you will — is that we had a budget that was producing all kinds of unfunded cost pressures on school districts. Six weeks ago, eight weeks ago we were talking in British Columbia about mass layoffs in schools, in growing school districts where enrolment was climbing. We were talking about the loss of services and programs in our schools. It's because this government has produced a five-year freeze on education funding.

The imbalance of the protocol on co-governance is this. There are obligations to communicate, to have a respectful relationship between school trustees and government. But of course, there's always going to be an incredible power imbalance because the partner that is in charge of administering the school system and making the day-to-day decisions, running the schools and doing all of the oversight of public education has no taxation authority. They have no power on the funding equation.

So we're always going to have an imbalance, and the ministry has the upper hand in this regard. This is creating incredible problems on the ground. One would have expected to find a funding plan in this budget to match a throne speech commitment that had a 21st century emphasis on individualized learning, and there was none of that in this budget document.

[1105]

Instead, we've had a one-sided — not collaborative — process, confrontational and not cooperative. It has violated all the core principles on co-governance, and it will produce a disastrous result unless government takes a different tactic. Finally, for once, try something different; try something new.

Deputy Speaker: I'm certain, as we move forward this morning and not…. To remind everyone, as we've had a week off, that this is Monday morning and is private members' time. I'm certain that members will recognize that while this is a timely and passionate issue in front of both sides of the House, private members' time is for less partisan debate.

J. Thornthwaite: Yes, I'm going to stick to the topic of the motion about co-governance.

Co-governance is alive and well in British Columbia. B.C.'s public education system is co-governed by the Education Ministry and 60 elected boards of education. B.C.'s boards of education are autonomous, responsible and accountable to their electorate for their budgetary spending decisions.

I encourage all residents to attend public school board meetings, finance and facilities, education and priority meetings to ensure that your voice with regards to school district issues is heard, either as a parent or a community member. Local boards of education have the autonomy
[ Page 4098 ]
to make decisions regarding the selection of resources, programs and services offered to students within the school district and are responsible for developing their own policy, depending on local priorities.

I would encourage people, with the upcoming municipal elections coming in November, to interview any candidate that is considering running for school board. How about interviewing your mayors, your council candidates? Co-governance is all about working together. Our government values the relationship with local boards of education on co-governance, because we believe that the end result is a stronger educational system.

Let's talk about North Vancouver. We have a plethora of recent, successful co-governance projects that I'd like to highlight. A couple months ago I attended the opening of Queen Mary Elementary. I was actually involved in that project when it first was started because I was the chair of the North Vancouver school district. There are daycares, neighbourhoods of learning, StrongStart centres and even a connection with CommunityLINK for breakfast and lunch programs. Ridgeway School as well as Westview School are also recent capital projects that partner progressive school districts like North Vancouver with the province and the city of North Van.

What about high schools? Carson, Sutherland, Windsor — all in North Vancouver — have great partnerships and great co-governance with the school district and the municipality. We have artificial fields. We have a track field. We even have a Windsor soccer bubble. That was a partnership not just between the province and the school district but also the municipality of the district of North Vancouver, the federal government and a private company that gave some money for that artificial soccer bubble.

What about Argyle? That's the new one that everybody wants right now. I'm working very, very closely with the school district with that project, and so are the community associations, the PACs, the district PACs, the district of North Van and the province. In fact, Argyle is being even more progressive with their school district because they're offering the brand-new skills exploration course, a new semester-length sampler beginning this fall for grade 10s and 12s.

Lest I ignore the rest of the province, because obviously I'm very North Van–centric, Belmont high school in Sooke has got a great project going with the district that offers amenities for the entire community. How about Pomeroy Sport Centre in Fort St. John? And don't forget West Vancouver school district. They partnered with the community and got Kay Meek theatre into place.

[1110]

I just want to make it really, really clear that the co-governance model in British Columbia is alive and well, with very progressive school districts that work together with their municipality, with the government, with all levels of government, to make amenities for the community happen. That's what partnerships are all about.

S. Robinson: I'm pleased to take my place in this debate on co-governance. I'm so pleased that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour spoke about how co-governance ensures that parents' voices are heard because as luck would have it today, as I was checking on my Facebook, there was a letter that was posted and circulating around.

It's a letter from a parent, and I thought: how appropriate. This parent speaks about the challenges about co-governance. She's written a letter to the Minister of Education, to the Premier, as well as to the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. I'm really pleased to read this letter here in the House.

"Dear Sirs and Madam,

"I write today to convey my extreme disgust with the manner in which the education system is being treated by the government. The conduct you have displayed with regards to the future of our children's education is reprehensible, claiming to put families first and to hold the needs of the children above all else, yet there are children in our system who have challenges and special needs who are being lost because you won't fund the help they so desperately need.

"Your condescension towards teachers is easily traceable back to 2002 when, as Education Minister, the Premier removed the teachers' right to bargain for learning and working conditions by enacting Bills 27 and 28 — action that has since been deemed by the Supreme Court of B.C. to have been a violation of Charter rights. Undaunted by the illegality of your position, the government enacted Bill 22."

Deputy Speaker: I'd remind the member….

S. Robinson: It's a parent's perspective on the co-governance model, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Whether it's a letter or not, it's still bordering on….

S. Robinson: Perhaps I can go to the point where she does speak about co-governance. May I do that, hon. Speaker?

Deputy Speaker: Please do.

S. Robinson: She certainly does do that. She writes:

"When a government requires a school district to submit a balanced budget but makes no budgetary allowance for increases in fuel costs, electricity costs or tax increases, the government knows that the only way the district can possibly submit a balanced budget is by making cuts to our children's education services.

"When a government announces new schools but doesn't actually provide capital funding or build them — resulting in the school district having to use millions of dollars from their operating budget to purchase, maintain and service portable classrooms — the government knows that the only way the district can possibly submit a balanced budget is by making cuts to our children's education services.

"When a government knows that enrolment is declining, funds schools on a per-student basis, and it costs virtually the same
[ Page 4099 ]
amount in fuel, electricity and staffing to have 480 kids in a school versus 500 kids in a school, that government knows that the only way the district can possibly submit a balanced budget is by making cuts to our children's education service.

"When the government abruptly changes policy for funding of school seismic upgrading and announces that school districts will have to pay for up to half the cost of putting our children in safe structures, the government knows that the only way the district can possibly submit a balanced budget is by making cuts to our children's education services."

I think that what this parent is trying to get across to us is saying that we are not actually working with a co-governance model. Our boards of education are stuck with these decisions being made by government without providing the proper tools that they need, the proper resources that they need, to actually deliver the services that they're supposed to be delivering.

A co-governance model, one where there is a good relationship and cooperation, would actually tell us that there was a give-and-take and an understanding. When we have school districts that have to cover increased utility rates, when they have to find money to do increased MSP premiums, then we have this real challenge where school districts actually have to make the cuts to services.

Having said that, one of the things that this parent says — and she sums it up very well — is that her seven-year-old came to her after some budget meetings. I quote from the seven-year-old: "Mom, you said you pay taxes so that the government gives us hospitals and schools to help us to learn. But how can we learn without books and a library?"

The child goes on, actually, to just say that he feels that the government doesn't care about us and then actually says something inappropriate. So the mother says: "I chastised him for using an inappropriate word, but I cannot disagree with his opinion or fail to marvel at how astutely a child can assess a complicated situation and distill it down to its core." It's signed by Kristina Lee from Coquitlam.

Her perspective and her son's perspective is that there's a complete disconnect with what this relationship is supposed to be. There's supposed to be a collaborative, cooperative relationship between government and our school boards, and we don't have that. It's very disappointing for this parent. It's very disappointing, certainly, for this child.

[1115]

I will note that this parent says in her postscript: "I'm not a teacher. I'm not married to a teacher. My parents were not teachers. I have no direct financial interest in this dispute, other than being a very, very annoyed parent."

While the member opposite talked about parents having their say, certainly this parent doesn't feel like she's having her say. She will get to vote in November for people who represent her on school boards, but unless we go back to a cooperative model, we don't have a workable relationship.

L. Reimer: I rise in the House today to respond to the motion put forward by the member opposite. Our government values the relationship with local boards of education on co-governance work because we know that the end result is a stronger education system. I've had the pleasure of working with my school district 43 over a 13-year period as an involved parent and chair of the district parent advisory council, as a former Coquitlam city councillor and former chair of the city–school board liaison committee and now as a member of this Legislative Assembly.

In my particular district our funding has gone from about $183 million in 2001 to $248 million. Our learning improvement fund is currently at $3.1 million and is slated to go to $3.9 million in 2014-15. We also have some very exciting projects happening in our district. Currently Eagle Mountain elementary will be opened this coming fall. As well, we're involved in doing plans for the rebuilding of Moody middle school in my riding.

Only by working together will we get the best possible outcomes for our students. We need to keep focused on our one key goal, and that's to produce capable young people ready to thrive in a rapidly changing world.

In B.C. a million job openings are expected by 2022. Forty-three percent of those jobs will require skilled workers, and some areas of the province are already experiencing shortages of skilled workers. We know that the better prepared our students are, the more successful they will be in finding meaningful careers and jobs.

We want to make it easier for B.C. students and families to make the best possible career choices in a changing economy. Our government recently launched B.C.'s skills-for-jobs blueprint, re-engineering education and training. We'll be creating more educational pathways from K to 12 to post-secondary to in-demand careers in LNG, mining, forestry and other sectors of our economy.

Throughout B.C. individual school districts are undertaking innovative programs to get students excited and make them more aware of trades and technology careers at a younger age. A superintendent for careers and student transitions has been appointed to help districts develop and expand partnerships with local industry, businesses and post-secondary institutions. More hands-on trades and technical learning will mean that students are better prepared to take advantage of future opportunities.

There's also new flexibility for school districts to apply provincial funding to scholarships and awards related to trades and technical training. Government will also fund apprenticeship trades ambassadors and new online resources to better promote career options and pathways to parents and students.

To provide further support, the ministry recently introduced a skills exploration course for grades 10 to 12. The course is designed to give students valuable hands-on experience in important trades sectors and an introduc-
[ Page 4100 ]
tion to core skills common to many trades.

We are working to give students a seamless pathway right from school to the workplace. Programs like the Industry Training Authority's women-in-trades training initiative provides information and training to open doors for women who want to pursue careers in trades and industry.

We are supporting the education system in providing students with more opportunities to personalize their learning. We're supporting learners around the province, recognizing there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach. This includes creating more opportunities for hands-on learning and helping students get a head start on realizing their full potential and contributing to the well-being of our province.

As we move forward, we need to keep focused on transforming curriculum and finding innovative pathways to graduation. There is no question that working in partnership on all the items I have mentioned is what we need to best move forward. Partnership equals success. Co-governance equals success.

K. Corrigan: I'm pleased to rise to speak in favour of the resolution that this House support the principles of co-governance of public education between the province and boards of education.

[1120]

I spent nine years as a school trustee and believe passionately that a strong public education system is the most important tool we have to increase opportunity and to decrease inequality. School boards in the province co-govern education in B.C., and it has worked well. Co-governance means that both the provincial government and local school boards, which are elected to protect and reflect the interests of the local community, are equally responsible and important to education.

In a practical sense, local school boards are best at hiring teachers, administrators and support staff; working with parents; organizing classrooms; setting policy; and crafting the district budget. Most importantly, they are accountable to the local community. Parents and others can and do call their school board if they have concerns about their local school.

In my school district, Burnaby, trustees attend all the district parent meetings. The philosophy behind co-governance is that everyone will benefit if many of these kinds of decisions are made close to home, if they are decentralized. This principle of subsidiarity has worked well.

Provincial government can set standards, set curriculum and plays an important role in ensuring that there is consistency and a sharing of best practices. Speaking of best practices, local school boards — the organizations — have been around since 1905. Many of the best programs and practices have, in fact, originated from dedicated professional teachers and administrative staff.

In my district I would point out one example — Byrne Creek School. This is a high school in Burnaby with a very high percentage of immigrants, a very high percentage of refugee students and families and a high percentage of families living in poverty. But because of the passion and dedication of the teachers and administrators at Byrne Creek, many unique programs have developed to address learning gaps and challenges.

Those include a Later to Literacy program; the Village of Attachment; some ESL creative programs; and youth in transitions, which is an after-school program that works closely with students alongside their parents; and PAWS.All of this creativity and innovation led to them receiving the 2012 international ASCD Whole Child Award.

The province and local boards are both critical in this co-governance model. B.C. School Trustees Association recently sent MLAs questions and answers about co-governance, outlining similar principles to those I've already mentioned. The document also observes that effective, timely, frequent communication and inclusion in decisions are critical. For example, it says: "As frequently as possible co-governance partners communicate with one another and seek to work cooperatively. Co-governance attempts to reduce surprises and enhance stability. Communications are respectful, timely and partner to partner."

Unfortunately, those principles of co-governance may not have been remembered by the provincial government in recent bargaining developments. Last week teachers were partially locked out by BCPSEA that is supposed to be representing boards in bargaining but in essence has been taken over by the province. They did not warn school boards this was going to happen, they did not consult in this decision, and they have not worked with school boards to provide clarity as to the interpretation.

Surely, if government intends to minimize the impact on communities — to minimize confusion and, therefore, disruption — they would be working hard with boards, but, unfortunately, they are not. Boards are unable to do that local part of providing answers to questions that families have and unable to provide some stability and certainty. Maybe if they had communicated with boards, they would have avoided the embarrassing mess that they put themselves in, having to write several letters of clarification of what is meant by a lockout.

One can only conclude that the intention of government is once again to create maximum disruption, to antagonize teachers and to gain political favour, which we now know from sworn court testimony was a past intention. When we have a government whose every move seems to be a political tactic, when that's the lens rather than good governance, in this case co-governance, then services, in this case education, suffer. That is indeed unfortunate.

[1125]

S. Gibson: It's a pleasure for me to be here to speak on behalf of the constituents of the Abbotsford-Mission riding. My opening remarks, however…. I'd just like to point out that my wife has been a public school teacher in our province for all her working career. We value education around our home very much. I taught in the public university system for many years.

I might add this as a personal insight. My wife and I have a special needs daughter, and we know the challenges that special needs young adults face even today, as our daughter is now an adult. But the challenges that special needs children face are something that we are aware of personally.

I might add also that I have a graduate degree in education, and for a thesis that I wrote I studied a key aspect of public education. So I take it seriously, and I do appreciate the motion by the hon. member for Victoria–Swan Lake, and I realize the significance he places in it.

We all desire long-term stability in our province. That's something we value on both sides of the House. It's about the success for future generations. That's something that we aspire to here. Long-term stability means focusing on what really matters — the outcomes in learning so every B.C. young person succeeds. It's something we treasure.

Today local boards of education have the autonomy that they need. They make decisions on the resources and the programs for the best interests of their particular area. It's offered throughout their school districts to ensure that education is of the highest value.

Local boards, local priorities. That means diversity across our school district. There's diversity there so they can respond to the needs of the individual students and parents and guardians in their various communities.

I especially like the theme of Abbotsford school district, the three words: "Respect, opportunity and innovation." Knowing Abbotsford school district as I do and having served on council and gotten to know many of their school trustees and administrators over so many years, I know they live it.

Mission's theme is "A world of learning right here." If you look at their site, it's got a young woman holding a globe. That's the passion that Mission school district has for their students. Both districts in my riding are passionate about success. They believe in their students. They believe in them passionately, and the result is that student outcomes are very promising.

B.C. students have consistently ranked in the top groups in international and national studies. The 2012 program for international student assessment of 15-year-old students — among 65 participating countries and economies, only one jurisdiction statistically performed above B.C.'s range in reading, only two in science and only nine in math. These are good records. On a straight numerical basis, B.C. is sixth in both reading and science and 12th in mathematics. Those are stats to be very proud of, and we're pleased to share those.

Compared to other Canadian provinces, our students were top-ranked in reading and science — top-ranked — and second only to Quebec in math. Very good ratings. In 2011 the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study assessed reading ability of fourth-grade students. In the study B.C. students had the highest score in Canada — the highest. We're recognized as one of the top seven jurisdictions in the world. This is something to be very proud of in this House.

The 2010 pan-Canadian assessment program. Eighth-grade students in B.C. matched or outperformed all but one province in reading, all but two in science and all but three in math. These students show that B.C. students are doing really well. Today more students are completing high school and going into post-secondary and the workforce. They're making a contribution. Our six-year student completion rate was 83.1 percent in 2012-2013, up 10 percent from 2000 and 2001. Again, a symbol of progress.

Greater success, too, for diverse learners. Six-year completion rate for students with special needs…

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

S. Gibson: …increased by over 75 percent.

This concludes my comments.

[1130]

N. Macdonald: Obviously, there is merit in the idea of co-governance of public education between the provincial government and the local school boards. The B.C. School Trustees Association has been pushing this idea for a long time. I think many of the MLAs will have met with their trustees. They will have had the opportunity to see the notes that were provided for the school trustees in making the argument for further co-governance with the provincial government.

It's interesting to look at those notes, because what it tells you is the areas that the trustees perceive as areas of weakness in their dealings with the provincial government. If you look at points E, G and H, all of those points that the trustees are making relate to their relationship with the provincial government, relate to weaknesses they have in their relationship with the provincial government.

Here's what they're asking for. They're asking for the senior level of government, the provincial government, the B.C. Liberals…. They want them to communicate properly. They want the B.C. Liberals to reduce surprises. They want them to be consistent, and they want them to allow for planning.

That's what the trustees association is talking about when they ask for cooperation from the senior level of government. It speaks to the fact that these are areas where, consistently, the B.C. Liberals have failed, imposing ill-considered and poorly thought-through initiatives
[ Page 4102 ]
again and again. The B.C. Liberals have dumped what is clearly abysmal technology on school boards. The B.C. Liberals agreed to collective agreements that they subsequently do not fund, leaving school boards in terrible situations. They seem intent on continuously disrupting the public education system.

As we speak, having this debate today on this motion, we're in the midst of another disruption in the school system.

I just want to talk for a second about some of these initiatives where one would reasonably have expected there to have been a degree of consultation with the school boards, and that's with the BCeSIS. BCeSIS is a computerized system for recording marks, for sharing those marks provincewide.

Now, we had computerized mark systems. I was a teacher, and I was a principal. We had a system. Each school district had different systems, but we had one called Windsor. There are other teachers here; I don't know what systems you used. It was commercially available. It was a system that worked well, and we were forced as a school district to replace it with BCeSIS, which never worked well. So on top of the cost of the new system — which is in the hundreds of millions — that this government imposed on school boards, you had the cost of training, and you had the cost of the constant fix that went on year after year after year.

Now, that's a powerful argument there alone for having some consultation with people that actually use the technology that you're trying to introduce.

We had a question period here where the minister responsible for computer programming was answering questions about one of the most recent failures in the technological purchases made by this government. He talked about archaic systems. BCeSIS, when it was introduced, was completely archaic. If you had to work with that system, you had to close boxes to make comments. You had to shift around. It did not do even the most basic things that you would expect from a computer program.

The government has now given up, after spending hundreds of millions of dollars on that, and introduced a new system. Who was responsible for that technology? Ultimately, it was the person who is now Premier, because she was the Minister of Education at the time when that was imposed on school districts.

We also have the downloading of costs. If government members look back on the New Era document that started with this government, you'd see on page 16 of the 2001 document that it assured multi-year funding for school districts. That never happened. Now, that's a long list of broken promises from that document, but there's another one for you. It never happened.

So rhetorically, just as the government signed on to this idea of co-governance and government members stand up and say how they're cooperating, the meat and bones of cooperation, the important stuff, never happens with this government. It's promised. It never happens.

Multi-year funding — wow, that would be a real treat, and maybe someday they can look forward to that.

[1135]

Well, I wish we had more time, but thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to the continuation of the debate.

S. Hamilton: I'd like to take a few minutes to talk about an important issue — obviously, an important issue to this government. I'm glad that the member opposite was using the word "rhetorical," because there was a lot of rhetoric coming from the other side of the House.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

S. Hamilton: I have personal experience, professional experience with the computer networks in this province. I spent ten years designing them for the provincial learning network, so I'm intimately familiar with some of the issues with regard to the computer networks that serve our schools throughout the province. As a matter of fact, the member….

Interjection.

S. Hamilton: If I may, BCeSIS was more of an issue of bandwidth and trying to provide extra bandwidth to small, remote communities in this province.

Interjection.

S. Hamilton: It was an issue. It was an uphill battle that this government took on. Now we are better connected electronically through Internet access in remote locations in this province than we have ever been, and it continues to grow.

I want to talk about our government's commitment to our communities in real and tangible ways. Some people might propose that we continuously throw money at a problem. This government believes in a different way of doing things, in a way that quite literally achieves concrete, on-the-ground results. In other words, we on this side of this House believe in investing in our communities. One of the most important and visible ways we can do this is through the development and building of schools and other educational facilities that will have a significant and lasting impact on our communities.

Since 2001, regardless of what's being said on the other side of the House, this government has committed more than $4.1 billion on school capital maintenance projects throughout this province. Since then, government has also spent more than $2.5 billion to complete capital projects, including 99 new and replacement schools, 151 additions, 27 renovations and 26 site acquisitions across the province. This includes approximately $1 billion for
[ Page 4103 ]
133 seismic safety projects. All new and replacement schools have been constructed to meet the latest seismic standards.

In my own riding of Delta North we have also benefited from this government's commitment to capital investment, despite what's being said. Since 2001 this government has invested more than $47.5 million in the Delta school district, including additions to Burnsview and Delview secondaries and seismic upgrades to six elementary and secondary schools.

Our government has also committed $10.1 million to seismically upgrade South Delta Secondary School, which is expected to be completed this fall. Delta Secondary — we're well into the planning stages, and it's an important thing that we do these for the safety of the children in our schools. This government has taken on that challenge, and we're there. We're there.

This is part of a bigger picture. It's part of the way this government gets things done. It's part of the way that we're preparing for a more prosperous future, and it's a huge part of the way in which we plan our budgets.

We know that this government has successfully kept its promise to deliver a balanced budget. Budget 2014 has projected surpluses over the next three years of $175 million, 2013-14; $184 million the next; $206 million the next; and finally, $451 million in 2016-17. It's expected that taxpayer-supported capital spending on schools, hospitals and other infrastructure throughout British Columbia will reach $11 billion in 2014.

We're reinvesting money in communities large and small across British Columbia. This is what we were elected to do, and this is what a healthy economy and a strong natural resource sector will enable us to do.

The $11 billion being invested in B.C. infrastructure in 2014 includes $1.5 billion for K-to-12 facilities and $2.3 billion spent on post-secondary institutions. What's more, all new and replacement schools have been constructed to meet the latest seismic standards. We talked about that a moment ago and how important it is for the safety of our kids.

British Columbians want and deserve a government that will invest in their future, a government that ensures we have educational opportunities and facilities that meet the needs of every British Columbian in a way that fosters growth and opportunity. That's a promise that this government is keeping.

[1140]

Deputy Speaker: I thank the members, and I would remind the members that the motion before this House this morning has to do with governance and the co-governance model. We seem to be straying to a fairly broad discussion of education policy in general. I would hope that the members would bring things back to the co-governance model.

C. James: I am pleased to rise to speak to the issue of support for the principles of co-governance in public education. Co-governance really talks about a partnership — a partnership with locally elected boards of education elected by their communities. I think it's important to note that this government actually even signed a protocol of recognition of co-governance.

I just want to read one line from that protocol. I think it's important to recognize that actions speak louder than words, and I'll get to that in a moment. That protocol said that we recognize the importance of consulting on new initiatives and working cooperatively to improve education in this province. That was the protocol signed by this government around co-governance with boards of education.

Well, I would say, just based on actions over the last 12 years, that this government is two for two on failure of that protocol — two for two. The government certainly hasn't consulted on new initiatives when they've come forward. And working cooperatively to improve education? Now, that would be a wonderful thing in this province if we actually saw this government step up and say that they wanted to improve education in this province.

We have an incredible education system in British Columbia. That's an area where I would agree with members who've spoken, but it's despite this government, not because of it. It's despite the work that they've been doing in picking a fight and causing chaos. It's because of the incredible people who work in the education system — everyone from support staff to teachers to parents to boards of education to school principals to administrators — who put in the time and energy to try and build a strong education system, while this government does everything they can to try and take it apart.

First, let's take a look at downloading of costs. Did this government sit down and talk with boards about the new initiative of insisting that boards pay for hydro increases or that boards should have to pay for MSP premium increases or the fact that they froze funding for transportation? No. None of those conversations happened with school boards. Those are things that the government just decided they were going to do.

Improve education? Well, the first thing that we saw this government do back in 2002 was, in fact, to strip contracts. That was the first step. The Premier said this would help to improve standards for students and students' needs. Well, what was the result? The result was fewer teacher-librarians, fewer teachers for students with special needs, fewer counsellors, fewer supports, larger class sizes. That hasn't improved education.

The Supreme Court ruled that that action — stripping contracts — was illegal. What did the government do a number of years later? They decided to introduce legislation almost identical. Again, they were told that that was illegal. But that seems to be the direction that this government has decided to go — to pick a fight in the system, to
[ Page 4104 ]
cause chaos — instead of sitting down and saying: how can we work together to improve the system?

I just want to mention that on Friday night I had the pleasure and the privilege of attending a school concert with my granddaughter. That school concert showed the best of our education system. In the midst of everything going on, in the midst of what this government has been doing to the system, teachers got together with parents, students and support staff and put on an incredible concert on Friday night.

They had teachers come from the secondary schools down to the elementary schools. That's the kind of education system that we have in British Columbia. They deserve to have a government that actually works with them to improve the system, not to cause chaos, as they've been doing, but to actually support people who work in our schools.

I have, again, had the privilege of serving as a parent and president of a parent association, the district parent association and a trustee for 12 years. Each of those roles is critical to our education system. Each of those roles plays an important part.

Government plays an important part too. Just imagine our education system if the government decided that instead of picking a fight, we'd sit down and work together. We'd say: "We're doing well in our education system. What can we do to improve it, and how can we do that together?"

[1145]

That's what we teach our children. We teach our children to work cooperatively. We teach our children to work with others to improve things, and yet we certainly don't see that coming from government, on the other side. What could be more important than a quality public education system — important to our communities and to our economy?

M. Dalton: I am pleased to speak on this motion of co-governance today. We do have a very good education system. I was pleased to be a teacher in public school systems for some 15 years prior to being elected in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, and my children went through the public school system, so I've seen a lot. I know that we have great teachers and great results.

Just to respond to a couple of the comments from the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, as far as the numbers of teachers. The ratio of teachers has been consistent through the years: approximately 16.5 to 17 teachers — that's enrolling and non-enrolling teachers — for the past decade or 15 years, as long as I have been in. That's one thing.

As far as labour unrest goes, this is not something that is new. It is something that was very prevalent under the former government. When I was a teacher, there were constant strikes. I think that's important just to keep that as a matter of perspective.

We are very fortunate in British Columbia to have an education that is made stronger by the relationships between governments and boards of education. The co-governance of B.C.'s public education system by the Education Minister and 60 elected boards of education is the best possible path for the best outcomes for our students.

Even with the co-governance of education that we all enjoy, B.C.'s boards of education are autonomous, with the independence to make decisions. With what, what types of decisions? Well, the selection of resources, programs and services offered to students within its district. And it's responsible for developing its own policies depending on local priorities.

This government, what it has done is it has allowed more flexibility among the school districts to divert funds to programs that they feel best suits the local area. Boards of education are also responsible and accountable to the electorate for their budgetary spending decisions.

We also — as far as the government — are responsible to the electorate. We ran on a balanced budget. We ran on living within our means. That's tough. That's meant making tough decisions. Would we like to see more money put into education? The answer is yes. As more funds are available, that will happen, but we are doing the best that we can with the means that we have. That's something that we are facing as far as a provincial government, but also that is something that has to be faced with the local school boards.

Nevertheless, government funding for education remains at record levels, increasing steadily since 2000. In fact, the Ministry of Education is providing $4.7 billion to districts in operating grants between 2014 and 2015, which have seen a 27 percent increase since 2000-2001. That's despite seeing 70,000 fewer students enrolled in British Columbia since 2000-2001. The average per-pupil funding has increased by 38 percent since 2000-2001, to $8,654.

To ensure that the students have safe and modern learning environments, our government has committed or spent nearly $4.1 billion for school capital and maintenance projects throughout B.C. Of that amount, $2.2 billion was spent or committed through the seismic mitigation program to upgrade or replace high schools.

I remember in 1998 when I was teaching at Pitt Meadows Secondary School. I was on the second level, and we all felt the school shaking. There were some international students there from Japan, and they were very panicky, because they knew what could happen.

[1150]

So this is important. The seismic upgrading is very important. One of the schools that we recently put significant funds into in my area is Garibaldi Secondary School, which was a $20 million upgrade. Actually, we'll have the students from Garibaldi visiting us today.

Our government is not content to rest on its laurels.
[ Page 4105 ]
We are proud of our record but continue to seek the best long-term solutions for our young people today, tomorrow and into the future. In addition to operating grant funding to districts, the government provides approximately $51 million annually through CommunityLINK, which helps school districts provide breakfast and lunch programs, inner-city and community school programs and school-based support workers and counselling for at-risk children and youth.

B. Ralston: Our topic here in the chamber is the discussion of the protocol of recognition between the government and the B.C. School Trustees Association. It was first signed in 2011, and it is to be reviewed every three years, starting in 2014. It's important, I think, in order to understand the debate, to have some understanding of the protocol — because it's mutual recognition of the roles of each party.

But in particular — I'm reading from the agreement, the protocol:

"Both parties agree that, wherever possible, they will consult with one another and with boards of education on new initiatives and will seek to work cooperatively in the furtherance of public education in the province."

A reasonable goal.

"The province will notify and consult…with the BSCTA" — that's the B.C. School Trustees Association — "on matters affecting boards of education and, in particular, on legislation, regulations, policies, programs, projects and initiatives; and individual boards of education on matters affecting them."

So the boards recognize the right of the Ministry of Education to set overall education policy for the province, and the province agrees to consult and understand the issues of individual boards in the challenges that they face. One would think that in the matter of co-governance, one of the most important aspects of co-governance would be financial co-governance.

In other words, before the province would take an initiative that would have a financial impact upon school boards, the protocol clearly says that there should be a process where the province will understand the impact of those initiatives before undertaking them.

That's a good theory. That's a good agreement. Unfortunately, what has happened is something very much the opposite of what was clearly intended by both parties in the protocol, if they were adhering to it.

The previous member mentioned the issue of seismic upgrading and gave an example from a school in his area, a couple of decades ago. But what happened in April 2014 is that the Ministry of Education informed school boards that they would be expected to use capital surpluses to pay for 50 percent of seismic upgrading projects.

This initiative came out of the blue, without any real understanding, according to the boards, of just what those cash reserves were intended to be used for. As a result, a number of board chairs spoke out about how the government failed to understand the nature of cash reserves simply because they'd failed to follow the protocol and consult with the school boards prior to implementing the policy change.

Clearly, if the protocol is there and there are important initiatives that are undertaken by the provincial government, the provincial government and the Minister of Education have failed to follow the protocol and, as a result, caused intense budgeting turmoil within individual boards of education.

As the member has rightly pointed out, there is a seismic program. It's an important one. The Auditor General has reflected that perhaps it's not moving as fast as it might. The timeline for completing seismic upgrading has been moved forward a number of times. Nonetheless, the way in which the province is now seeking to advance that is completely without any understanding of the financial position of individual school boards or boards of education. How can this be an adherence to the protocol?

[1155]

As a result, individual boards will have to reorder their capital priorities, and some of that funding will have to come from operating funds. This, unfortunately, is again in defiance and disregard of the co-governance protocol — a pattern that has continued now for some years, notwithstanding the agreement to consult and understand one another before undertaking major initiatives.

My colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke raised BCeSIS. I think this was one of the clearest moments of lucidity in the debate, where the member for Delta North took personal responsibility for the utter and complete failure of BCeSIS — something about bandwidth. I do admire him taking personal responsibility for that colossal failure. I think that's a step forward.

There were other financial initiatives where the province…. I see my time has expired, and I move adjournment of the debate.

B. Ralston moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 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