2015 Legislative Session: Fourth 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)

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 23, Number 2

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

TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: I call continued second reading of Bill 24.

Madame Speaker: And in the committee House?

Hon. T. Stone: In Section A, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Education.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — SOCIETIES ACT

(continued)

L. Krog: I’m delighted to rise again to say a few more words to Bill 24, the new Societies Act.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

As I was closing this morning’s debate, I paid my thanks and respects to Jim Emmerton, who’s leaving the B.C. Law Institute and retiring, and the amazing team over there who have done so much in terms of law reform for the province in the last many years, including a distinguished board of British Columbians who’ve served and worked hard with that society, which is now happily housed in the wonderful new Allard Hall law school building at UBC.

Having said that, of course, they were somewhat surprised by the inclusion of section 99 as it was then proposed when this legislation was put out last fall for public comment. The government has wisely listened to the incredible public outcry that followed that.

No small tribute should be forgotten in terms of the work of the official opposition in this and of all of the various societies in this province who took the time to actually look at the bill and realize its profound implications for their ability to carry on and function.

There is no question that section 99 would have allowed very powerful organizations to oppose to the work of various societies. Most particularly, the ones fearing the worst were, of course, those related to environmental causes.

So the withdrawal of that particular section can only be seen as a triumph for the work of the societies in this province, the opposition and the many concerned British Columbians who took their time to voice their concerns in no uncertain language to the Minister of Finance and the B.C. Liberals in general.

[1335]

As I indicated, there were criticisms provided as well by the B.C. Law Institute and comments of concern with respect to the legislation, because this is a dramatic change and, I would argue, in fairness to the government, in many respects a significant improvement.

The new Societies Act distinguishes between publicly funded societies and member-funded societies. I think most of us, regardless of how long we’ve had the pleasure of sitting in this chamber, have been involved in the community in various ways throughout our careers and are obviously familiar with the rather significant differences that exist between the small organization that receives no public funding and those organizations which are often, in fairness, almost reliant on grants from foundations or government funds, direct and indirect, in order to sustain their work.

I don’t mean that in a critical sense — that somehow if you’re receiving government funding, you should be regarded in the hierarchy of societies as below those who are funded by their own membership or fundraising — but simply to recognize the difference between them.

In my own community the Haven Society generates a lot of revenue from members, from fundraising activities, but they also provide services that are funded by government, in running their shelters and providing a very important service in our community to women and children fleeing violence. There’s one example.

On the other end of the scale, you may have a very small organization that is providing stewardship or support to a preserved piece of land, where their concept of remuneration for a director is the odd free lunch once in a while, where there are no benefits, where they have no paid staff or a part-time paid staffer and are operating in a very different scheme.

The new Societies Act recognizes that there should be different levels of accountability. I recall with some distaste a society that operated in our community a number of years ago, whose work revolved around the settlement of immigrants. Their executive director was receiving a very significant annual salary at the same time that they received government funding in order to provide settlement-related services.

My understanding was that they were down to servicing one family. Now, when the public saw that, inasmuch as it was public knowledge to some people, it made them look askance at how societies are operated and, indeed, how government operates in terms of funding an organization that would be providing so little service and paying so much to staff for so little work.

The new act provides for significant new accountability measures, which I think is extremely important where those societies are receiving government funding — not in the sense, as I say, that the smaller societies won’t be subject or shouldn’t be subject to public scrutiny, but not in the same way that we expect when revenue from government and/or foundations is being provided.
[ Page 7160 ]

I can only imagine what can happen if there isn’t appropriate public scrutiny. The situation I described was one fairly simple example. That society met the same rather weak standards that applied to those societies that were entirely self-funded, received no government money, filed their annual reports and carried on their business with entirely volunteer labour. So this is, I would suggest, a significant improvement to what exists now.

I think, also, with respect…. As I said earlier around the issue of criticism of the first draft, which included section 99, where there was so much public commentary — certainly in my office and I think the offices of most of us in the opposition who are acquainted or paying attention to this bill in a serious way because of our critic roles — there has been very little public commentary back, which, generally speaking, tells you that there isn’t as much controversy.

But as I indicated, there are some vulnerabilities and problems with the bill that have been raised, particularly by the B.C. Law Institute. One of the concerns that is being raised is that the remuneration of top employees will be disclosed.

[1340]

On one hand, there is a natural desire for full and open transparency. Certainly, with major corporations, the salaries of some of their most significant employees are publicly disclosed, but they are disclosed candidly to the shareholders, who ultimately own the enterprise.

I’m not entirely sure that this might not be subject to some kind of abuse with respect to the disclosure of remuneration for employees. After all, if you think of a society that has perhaps two employees versus a society that may have 50 or 60, I think the average person would probably take the view that perhaps the standard should be somewhat different.

There’s also a concern around directors in employment conflict of interest. In this particular case the bill does provide in section 41 that: “A majority of the directors of a society must not receive or be entitled to receive remuneration from the society under contracts of employment or contracts for services, other than remuneration for being a director.”

What that section contemplates is that, in fact, you can have a director who is an employee of the society and a director of the society. That, I would suggest, creates a significant inherent conflict, and if not a real conflict, certainly under the legislation that governs the members of this chamber, an apparent conflict.

I’m not entirely convinced that…. Allowing directors to be leaders in a society that then pays them a salary for doing their job — presumably as the manager or perhaps the financial agent, whatever the case may be, or just even the lowliest employee — is probably not the best approach to dealing with those kinds of issues.

All this bill does is say the “majority…must not receive….” In other words, you wouldn’t have a situation where a majority of the employees of a small society, potentially, because presumably with a larger society there would be enough scrutiny through its membership in the AGM to solve this issue….

All this does is prevent a society from paying the majority of its directors as paid employees. In such situations that would be particularly dismal, I think, from a public perspective, if they were receiving significant government funds. Again, I think that’s an inherent weakness, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister of Finance has to say with respect to that.

A couple of other issues. There are restrictions on amalgamation and continuance. For instance, a British Columbia society cannot amalgamate with a corporation outside the province, nor can a British Columbia society transfer to another jurisdiction.

In the modern world, where communication is instantaneous and borders have less and less meaning, I’m not sure that this is the most modern approach when societies often operate in several jurisdictions, potentially, and indeed similar societies might well wish to amalgamate their operations because it is in their interest in order to allow for efficiencies and cost savings.

We have just spent a great deal of time in this chamber in the last couple of sitting days discussing the Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act, which allows for clustering, which the government regards and sees as an important part of its agenda, and the whole concept is to try and enable efficiencies. That’s the government’s stated intent. Yet here in this bill we appear to be thwarting, on the other hand, the ability of a society or societies to do almost the same thing in order to achieve some efficiencies.

Finally, there is still a concern raised by the B.C. Law Institute and others around the possibility of how members would be able to make complaints and pursue actions against the society itself.

[1345]

It’s pretty rare that you see societies acting in an oppressive manner to their members in the same way that perhaps a corporation might act in an oppressive manner with respect to its shareholders. They are different animals for different purposes. One is a profit-making enterprise; the other is, obviously, by definition a not-for profit enterprise. I think that will require some explanation on the part of the Minister of Finance as to why this path has been chosen as opposed to another path with respect to how we bring the societies of British Columbia into the 21st century after lo these many years of operating under a Society Act which was clearly not up to serving the purposes of modern societies and their continued operation.

All in all, I think it’s fair to say that the opposition is going to support the passage of the Societies Act. There are questions. It is a pretty detailed and massive piece of legislation. For the interest of anyone who is listening, we are running this one to 144 pages in 366 sections.
[ Page 7161 ]

I know the Minister of Finance is looking forward with great delight to the committee stage of this bill, in which he will have a full opportunity to answer in detail all the many questions that the opposition will have when undertaking its due diligence.

I’m particularly interested to determine, finally, why the government chose to drop the proposed section 99. It raised alarm bells in the public. It was not part of the proposal from the B.C. Law Institute and had the awful ring about it of a government that was going to enable its powerful friends and supporters an opportunity to bash, particularly, presumably, environmental organizations who are doing their best to defend the planet at every place in British Columbia, whether it’s the issue of pipelines or fracking or destruction of habitat.

Whether it revolves around the preservation of species and old-growth forest, there was a significant concern in that community, which I think was entirely legitimate, and it behooves this government to explain why it pulled out of the air section 99, which, frankly, had no basis, to my knowledge, in any requests from the public generally, nor was it created as the result of any public protests that demanded that kind of proposal.

Subject to those criticisms, I look forward to continued debate on this bill at committee stage.

M. Hunt: I, too, want to rise to speak to the new Societies Act. I think it’s an important piece of legislation, and certainly, it’s a piece of legislation that covers a tremendous amount of territory.

When we deal with the whole concept of non-profits and the tremendously diverse nature of non-profits it’s extremely critical that it be a good act and that it covers a lot of the territory that’s involved because, ultimately, these societies perform tremendous work on behalf of our communities, both on the social side and on the cultural side.

On so many different sides they need to operate efficiently and effectively. Sometimes the legalities of all these things can become…. I don’t know quite the right word, but they can certainly become a hindrance to the easy working of the mom-and-pop-type societies.

That’s sort of one of my concerns in this. I recognize there needs to be a set of checks and balances when we’re dealing with charities, when we’re dealing with societies and these sorts of things. To just start where my friend from Nanaimo has ended off, I’ll say the words slightly differently. We are going from an act that has 12 parts and 142 sections to an act that has 17 parts and 366 sections.

Obviously, as the member from Nanaimo has stated, this was created by a group of lawyers. A group of lawyers created this, thinking of all the wonderful legal ramifications of stuff, which is, of course, what lawyers do.

Interjection.

M. Hunt: Yeah, I know. But the reality is that so many societies are the little groups of people trying to do things.

I have one example that’s happening right now in my constituency where you have a group of parents who have children who have mobility challenges, as well as mental challenges there.

[1350]

They’re trying to set up…. They’re doing a dance work with these, primarily, young ladies and trying to get them physically active, keep their motor skills working and developing and all those sorts of things.

Of course, they need to get a facility for this, so they go down to the local community centre. The local community says: “Well, here’s the commercial rate, but if you are a society, you can get this rate over here.” So they go: “Oh, we can save money by doing this — wonderful.” Then they start looking at an act that has 366 sections. They get lost in the first three, just in definitions, and it becomes a massive challenge. As a result, the money they save…. Is it going to end up at the lawyers? I don’t know. It’s one of those massive challenges. We have these problems.

Yes, we have the difference between a publicly funded charity and a member-funded charity, but the challenge is even in those definitions. In the definitions it’s not publicly funded as in government — which could be implied by some of the speeches that I’ve heard here earlier in this debate. In fact, if you are not a voting member of or a director of and you wish to donate, then it has to be publicly funded.

The definition of “publicly funded” is a very specific definition that says that anything that’s going to be a charitable society is publicly funded and, therefore, is subject to all these balances and everything else, even though it’s a group of mothers getting together to try and help their daughters and to try to work with those challenges.

That is the complexity of societies. That’s the complexity of what we are dealing with in our society today. I recognize and acknowledge that. But there are some great things.

As has already been said, there are some really key pieces that needed to be changed in the Society Act. Recognizing that the Society Act really goes back to 1977, there are an awful lot of changes that have happened since then.

For example, the majority of directors cannot be on the payroll or contractors of the society. That is a significant change. There are many societies that have basically been: the board of directors are the members and are the voting members. So that’s a significant change. The requirement for societies to disclose the remuneration paid to directors and the most highly paid remunerated employee — again, significant changes.

For the transparency of the organization and the society, these are good things that need to happen so that our communities can know and understand what is happening and what is going on. Then, just in the operation of the societies, we’ve had tremendous discussions over
[ Page 7162 ]
the years on what constitutes a special resolution and how many votes you needed — whether it was supposed to be 60 percent, whether it was two-thirds, whether it was three-quarters. Fortunately, in this act it is now being clarified so that we make things much more streamlined, much more easy to understand.

Then, of course, for those societies that happen to get into that place where they are being dissolved for various reasons, we don’t actually have to have a private member’s bill in this House in order to see them restored. There are other ways to be able to do that, as well as not even having to go to court over it all.

Those are good things. Simple things like electronically filing your reports — all good things that are being added to this.

I think one of the things that really stands out for me, in speaking on this, is the whole issue of being able to deal with unalterable provisions. Many of the societies that we have, have been societies for a very, very long time — for decades. They were created under a very different atmosphere, in a different society you could almost say. So we have many of these societies that have unalterable provisions within their constitutions.

A simple example of that is the windup clause. As you make up the windup clause of the society, unalterably the assets must go to this society over here — the ABC Society. Well, the interesting thing is that if the ABC Society is no longer in existence and that is unalterable, we now have a problem, and all of the society’s assets now go to government. To be able to have a provision that says, “Yes, unalterable clauses can now be altered….”

[1355]

Times change. Things like societies change — the running of how businesses run and how we work in the midst of our communities. These are things that need to be worked on. Those provisions need to be there for the sake of older charities and societies. I am very pleased to see this come about and to see this working and the tremendous consultation that has gone on for this.

I am pleased to see it — very involved in societies in the past. This isn’t necessarily going to make it easier, but by the same token, hopefully in the regulations we will have lots of model bylaws to make it simple for the very small organizations within community to be able to incorporate themselves, to be able to make the society, hopefully, through model bylaws — to be able to do that — so that, again, it can be clean and simple, yet transparent — all the good things we want in a modern society.

I look forward to the clause-by-clause debate, although I won’t be involved in the 366 of them. But I do look forward to that, because this is a positive direction, and we are going to modernize the Society Act.

B. Ralston: One of the measures of the strength of a democracy is the length and breadth of civil society. One of the major contributing factors to a rich and vibrant civil society is the wide variety of organizations that exist in that space and perform many different roles and many different functions within a democracy.

One only has to look to other societies and political arrangements where civil society is shrivelled and impoverished and very much the subject of suspicion and real difficulty in operating at all, where governments oversee civil society organizations or non-governmental organizations in a very harsh and draconian way and sometimes forbid their very existence.

Here in British Columbia we have 27,000 societies under the present act. They employ over 140,000 people. In some cases they are focused on individual activities, whether it’s the Rockhounds in my part of Surrey, or stamp collecting — hobby activities where people have got together to pursue a common interest — or whether they are service organizations that deliver social and other services to the population at large.

There is a wide variety of these organizations. Certainly their capacity to govern themselves and to comply with regulation is varied. This particular act, in the sense that it’s a view of the act, in a review, undertaken over a lengthy period of time, is welcome. Certainly, updating the act from its last substantial review in the 1970s is important.

That lengthy period of consultation. We are sometimes derided here on this side of the House for talking about or asking about the degree to which people were consulted in the process of drafting legislation. But this legislation proves clearly the value of a consultation process and several opportunities for the government to reflect on what comments it has received. It also has been guided by the British Columbia Law Institute, which has provided some expert insight, some legal insight into some of the more tricky and legally complex provisions in the old act and considered how they might be changed in a positive way.

The process of consultation here, I think, has been of a benefit to all concerned. It will produce better legislation. I think it’s a model for the process of consulting on legislative change generally. My colleagues and, indeed, the minister…. I think he’s read some letters from people congratulating him on dropping the proposed section 99, which proposed an unusual remedy.

[1400]

A complaint against a society — not from the society’s board of directors, not from its members, but from a member of the general public — would be given, effectively, a right of action against the society. In the context of federal Bill C-51, certainly, non-profit, non-governmental organizations are under increasing scrutiny from a government in Ottawa that seems to, judging from the statement of some of their ministers, have some serious concern about the right of citizens to dissent from some of the decisions that are being undertaken by the government. Certainly, that right of action would have posed serious problems and would have had a very dampening effect on democratic discussion and debate
[ Page 7163 ]
here in British Columbia and, indeed, across the country, if it were followed to that extent.

One sometimes speaks of what are called SLAPP lawsuits. It’s an acronym that stands for strategic litigation against public participation. Really, what that kind of a lawsuit does is for an external body — typically, a company that might feel itself aggrieved by public discussion of a development proposal, for example — to sue the society and its individual directors and claim damages to their reputation and costs.

One can well imagine for a small, not terribly financially strong organization that could really be a major factor in deciding whether or not to speak out. In a democracy that would be a major concern. The government, I think, has wisely listened in the consultation process and decided to eliminate that proposed section. It was in the draft that was sent out for public discussion. In the bill that’s now before us, that section has been removed.

I think it is fair to offer congratulations to the minister on a wise choice. Perhaps it’s a reflection of his tenure and length of service in this place that he’s able to take a decision where perhaps a more junior minister might have dug their heels in and, for reasons other than good legislation, might have refused to make that change. I’m happy to see that, and I know that, certainly, the official opposition did participate in the public discussion and animation of that particular debate. We’re pleased that on this occasion the public was listened to and better legislation is going to result.

Now, there are some other provisions in the bill which I propose to briefly comment on. My very capable colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill will be dealing with this legislation at the next legislative stage. But some significant changes here, I think, are worth at least noting in a general discussion of the bill.

The new Societies Act makes a distinction between those societies which primarily rely only on member funding and those which obtain public and government funding, including registered charities. Understandably, if public funds become part of the society’s revenue stream, a greater obligation of disclosure is certainly merited. This is similar to recently enacted federal legislation governing non-profits, although different tests and terminology are used to determine when a society falls into a particular category.

Now, apparently, in the view of one commentator:

“The legislation is drafted so that a society must deliberately elect and declare itself to be only member-funded, assuming it qualifies with the rules set out in the new legislation. If those circumstances ever change and a certain amount of public funding does exist, in amounts to be prescribed by regulation, then the society automatically transforms into a publicly funded society and can only revert back to member-funded status by court order. The presumption, rightly or wrongly, is that most societies will be publicly funded and subject to the additional governance requirements set out below.”

The distinction is certainly one that I appreciate.

[1405]

The mechanism by which one automatically becomes a public society, I think, is something that, at the next stage of the legislative process, will require some scrutiny. The difficulty — requiring a society to apply for a court order to revert back to member-funded status only — would seem to be, arguably, slightly onerous, but I’m sure there is a legislative justification for that. I think that’s something that will be pursued, as I’ve said, elsewhere.

Some of the other changes that are anticipated in the legislation. A clear definition of senior staff and director compensation and conflict-of-interest rules all seem to bring the legislation forward. Certainly, there is an inherent tension in smaller societies where members of the board of directors may also be employed by the society.

Indeed, sometimes the genesis of a society is that a certain need or niche or member interest is identified. There’s a leader, a person who gets the process and the society underway and yet continues to provide some services to the society, both as a director and sometimes as an employee. That is not surprising but can lead to difficulties down the road as the society grows, so defining those roles more carefully, I think, is an important step forward in terms of the governance of societies generally.

The other comments — I think the previous member and other members have commented on the new electronic filing requirements. That would seem to be axiomatic, given that the previous legislation dates from the ’70s, when many of the technologies now available to us did not exist. That seems straightforward and will make some administrative convenience possible for those governing societies.

One of the other comments from a third party reviewing the legislation is that greater flexibility is now available for amalgamations within B.C. and for foreign legal entities migrating into this new governance regime.

Apparently, there’s no comparable ability for a B.C. society to migrate into any other jurisdictions of governance — not even the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, which really mimics in some ways the purposes and the objectives of the Societies Act, specifically designed, as the name would suggest, for activity and endeavours which are not-for-profit and which parallel or are very similar to activities undertaken by societies here in the province.

The general take and the general view of those of us on this side, I think, is that we welcome these changes that are brought about. The scrutiny that’s required will be undertaken by members of the Legislature on our side, other than myself, and certainly it will be a major piece of work to guide this particular bill through the committee stage. I leave that to the capable efforts of the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. With that, I conclude my remarks.

J. Martin: I would preface my remarks with apologies. I picked up a little bit of indigestion over lunch, so
[ Page 7164 ]
I’m going to try to coordinate my hiccups with dramatic pauses and thoughtful nuances of silence here. We’ll see how we do here.

[1410]

The current Society Act, which this bill, Bill 24, replaces, was enacted in 1977. It has basically remained relative unchanged. And 1977 was quite a year. We lost Elvis, and then, to make matters worse, we got disco, so I don’t have too many good memories of 1977.

Our government carried out two rounds of consultation with stakeholders and the public. Responses to a discussion paper circulated in 2011 informed the drafting of a white paper in 2014. That public consultation began with the circulation of a discussion paper, and 200 unique written submissions were received during the process. There was a follow-up stakeholder meeting held January 26, 2015, and about 40 stakeholders attended a discussion with the Minister of Finance. A great deal of time and effort and resources have gotten us to where we are today.

This is something that is overdue and welcomed. I hear, for the most part, supportive commentary on both sides of the House regarding the legislation that we’re speaking to. No doubt some of the details will be elaborated upon once this gets to committee.

Stakeholders express concerns in three major policy areas, those being court remedies, unalterable provisions and the age of directors, which I understand was discussed at length earlier.

As with the existing Society Act, complaints could be made to the registrar, who must, if circumstances warrant it, report the problem to the Minister of Finance, who in turn may appoint an investigator. For publicly funded societies, accountability has been enhanced through provisions requiring public disclosure of compensation for directors and highest-paid staff and that a majority of board members be unaffiliated with the society.

The member-funded societies, those that do not receive any significant level of public support, will be subject to fewer accountability measures and, given that they tend to have fewer resources, this is a wise area to arrive at. They will not be subject to the new public disclosure provisions. Additionally, member-funded societies need only have one director, need not provide public access to their financial statements and will not have the same restrictions on distributions when they wind up.

The new Societies Act selectively adopts new corporate procedures based on the Business Corporations Act. That allows for these to be adopted through the society’s bylaws.

What we’re at is the repealing, essentially, and replacing of today’s Society Act. This new act, Bill 24, brings B.C.’s legislation more into alignment with other Canadian jurisdictions that over the past while have revised and revisited their non-profit corporate frameworks by removing features such as the unalterable provisions and occupational title protection provisions. These were unique to British Columbia. The changes are being well received thus far.

Now, like every other member in this House, I have the pleasure of working with the non-profit societies in my particular constituency. We all know how much great work they can do and how much we see of giving and volunteerism and people using their own personal time for the betterment of the society. In most cases that trickles down to the community at large.

The idea is to be as supportive to these societies as we can while still recognizing that there needs to be a level of accountability. We don’t want to make the process overly onerous while we’re arriving at that accountability. This legislation seems to strike a nice balance in that particular area.

In terms of the accountability of publicly funded societies, the fundamental accountability measures have been carried through to the new legislation. These include requirements to have three directors, one of whom is ordinarily a resident in the province; to provide public access to financial statements; and, upon winding up, to distribute these assets only to other asset lock entities. The legislation also requires that the majority of the board of directors be unaffiliated with the society.

[1415]

The changes to the Society Act basically streamline operatives of the operations for B.C. societies, allowing them to provide the services, do the good work that they do, in a more efficient and effective manner. At the same time, we have an ability here to stress enhanced accountability measures. I’ll leave it at that.

It’s a welcome piece of legislation. I was visited by the delegation of stakeholders when we were working through the early versions of this new legislation. Some of the concerns….

As someone who has been involved with societies in my community, I had no idea that those particular challenges before the existing societies were as significant. I’m hopeful that we’ve addressed those particular concerns and that the societies, the non-profits that do such great work in communities throughout this wonderful province, will continue to provide those services and will be able to do so in an efficient and accountable manner. I look forward to the rest of the discussion on this particular subject matter.

R. Lee: It’s my pleasure to stand up to say a few words about our new Societies Act.

As I mentioned in the House many times, before I got elected, actually, I got involved in quite a number of societies in Burnaby and the Lower Mainland. I think this is very welcome legislation so that we can modernize the old act. As someone mentioned already, it is over 40 years old, and this new act will actually define the society in different categories, especially with the difference between publicly funded and the member-funded society. I think that’s a distinction that I am sure will be welcomed by a lot of smaller organizations.
[ Page 7165 ]

This consultation has been going on for a while — for a few months at least, for a few years, in fact — so that the stakeholders have a say on how this legislation would be formed and be done.

As you can see, there are so many societies in British Columbia, as mentioned — 27,000 societies. In Burnaby we share quite a bit of…. There are a number of societies in Burnaby. For example, we have the Burnaby Neighbourhood House doing a good job. In fact, it used to be south Burnaby, and now it’s all across Burnaby as well.

Burnaby Community Connections has been an organization connecting a lot of non-profit groups in Burnaby, including Meals on Wheels. We have the very well-regarded Burnaby Family Life Institute doing a good job regarding family services. Of course, the Burnaby Multicultural Society, the society I was director of before I got elected, are doing a fine job of serving the community as well.

In terms of seniors, there is the Seniors Outreach Services Society in Burnaby, the Hospice Society, and the Down Syndrome Research Foundation. Those kinds of organizations are serving the community as well.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the Neil Squire Society, doing a lot of service for people with disabilities and possibilities, and the Dixon Transition Society. Also, on the arts side, is the Burnaby Arts Council. One organization, Volunteer Burnaby, is coordinating a lot of volunteers in Burnaby as well. In fact, they are instrumental in setting up the Burnaby volunteer festival, which has been going on for 12 years. I think these are very good services.

In terms of getting this act into operation and also modernized, I believe the increase of accountability and transparency is very important. This act has been quite clear on that.

[1420]

To continue on the requirement — for example, the financial statements…. That should be available for the public to see, and for assets. And if there is some disagreement on what is said in the AGMs on record, the members actually can have the means to correct those.

There are also means for moving from one category to another. You can have a member-funded society first and then later move into a publicly funded society and vice versa. I think those provisions are very good.

I have been involved in some societies, not many. But sometimes the complaints by members are not being treated fairly. I think this is an improvement in this new act, that there are provisions for them to address their complaints. Also, as I have mentioned before, the society’s record can be altered if it doesn’t reflect the truth.

The ability to bring and pursue litigation on behalf of the society in order to enforce the society’s rights against others — I think this is, so-called, another side of the coin. That will also bring some certainty to the directors of the society.

I’m very pleased to see this going ahead, and I would like to see second reading going forward.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: Only to say this. I am obliged to all members who have participated and made their thoughts on this, and to the opposition critic, of course, for her detailed assessment and description of the contents of the bill.

Candidly, I am heartened by the expression of support that seems to exist within the House, recognizing that there will, as yet, be an opportunity to explore some of the individual features of the bill and how it operates. But I am alive to and, as I say, gratified that there seems to be recognition in all quarters in this House for the need for this legislation. Although one never achieves perfection, there is, thanks to the involvement of a great many people and input from a great many people, a product here that, my sense is, the House has a measure of comfort with.

For that, I am gratified and move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 24, Societies Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage of Bill 14.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 14 — TOBACCO CONTROL
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 14; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:25 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

J. Darcy: I would like to move an amendment. This amendment speaks to the issue of flavoured tobacco and flavoured cigarillos and proposes to amend this section to include flavoured tobacco and flavoured cigarillos.

[To amend section 2 of the Act as follows:

Section 1 is amended by adding the following definitions:

“activated e-cigarette” means an e-cigarette in which an e-substance is being vapourized;
[ Page 7166 ]

“cigarillo” includes any of the following products:

(1) a tobacco product that

(a) weighs less than 1.4 grams, excluding the weight of any mouthpiece or tip,

(b) is in the form of a roll or a tube, and

(c) has a wrapper that contains natural or reconstituted leaf tobacco.

(2) A tobacco product that,

(a) has a cellulose acetate or other type of filter,

(b) is in the form of a roll or a tube, and

(c) has a wrapper that contains natural or reconstituted leaf tobacco.

“e-cigarette” means the following:

(a) a product or device, whether or not it resembles a cigarette, containing an electronic or battery-powered heating element capable of vapourizing an e-substance for inhalation or release into the air;

(b) a prescribed product or device similar in nature or use to a product or device described in paragraph (a);

“e-substance” means a solid, liquid or gas

(a) that, on being heated, produces a vapour for use in an e-cigarette, regardless of whether the solid, liquid or gas contains nicotine, and

(b) that is not a controlled substance within the meaning of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada);

“flavoured cigarillo” includes a cigarillo that is represented as being flavoured, that contains a flavouring agent or that is presented by its packaging, by advertisement or otherwise as being flavoured;

“flavoured tobacco product” includes a tobacco product that is represented as being flavoured, that contains a flavouring agent or that is presented by its packaging, by advertisement or otherwise as being flavoured, including a product that is inhaled or chewed, but does not include a favoured cigarillo;

“vapour product” means the following:

(a) an e-cigarette;

(b) an e-substance;

(c) a cartridge for or a component of an e-cigarette.]

On the amendment.

J. Darcy: This is an issue that we have discussed on many occasions in this House. I have introduced, on two occasions, private members’ bills proposing that the Tobacco Control Act be amended to include flavoured tobacco, including flavoured cigarillos.

The minister’s response has been, first, that he was waiting for the federal government to act on this matter. Then, when the federal government did, in fact, move on some regulations regarding flavoured tobacco, there was an enormous gap in that legislation, a gap that the Canadian Cancer Society has spoken out on, that anti-smoking advocates and various people in the medical profession, the health profession, have spoken out about — that the exemption of menthol in those federal regulations is a glaring omission.

I think it’s critical, now that we have the opportunity, now that we are debating a bill that amends the Tobacco Control Act…. What better opportunity than to seize the time now to say that we also want to close that enormous loophole that exists in what the federal government is doing so that we can continue to be leaders in British Columbia on all aspects of waging war on tobacco and discouraging young people from beginning to smoke at all.

We know from polling that’s been done, from surveys, from the Canadian Cancer Society, that 30,000 young people begin smoking every year in British Columbia. We know that young people, when they begin smoking…. Half of them begin with flavoured tobacco products — 53 percent. In fact, we know that the tobacco companies’ advertising strategy is targeted at young people, trying to make these products more appealing to them.

[1430]

We also know that tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in British Columbia, killing 6,000 British Columbians every single year. We know that it costs our economy $2.3 billion a year, and we also know that the majority of new smokers are under the age of 18. We can’t continue waiting to get all of these products off the shelves.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It is true that the federal government has acted on some aspects of this, but they have not acted on all aspects of it. In fact, according evidence and surveys that we’ve seen, menthol is often referred to as being an older person’s cigarette, because it’s been around for decades, or one for a veteran smoker. I don’t know what word to use that isn’t derogatory of people in different age groups. My mother smoked menthol cigarettes. Lots of people who’ve smoked for some time either began with them or continued with them.

The fact of the matter is — and I say this because when we spoke about this earlier in question period, the minister referred to menthol as being something that’s been around for a long time and, therefore, as being something that affects all ages and not specifically targeted at youth — the statistics show that young people smoke menthol cigarettes far more than any other type of flavoured tobacco. And we know that flavoured tobacco is a gateway to lifelong smoking in many, many cases.

I’ve spoken on this issue in the past — I’ve also explained in this House — and produced materials, which I wish that I could stand up and display in the House but can’t because you’re not allowed to use props, about how menthol cigarettes themselves, yes, have been around for a long time but that there are new and very aggressive and inventive ways of trying to market these products in particular.

New brands, new cigarette designs, new packaging. One of the new menthol brands is Camel — you know, “Squeeze, click, change,” with bursts of menthol flavour. The tobacco companies are aggressively marketing these products, and we have the opportunity to do something about it. Let’s take the opportunity of this bill that amends the Tobacco Control Act that’s already before the Legislature, and let’s get the whole job done.
[ Page 7167 ]

The federal government did not get the whole job done. The Canadian Cancer Society has been crystal-clear about that. There are loopholes so big in the amendments to the regulations that the federal government has introduced that you could drive tens of thousands of young British Columbians through them who still use flavoured tobacco — and, in particular, use menthol-flavoured tobacco.

This is not a partisan issue. Surely, if our goal here is to eliminate the harmful effects of smoking tobacco in any way, shape or form, then we should take the opportunity to reduce having the possibility of these products getting into the hands of young people in particular, because they are using them. They are considered cool and trendy, and menthol is the top of the list of the flavoured-tobacco products that they consume.

I hope that the minister can join with me in supporting this amendment, and then we can put this issue to rest, and we can get on with the job of finding other ways to reduce the use of tobacco in this province and save more people from the illnesses and deaths that are caused every year by use of tobacco products in British Columbia and the enormous cost to the health care system as well.

The Chair: Member for Stikine, are you seeking leave to make an introduction, Member?

D. Donaldson: I was speaking in favour of the amendment.

The Chair: Just wait.

Minister of Health.

Hon. T. Lake: Before I begin, I would like to introduce the professional public servants that are supporting me here today. On my left is Arlene Paton, who’s the assistant deputy minister, and to my right, Shelley Canitz and Ann Marr. I want to thank them for all their work that has gone into this bill.

I know the member opposite is extremely passionate about this subject, and I share her passion.

[1435]

I, like many people, have seen family members suffer from the effects of smoking and always thought that if I got in a position where I could enact policy to reduce the negative effects of smoking, that would be something that would serve as an accomplishment for me. So I hope that the member does not discount my sincerity when I say that everything we can do to reduce smoking in British Columbia is important to me.

However, this act is about the use and sale of e-cigarettes, electronic cigarettes, with a small portion that applies to smoking of any type on health authority grounds. The reason that we have taken this approach, on the use and sale of e-cigarettes in particular, in this bill is because the federal government has, in fact, taken action.

The Premier made it clear in my mandate letter that we were to urge the federal government to take action to close loopholes in the production and sale of flavoured tobaccos and the marketing of such products to young people. I’ve met with the federal minister on more than one occasion to have this discussion. We have talked about it at the federal-provincial-territorial meeting of Health ministers, where all provinces had the same view. We were happy to see the federal Health Minister agree to take action.

In fact, they have created regulations which have been gazetted in Ottawa. Our understanding is that these regulations will come into force in the spring. Now, the spring in Ottawa occurs later than the spring in Victoria, so we’re still waiting for those regulations to be enacted, but we are confident that the changes the federal government will be making when the regulations are enacted will attack the vast majority of the problem of flavoured tobacco and the marketing of such products to children.

When you look at the regulation of products, it simply makes more sense to do that at a national or international level rather than province by province. That is what is happening in Europe, where they’re taking a pan-European approach to this problem, and in the United States, taking a national approach rather than a state-by-state approach. When we’re looking at the expertise, resources and enforcement that is necessary on the manufacture and sale of product, it is a lot more efficient and effective to do that at the national level.

I speak against this amendment, even though I know the member’s motives are very pure in this case. But we feel that this bill will protect young people from the potential harmful effects of e-cigarettes and also serve to protect them from a gateway activity that may lead to smoking of tobacco products.

D. Donaldson: I’m happy to rise today to speak in favour of this well-thought-out amendment to Bill 14, the Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2015. I want to reiterate my congratulations to the minister for bringing this bill to the Legislature. I also want to say that, yes, I, too, have had personal family experience, with the lives of members of my family who started smoking at a very young age being significantly reduced because of the effects of tobacco.

I think what I’d like to say in supporting this amendment is that waiting any time in a situation where we can introduce legislation to prevent people starting smoking, especially when we have the opportunity to enact legislation to prevent that from happening, is not a good move. I’m speaking in favour of this amendment because I think it improves the bill to a great extent.

[1440]

The minister has spoken about federal regulations and waiting for them to be enacted. We know that there are many uncertainties on the federal front at this time. There could be — who knows? — a change in government, but there’s definitely going to be an election. That tends to slow down the legislative process and the enact-
[ Page 7168 ]
ing of regulations. So I’m not sure what the timeline will be on the regulations from the federal side, which he has discussed in his comments to this amendment, but my point of view would be that waiting any time is waiting too long when it comes to more young people becoming addicted to tobacco products.

Again, the reason I’m supporting this amendment is that fruit flavours, we know, are effective in attracting youth to smoking, especially menthol flavours, where the menthol tends to anaesthetize the user’s throat and make it easier to inhale.

We have smoking rates — and this is especially of concern to me — amongst the aboriginal population in Canada that are twice as high as non-aboriginal people. In Stikine — and this is similar demographics to the rest of the province but in Stikine particularly — 70 percent of the population is under 30, which is twice the provincial average. This reflects the First Nations majority demographic in Stikine.

These products that are described in the amendment, which are not in Bill 14 as it stands now, I think can be considered what someone called gateway products. They are products that are particularly attractive to young people — the way they’re marketed, the way they almost seem like toys. The spokesperson for Health has shown me many of these products, and I’ve seen them on the shelves of businesses that I’ve gone to in the area I represent. They’re brightly coloured. Again, they seem like toys, and it’s not apparent that they’re an addictive product and a gateway product.

I think this is a great opportunity to improve Bill 14 with this amendment. It’s the role of the official opposition to make positive suggestions when we see that things can be done and to congratulate the government when we think they’re doing well. I think they’ve done well in introducing Bill 14. I also think they would do well to consider and support the proposed amendment.

With those comments, I look forward to hearing from other members and I’ll take my seat in this debate.

N. Simons: I’d just like to add my support to the amendment as proposed by the member for New Westminster. I might add my thanks to the minister for considering this issue at all. But I do think that the two excuses the minister used for not going further, not going the distance that the Canadian Cancer Society would have liked, fail to convince me that they are legitimate.

The first excuse, he said, was that this kind of legislation to ban flavoured tobacco shouldn’t be done province to province to province. Well, it’s happening that way, many other laws are happening that way, and many other jurisdictions take the initiative and lead the way.

We don’t have to necessarily wait till the government tells us we should do this, and then we’ll do it. What about showing a bit more leadership in that particular area? I understand that the likelihood of amendments getting accepted by government…. They’re kind of set in their way, and they like to show what they would do and try and get as little negative feedback on it.

I have to say that the steps they’re taking are positive, but there were some very logical steps once this act was opened up for amendments. This is the bill in which flavoured tobacco could be banned. This is the legislation in which that ban could occur.

I think saying that it’s more difficult to enforce province to province is also somewhat questionable, because we’re not talking about a federal enforcement agency. We’re talking about the same enforcement agents in our province that are our provincial employees. They’re B.C. folks enforcing B.C. laws.

[1445]

We have the opportunity here to lead the way. I’ve quit smoking, but I smoked for over 20 years, and my first smoking was with flavoured tobacco. I’m not saying that that’s the reason I smoked and it’s the reason I didn’t quit. Those are all things that ex-smokers have to contemplate as they look back in their life.

I do think that, if the minister isn’t personally aware of the impact of flavoured tobacco, maybe he doesn’t recognize its significance to young people who access tobacco even before they’re legally allowed to. I think it would have sent a really strong message. It would have probably gotten broad support and enthusiasm had the minister taken that extra step.

You know, even if this amendment is not successful, I’m hoping that the minister contemplates future amendments that include the ideas as proposed by the opposition here today. I understand the way things work in this place. I’m not sure of the record of amendments passing since I was elected, but I think it’s probably zero for about 300 or so. This may fall victim to the same problem.

With that said, I do say, on the one hand, it’s a good start, but we do have a few more steps to go. I don’t think we should concern ourselves with whether other jurisdictions have done the same thing or not. I think British Columbia has a proud history in some respects — not always but mostly a proud history — in enacting legislation that is progressive. This is an opportunity to do that same thing with the amendment as proposed by my friend and colleague from New Westminster. I’m looking forward to further discussion on this.

C. James: I also rise to speak in support of the amendment brought forward by the member for New Westminster to add banning flavoured tobacco as one of the prohibitions in this bill.

Like many and like other speakers, and I think probably like most of us of an age category in this House, I have also been impacted by smoking in my family’s life and my husband’s family’s life, including the passing of relatives.

I also was a smoker, as I said, like many in my generation. Not as long as the previous member, but I smoked
[ Page 7169 ]
for seven years and started at 16 on menthol cigarettes. That was my gateway into smoking. I had many friends who smoked in high school. It was the place to hang out. It was the opportunity to be part of a group. I found cigarette smoking very difficult, but I found menthol cigarettes easier to smoke than other cigarettes. For that reason alone, I think the strength of this amendment….

I believe it is the intent of the minister, I believe it is the intent of government, to continue on with B.C. being a leader when it comes to reducing the rates of smoking, when it comes to keeping our reputation as an amazing province when it comes to health and rates of smoking.

I think the opportunity to include in this bill flavoured tobacco is part of that work. It’s part of the prevention work. It’s part of not leaving our young people to the difficulty that many of us had in having to quit smoking — a very tough thing to do, a very difficult thing to do, for many who have gone through the experience.

From my perspective, I support the amendment, because I think anything we can do to help young people not start is a positive. To help young people not get hooked on cigarettes and smoking is a positive. I think if you take a look at the statistics, as the minister probably knows, 29 percent of high school students who smoke, smoke menthol. That’s a large percentage of the high school students. Fifty percent of high school students who smoke use flavoured tobacco.

This is an obvious place for young people to begin. This is an obvious place for young people to be attracted. I think the marketing, as others have talked about, of these products is very clearly to young people. It’s very clearly done to attract young people, to bring them in, to have them hooked on smoking. I think anything we can do to help prevent young people from the cycle of smoking is a plus. To me, this amendment is our opportunity.

I appreciate the minister’s comments that the federal government is moving and we’ll get there, and when the federal government is there, we’ll have consistency across the country.

[1450]

All of that may be true. But let’s remember that, as others have said, we have a federal election coming up, which means regulations often take longer, which means things are stalled while we go through the federal election until after the federal election, which puts a stall on all of this.

I think the other piece is that B.C. is a leader. We are a leader in anti-smoking. We are a leader when it comes to a province. Why wouldn’t we continue to be a leader? Why would we say: “Let’s sit back”? I think we’ve seen ourselves say “let’s sit back” on too many issues and wait for the federal government.

I agree with the minister. I think it’s great to have it enacted across country, but if it’s not going to happen, let’s take the leadership to help make it happen. Let’s take the leadership to encourage it to happen. Ontario’s already moved. There’s no reason why British Columbia can’t say: “Let’s step out. Let’s take a leadership role and encourage that to occur.”

I am standing in support of this motion. I would hope that the minister would see it as an amendment that strengthens the bill that has come forward, that adds to the bill and that certainly adds to our arsenal of prevention programs that are so necessary to keep our young people from entering into a world of smoking.

A. Weaver: I was listening in my office, and I heard the amendment come forward. I wanted to stand here and offer my strong support for the amendment as well.

I’ve had people come to my constituency office expressing concerns about flavoured tobacco products and the effects they have, on targeting youth and getting youth actually hooked on tobacco. I’ve had the Canadian cancer association. I have had numerous others come and suggest to me that this is something that needs to be dealt with.

I particularly agree with the comments that I just heard from the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, who pointed out that we are a leader. We have been a leader in Canada, in the world, in terms of tobacco prevention and smoking prevention.

This is such an ideal opportunity for us to build upon that and to actually become a leader not only in tobacco products but also flavoured tobacco products, which are designed specifically to actually hook the youth such that down the road they’ll be picking up on other tobacco products.

I stand and speak in strong support of this, and I appreciate the official opposition bringing this amendment forward.

[1455-1500]

The Chair: Hon. Members, the question is the amendment moved by the member for New Westminster to section 2 of Bill 14.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[1505]

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

J. Darcy: I would like to propose an amendment to section 7.

The Chair: Please proceed.

J. Darcy: I am moving to amend section 7 in the following ways.

[To amend section 7 by adding the following subsections:

7 Section 2.3 is amended

(a) in subsection (1) by striking out “or hold lighted tobacco,” and substituting “hold lighted tobacco, use an e-cigarette, or hold an activated e-cigarette”, and

(b) in subsection (6) by striking out “smoked tobacco, or held lighted tobacco,” and substituting “smoked or held lighted tobacco or used or held an activated e-cigarette, as described in subsection (1);”.

(b) adding the following:

(c) The prohibitions in subsection (1) with respect to e-cigarettes do not apply to retail outlets whose primary purpose is the sale and distribution of e-cigarettes and vapour products., and

(c) in subsection (6) by striking out “smoked tobacco, or held lighted tobacco,” and substituting “smoked or held lighted tobacco or used or held an activated e-cigarette, as described in subsection (1);”.]

On the amendment.

J. Darcy: If I could speak to that issue, I certainly want to take the opportunity to say that the official opposition supports wholeheartedly the thrust of the bill. We’ve spoken about that on previous occasions. This bill speaks to many different aspects of regulating e-cigarettes: the sale to minors, where it can be sold, use in public places — in health care and school boards and so on — all of which we support.

But there is also, and I think that the minister will acknowledge this…. He’s certainly heard from constituents, I’m sure. He’s heard from people who use e-cigarettes. I’m sure he’s heard from medical experts on it, as well as people who sell e-cigarette products, that there is considerable debate — some would say controversy, but certainly considerable debate — about the beneficial versus the harmful effects of e-cigarettes, the potential negative effects as well as the issue of harm reduction and the use of e-cigarette products for people who are attempting to quit smoking.

Certainly, the federal Health Committee debated this in committee stage for some considerable period of time, heard submissions from everyone affected by this — consumers, distributors and so on. They devoted considerable time in a report that they issued to the issue of harm reduction and smoking cessation and the possible potential positive impact on smoking cessation with the use of e-cigarettes.

The folks that have approached me on this issue, including those people who distribute or sell these products, are themselves supportive — the Canadian Vaping Association most prominent among them — and certainly accept the prohibitions in the bill on sale to minors. They support the prohibition in the bill on use of these products on health authority properties and school board properties, in public places and so on.

But they’ve also made the case to me. They’ve made the case to other MLAs, as have consumers of these products who are attempting to quit smoking made the case to me in phone calls and in e-mails. I know that representatives of some of these organizations have met with the minister’s staff also to discuss this issue. The one case that they make, which I think is a worthwhile one, is that in those establishments that exist for the sole purpose of selling e-cigarette products, there should be an exemption from the other provisions of this bill.

This bill prohibits, as I’ve said and as the minister is well aware, the use of these products in a number of places, including the use of these products in workplaces.

[1510]

General prohibition on use in workplaces — absolutely. The case that these folks make is that a business establishment that sells e-cigarette products or vaping products is also a workplace. Therefore, they would be prohibited from allowing people, when they come in, to buy those products, and they’re coming for the express purpose of buying those products.

These business establishments would be restricted for people who are not of legal age to consume these products. They would be prohibited from entering. So this is not about access by youth, who are the people we’re most concerned about accessing these products. They’re already prohibited from entering it.

The issue of potential impacts of secondary smoke — the potential impact of the vaping by-products, which is a subject great debate but understood — does not become an issue, because everyone who is in that particular
[ Page 7171 ]
business establishment is there for only one purpose, and that’s because they’re interested in sampling and potentially purchasing one of these products.

They have made the case, as have a number of people who have written to me, that when you are attempting to quit smoking and when you are considering using one of these products…. In fact, people are attempting….

I’ve never tried them. I don’t have any interest in doing it. I quit smoking a long time ago and don’t want to go near it again. People are approximating, through the use of e-cigarettes or vaping products, what the smoking experience was, but in a way that does not include the burning of tobacco, which is the most dangerous thing about it.

What this amendment serves to do is have an exemption from the prohibition of use of these products in workplaces alone, in all workplaces, and have a specific exemption for workplaces that exist for the sole purpose of selling these products, that being a business establishment that sells these products — an exemption for those establishments and those alone.

Hon. T. Lake: I rise to speak against the amendment.

I understand the member’s argument. I understand the arguments made by vendors of e-cigarette products. The reality is that these are workplaces, and we don’t know the effects of the products that are being vaped. There are no federally regulated vapour products on the market, no Health Canada approved uses, in terms of harm reduction, which may very well be a good use for e-cigarettes.

I have told people that have contacted me on this subject that people interested in making a living selling e-cigarettes should invest in the studies and trials necessary to get a Health Canada approval for such use, if they were serious about that intention.

These are public spaces. They’re workplaces, and therefore, people going into them should not be exposed to a product, the harmful effects of which are entirely unknown at this point in time.

C. Trevena: I would like to actually speak in favour of this amendment, which would allow the use of vaporizers in stores that are selling them. The minister, in one of his reasons not to support it, talks about the fact that we don’t know what is actually in these vaporizers and they might be harmful. But the people who are going into the store, who are working in the store are, I would very likely guess — I think it would be an educated guess — most likely users of vaporizers, and the people coming into the store are people who want to purchase vaporizers. So you’re talking about quite an enclosed circle of people who would be going into that atmosphere.

I spoke on second reading of this bill to talk about…. I think we’ve all had our little personal moments. We’ve all exposed how much we used to smoke, and being one of those people and having mentioned that before, I’ll move on.

[1515]

But after speaking about it and having commented about the vaporizer, I got, actually, a lot of correspondence back, including people who were concerned about the fact that we call them e-cigarettes rather than vaping, because it parallels the vaporizers with cigarettes. Those who are using it have done research. It might not have been approved yet by Health Canada or international health bodies, but they have done research and have found that it is a lot less problematic. There are far fewer chemicals, as they understand it, than there are in traditional cigarettes.

While the minister might have a laugh at that, there is a real perception that this is a very good way to lead out of smoking. Any time that you’re taking a smoking cessation device, any sort of system you’re using — whether you’re using nicotine chewing gum, a nicotine patch or a vaping system — you are going to be imbibing and absorbing certain chemicals so you can lose that addiction to nicotine and lose the addiction to smoking. This is one way that people can make that step, make that break. It’s very, very hard, as we know, to quit smoking.

I have a letter in front of me. In fact, somebody who lives in the constituency of a colleague, from Comox Valley, went to a vapour shop in Nanaimo and bought his personalized vaporizer in February 2014, a year ago. He extols the health benefits. He has been able to get back to running, can go out with his kids. He says it’s all much more enjoyable. “I have much better lung capacity and feel fantastic.”

I’m totally in agreement with the fact that we should be restricting purchase by minors, whatever age a jurisdiction says is a minor. Here we say it’s 19. Restrict the sale to minors and restrict the use in public spaces. But on this very limited area of saying we should be allowed in this one specific workplace…. It is a very, very small area. As I say, it’s within a very small area that we would be permitting people to vape. Likewise, we’re not stopping people from vaping in their own homes. We would be prohibiting them from vaping in cars where you have a young person, as we do with tobacco.

I think in this very small exception, it is really one worth considering. It is still limiting, very stringently, where one can and cannot vape, which may…. I think we might in future years want to be, perhaps, a bit more accommodating here to ensure that those last people who are smoking tobacco cigarettes do have that opportunity to ease off. I think if we can have this little bit of leniency for this specific instance….

The vaping associations all think that this is as much as they need. The people who are vaping, while they would like a much broader opportunity, accept that this might be the only place that they can “publicly” do the vaping.

I would hope that the minister does take a second look at this, address it with his caucus colleagues and his cabinet colleagues and think very seriously about allowing this specific amendment.
[ Page 7172 ]

N. Simons: I’d like to offer my support for this amendment as proposed by my colleague from New Westminster.

I think that making it impossible to demonstrate to folks what an e-cigarette does or how to use it is extremely shortsighted. I think the idea that this government doesn’t have the flexibility or the elasticity to permit, in very restricted circumstances, the demonstration of the use of an e-cigarette is a bit of a copout.

I think that the minister is…. I don’t know what he was chirping over to us the other moment ago, when my colleague from North Island was speaking. He seems to take issue with the simple….

Interjection.

N. Simons: Oh, he was asking about the definition of “research.” I can help him with that. Clearly, he does need some assistance.

[1520]

My worry is that this minister has chosen, contrary to common sense, to specifically make it impossible for the purveyor of these e-cigarettes, which have helped many people quit smoking…. That idea that he doesn’t have the flexibility…. Maybe it wasn’t in his mandate letter. He can’t do it unless it was in his mandate letter. That seems to be the refrain that the minister seems to use. Why not think of it yourself? Why not think of that as a possibility?

This is going to create great hardship to folks who want to demonstrate a product that could potentially save some lives. So if that’s not the purpose of this legislation, I don’t know what is.

Let me just, for the record, read a couple of comments that support this amendment from constituents.

“My name is Kyle. I’m from the Sunshine Coast. I find it appalling that e-cigarettes, because they’re unlike traditional tobacco cigarettes, are being treated the same way that tobacco is.

“I was a smoker of two packs a day for nearly ten years. I tried everything available to try and be rid of the foul things, as they were harming me in a lot of ways. Over the past three years I was introduced to electronic cigarettes. Not only did they allow me to give up tobacco altogether; I feel great healthwise.

“My respiratory system is working properly. I can do my job now, which is fairly physically active. From studies I’ve read, I am not harming my surrounding peers with awful, toxic secondhand smoke.

“I really hope these wonderful devices that have changed so many lives for the better don’t get tossed into the same ship as the world’s leading killer, tobacco.”

Now, that’s just one person who needed to find out about this product in order to allow him to quit smoking two packs a day. I know that the minister doesn’t want to go on anecdotal evidence. Where are the studies that British Columbia is undertaking that show the harmful nature of the e-cigarette? That would be something that perhaps he would consider investing in. But as it stands right now, this product, which will be for sale, will not…. The owner of the store or the workers in the store will not be able to demonstrate, will not be able to show prospective tobacco quitters how to use these products.

I don’t understand. To me, the copout here is that the minister doesn’t want to try any harder than he has. I think maybe he needs to try a little harder. I think he needs to try and figure out how you can make an exemption. If you can ban smoking in cars with people under 16, you should be able to make a law that allows you to try an e-cigarette in a store.

To me, it doesn’t make sense at all. It doesn’t make sense at all that the minister thinks it’s too complicated to allow a person selling an e-cigarette to demonstrate to the prospective customer how to use it. That doesn’t make sense at all. You can’t think of one tiny, little exemption.

I’m not saying, “Use it everywhere,” obviously. This is about one exemption. This amendment is about making it possible for people who wish to quit smoking tobacco to be able to learn how to use one product that seems to many ex-smokers the best, the fastest and even the easiest way to quit tobacco.

As the minister knows, quitting smoking tobacco has been compared with quitting heroin. It’s a very addictive product. One would hope that if, in fact, this minister’s underlying reasoning for enacting these restrictive rules is to improve the health outcomes of British Columbians, a little bit more thought into this particular section could have gone into this.

Once again, I understand the record of amendments passing in this Legislature. I understand the desire on the part of the government to pretend that they did everything exactly the way they wanted. They don’t want to admit, perhaps, that this is a little bit of an oversight. Maybe in future amendment opportunities this minister will reopen this. Maybe we can ask the Premier to put it in his mandate letter so that he can do it without feeling too bad about it. But I really do believe that the idea that you cannot demonstrate to a prospective customer, to a prospective tobacco-smoke quitter, that you’re not allowed to demonstrate the product in your store….

[1525]

Here’s another letter from another Sunshine Coaster.

“I’m writing to you to tell you that the new act not only confuses me but makes me frustrated and angry. I began using e-cigarettes seven years ago, when my grandfather was diagnosed with lung cancer and my own doctor told me I was on the verge of developing COPD while I was hooked up to the respiratory inhalers in the hospital.

“On average, I was having asthma attacks every day and pneumonia four times a year. Since starting on e-cigarettes, I have not had an asthma attack in six years, and I’ve not had pneumonia once. I believe that e-cigarettes saved my life, as I have not been this healthy during the almost 20 years I smoked cigarettes. Tobacco cigarettes were killing me, and e-cigarettes made me quit smoking and brought my quality of life back tenfold, so I can continue to live my life and watch my children grow.

“My children — 13, ten and one month — are so grateful that I’ve quit smoking and were by no means affected during my use of e-cigarettes. They do not show interest in the product or flavours. I do believe that they should not sell these products to minors, but to take away adult choices to better their lives is unfair.”

I think most objective people looking at this who see
[ Page 7173 ]
the government’s intent to move people away from the tobacco products…. That’s understandable. But to eliminate what seems like the obvious alternative, to allow a store to demonstrate a product in a controlled setting, maybe even in a back room….

I can imagine that someone writing legislation would know how to make an exception in cases where people are selling these in stand-alone stores. If it’s lack of imagination or simply not having thought about it, here’s an opportunity in our system where the official opposition and the members in the opposition have an opportunity to assist the government in improving what is a pretty good bill with minor flaws.

We’re not trying to attack the integrity of anyone in here. We’re not trying to personalize this whatsoever. The minister doesn’t seem to want to consider alternatives, and I think that’s a shame. I think my constituents and constituents around the province, if they knew that e-cigarettes contribute to the reduction in tobacco smoking, would support that.

When we see that the sale of these products will be legal but without the ability for purveyors of the product to demonstrate it, I think it’s just a little bit of a problem, and it probably just needs a little bit of a fix. I would suggest that the amendment as proposed by my friend and colleague from New Westminster is the fix necessary.

[1530-1535]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[1540]

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

J. Darcy: I would like to move an amendment to section 9.

The Chair: Please proceed.

J. Darcy: This amendment would amend section 9:

[To amend section 9 of the Act as follows:

9 The following sectionsis are added:

Exception for prescribed medical products

2.41 A person is exempt from the prohibitions set out in sections 2 to 2.4, other than section 2 (1), with respect to vapour products that are prescribed products or devices intended to be used for medical purposes, including to reduce nicotine dependence.
Flavoured Cigarillos

2.5 (1) No person shall sell or offer to sell a flavoured cigarillo at retail or for subsequent sale at retail or distribute or offer to distribute it for that purpose.

Flavoured Tobacco Products

(2) No person shall sell or offer to sell a flavoured tobacco product at retail or for subsequent sale at retail or distribute or offer to distribute it for that purpose.]

On the amendment.

J. Darcy: This amendment speaks….

The Chair: Member, just a second.

Minister, your point of order.

Point of Order

Hon. T. Lake: I rise on a point of order. Firstly, we’ve canvassed this issue, and secondly, there is no definition in the definition section to describe the products that the member is seeking to have inserted into the bill.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. I think we are going to debate the amendment, and then it can be dealt with by vote.

Continue, Member.

Debate Continued

J. Darcy: I have spoken, as have my colleagues, about this issue at length. What we’re attempting to do here is consistent with amendments that we moved earlier.

This particular section of the act deals with promotion and advertising and display of tobacco products. I
[ Page 7174 ]
think it is absolutely appropriate that in this section we add to it flavoured cigarillo products and flavoured tobacco products.

I think this is a critical section in which to do that because, as we know and as we’ve spoken about at great length in this House, advertising and promotion of flavoured tobacco products targets youth in particular. I won’t repeat the arguments I’ve made previously about these being gateway products to lifelong smoking, about the menthol exemption in the federal regulations that are being considered still being there — that affecting 29 percent of youth.

I have spoken at length already in this House about the new and innovative and quite creative ways that tobacco companies are trying to market menthol products, in particular to young people, with new products on the market and new forms of advertising all the time. I think in a section of the act that deals with promotion and advertising and display of tobacco products that it absolutely makes sense that we should amend that to include flavoured cigarillos and flavoured tobacco.

Amendment negatived on division.

N. Simons: I have a question about who this particular section is geared toward. What person would be exempt? What person would be likely exempt from the prohibitions set out in sections 2 to 2.4. Who does the minister anticipate to include in that?

[1545]

Hon. T. Lake: The intent here is twofold. There are products that are essentially nebulized for prescriptions — asthma medication, for instance. Also, this allows for the future regulation — or approval, if you like — of electronic vapour products for harm reduction purposes. It leaves the door open for future approved products that are approved by Health Canada for the prescribed purposes.

N. Simons: So this particular amendment is for future use only. It currently couldn’t be implemented because we don’t have nebulizers that are tobacco reduction products.

Hon. T. Lake: Where there are prescribed medical products that are nebulized or vaporized at the moment, there are no electronic vape products that are approved for medical purposes or for nicotine reduction strategies. It does allow for that possibility to occur in the future, in which case a person would be exempt from the prohibitions in sections 2 to 2.4.

N. Simons: If my doctor told me that I should reduce my smoking and I should use a vaporizer — the doctor is telling me this — is that what this is intended for? For a doctor who says, “You’d be better off with an e-cigarette, whatever’s in it, than continuing your two-pack-a-day habit”— is this the loophole that we’re looking for, for people who want to try this product? How will they…?

Let me read: “A person is exempt from the prohibitions set out in sections 2 to 2.4, other than section 2 (1), with respect to vapour products that are prescribed products or devices intended to be used for medical purposes….”

Doctors are going to tell their patients that in order to reduce their nicotine dependence, they should use a vaporizer. Is that what this section is covering?

Hon. T. Lake: We’re not banning e-cigarettes. The opportunity to purchase and use e-cigarettes by adults is still available, if someone was advised by a medical professional to do that.

I want to be clear that “prescribed” in this section means prescribed by regulation, not prescribed by a doctor. It allows us to prescribe in regulation products or devices that are intended to be used for medical purposes. It is not referring to a doctor’s prescription.

N. Simons: Thank you for that clarification. So a doctor who says you should use a vaporizer or you should use an e-cigarette, because you need to reduce your nicotine dependence and your smoking — that has nothing to do with this particular section. A doctor suggesting that to a patient — the doctor would be unable to send them to somewhere where they could get this, to have it demonstrated.

It just seems strange that there’s an acknowledgment that there’s the possibility for the reduction of nicotine dependence with the use of e-cigarettes, yet previous sections say you’re not allowed to show someone how to use it. It just seemed to me a little bit strange.

[1550]

Sections 9 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

J. Darcy: I’d like to move an amendment to section 15.

The Chair: Member, proceed.

J. Darcy: This amendment to section 15 would have the effect of adding the following:

[To amend section 15 as follows:

15(i) in subsection (2), adding the following:

(m) exempting tobacco products from the definition of “flavoured cigarillo” and making the exemption subject to the conditions, if any, that may be provided for in the regulations;

(n) defining “flavouring agent” for the purposes of the definitions of “flavoured cigarillo” and “flavoured tobacco product” in section 1;]

On the amendment.

J. Darcy: This section of the act allows the minister to
[ Page 7175 ]
assign by regulation the products that are regulated by the act. There is a set of definitions, to which we are adding “cigarillo” and “flavoured tobacco,” and the amendment would allow the minister in the future to introduce regulations concerning these new products without coming back to the Legislature. So it would treat these products — the new categories of them that may arise — the same as others that are regulated by the act.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

On section 17.

N. Simons: I’m just wondering if the minister knows how many ticketing offences have occurred for people smoking tobacco in a vehicle while minors are present.

Hon. T. Lake: My staff inform me that in the past year one person every three days, on average, received a ticket for smoking with children in the car.

N. Simons: That seems like a high number. I’m wondering if the minister is contemplating public education campaigns to remind people that they’re not allowed to smoke in a vehicle with minors present.

I’m also wondering if the minister is aware that the use of e-cigarettes is a fundamentally different usage than tobacco. I would imagine that the minister knows that a king-size cigarette probably takes about eight minutes to smoke and a regular probably takes about 6½. When people use e-cigarettes, it’s usually, I think, about eight seconds. What was the motivation to include this in the act?

[1555]

Hon. T. Lake: The motivation is the same as the rest of the act, and that it is to protect those under age 19 from the potential harmful effects of vapour products. The member’s supposition is that these products are less harmful than tobacco. That very well may be the case, but we don’t have enough regulation, we don’t have enough research, we don’t have information to know what is in these products.

To use these vapour products in a closed, confined space with young children in that closed, confined space could be particularly harmful for that child. We know that some of these products have things like propylene glycol in them. The problem is that we have such a lack of information as to what is in these vapour products.

The intent of this section is the same as the entire bill, which is predominantly to protect people under the age of 19 from potential harmful effects of vapour products.

N. Simons: I don’t think the minister has really explained specifically why the ministry has not undertaken studies themselves and sort of uses the legislation instead just to…. I mean, it’s just-in-case legislation. We could think of lots of other places where we could be much more careful in terms of what we permit to be sold.

I suppose this is just my cheeky question without a convertible. I suppose it’s probably covered under the Motor Vehicle Act. That’s not a question either, hon Minister. It’s just a comment.

Sections 17 to 22 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — TOBACCO CONTROL
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Bill 14, Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2015, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call committee on Bill 2.

[1600]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — BC TRANSPORTATION
FINANCING AUTHORITY TRANSIT ASSETS
AND LIABILITIES ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 4:01 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

G. Heyman: Let me begin some of my questions by just thanking the minister and the minister’s staff for the briefing that did take place. It’s unfortunate we weren’t able to have the discussion prior to second reading, but the material that was provided in response to the questions that I put forward in my meeting were fulsome and thorough, and I appreciate that very much. Hopefully, the minister also appreciates that on this piece of legislation I don’t particularly have extensive questions on the definitions.

[D. Horne in the chair.]
[ Page 7176 ]

Let me begin with some questions on section 2. While I think most of the issues in this piece of legislation are fairly straightforward, I think it’s useful to put some questions and some answers on the public record. Some of the answers that the minister will provide will be similar to ones that were provided to me and my colleagues in writing, but I think it is a service to the public to have them on Hansard transcripts.

My first question is: why was RTP 2000, Rapid Transit Project 2000, kept alive for so long after the initial purpose for which it was created was served, and why is it not being wound down now?

Hon. T. Stone: I look forward to a good discussion here on Bill 2. In terms of his first question, which, if I understood correctly, was why this was not done earlier, that’s a question that perhaps would be better asked to those who were in government in previous years.

As the minister responsible for these assets today, and I have been the minister for the last couple of years…. As the member knows well, we have been engaged in a core review process across government. One of the items that crossed my desk that staff in the ministry felt was a worthwhile candidate for the core review process was the wind-down of RTP 2000.

[1605]

When we looked at the most expeditious and most efficient way of doing that, it was determined that transferring all of the assets and liabilities of RTP 2000 to the BCTFA through this legislation would be the best way to deal with the situation. Then I can assure the member that shortly after this work is done, this legislation is passed, RTP 2000 will indeed be wound down.

G. Heyman: Given the minister’s answer to my first question, it would be safe to assume, then, that there is no contemplation being given to using RTP 2000 as a shell for any other projects?

Hon. T. Stone: The answer would be no. We have no intentions of using RTP 2000 for any other purpose.

G. Heyman: The minister’s staff provided to me in writing a listing of the assets and liabilities of RTP 2000. I think it would be useful to the public if the minister could read those into the public record.

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly. I’d be happy to read into the record the assets, the major asset categories, and a few details of each of them that are affected by this piece of legislation. First off is the Millennium Line, which includes a guideway between Columbia station and VCC-Clark station, including tracks and bridges.

Next, the passenger stations and all station equipment. The passenger stations are at Sapperton, Braid, Lougheed Town Centre, Production Way–University, Sperling, Burnaby Lake, Holdom, Brentwood Town Centre, Gilmore, Rupert, Renfrew and VCC-Clark.

The second major asset category would be vehicles. There are 40 SkyTrain cars.

The third asset category would be land — specifically, a property and property rights between Columbia station in New Westminster and VCC–Clark station in Vancouver, which is about 200 parcels of land. This land is mostly statutory right-of-way. About 10 percent are fee simple, are owned properties, and there are some leases, licences and access agreements.

I will say, in summary, again, that this legislation is very, very straightforward. What it does is transfer all of those mentioned assets out of RTP 2000 and into the BCTFA on an as-is basis.

G. Heyman: Finally on this section, has TransLink spent any money on improving the assets in question? If so, was it through the use of gas tax funds? If so, how was that tracked?

Hon. T. Stone: I’m not aware of any major upgrades or investments that TransLink has made in these assets — certainly, from a recent perspective.

[1610]

However, I will certainly commit to the member to have staff take a look at this very shortly after we’re done here, and we’ll be happy to provide the member with any specific details, if indeed there have been any recent investments or upgrades relating to these specific assets.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

G. Heyman: With respect to the transfer from B.C. Transit to the BCTFA, did B.C. Transit request this transfer now or at some point previously? If so, what reasons did they give for requesting the transfer? Or was this an initiative of the ministry, either on its own or with some discussion with B.C. Transit?

Hon. T. Stone: We have had ongoing discussions with B.C. Transit, certainly for the last couple of years that I’ve been the minister responsible. My understanding is that there had been discussions over the years prior to me assuming responsibility for this as well.

As the member knows well, B.C. Transit no longer has a mandate in the Lower Mainland, Metro Vancouver — the region within which these assets are located. I can say categorically that B.C. Transit was very supportive of this piece of legislation when we broached the idea more formally with them as we were preparing for this decision that government has made.

G. Heyman: Again, if the minister wouldn’t mind, if he
[ Page 7177 ]
could read into the public record the list of assets of B.C. Transit that are being transferred and that were included in the information sent from the ministry.

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly. Assets that will be transferred from B.C. Transit to the BCTFA via this legislation include the following.

First, property and property rights between Waterfront station in Vancouver and King George station in Surrey. That involves approximately 300 parcels of land. That’s mostly statutory rights-of-way and licences. Again, about one-third of these parcels are fee simple properties. As well, there are some leases and access agreements.

The second major asset category being transferred from B.C. Transit is guideway tracks, tunnels and bridges between the Waterfront station and the King George station. This includes New Westminster–Surrey SkyBridge, as well as the operations and maintenance centre.

The third major category is stations and all related facilities and equipment of those stations. The stations include Waterfront, Burrard, Granville, Stadium, Main Street, Commercial-Broadway, Nanaimo, 29th Avenue, Joyce-Collingwood, Patterson, Metrotown, Royal Oak, Edmonds, 22nd Street, New Westminster, Columbia, Scott Road, Gateway, Surrey Central and King George.

As the member knows well, in addition to those assets, there are major asset categories within West Coast Express that are also a part of this transfer. Those West Coast Express assets include, again, property and property rights between Waterfront station in Vancouver and Mission station. That involves about 30 parcels of land. Again, about half are fee simple properties. Most of the rest are leases, licences and access agreements. There are some statutory rights-of-way as well.

Secondly, improvements at West Coast Express stations, which include stations, shelters, pedestrian access facilities and park-and-ride facilities. The specific stations are Waterfront, Port Moody, Coquitlam Centre, Port Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows, Maple Meadows, Port Haney and Mission.

Last but not least, the last major category of West Coast Express assets which are being transferred involves the rolling stock — specifically five locomotives.

G. Heyman: The minister mentioned some improvements. My question is: how much time and/or money has B.C. Transit spent on administration of these assets over the years? Has there been some tracking or assessment of these costs?

[1615]

Hon. T. Stone: As with the response that I provided the member a moment ago in relation to his similar question about the Millennium Line and any recent upgrades that have been made, I will endeavour, through staff, to pull together a definitive list of any recent improvements or upgrades that have been made on these B.C. Transit assets, whether they be West Coast Express–related or SkyTrain-related, and provide those details to the member as quickly as possible.

G. Heyman: I may well get a similar answer to this question but perhaps not. Has TransLink spent any money on improving the assets in question via gas tax funds, for example? How has that been tracked, if it has been tracked?

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to any investments that TransLink has made in any of these assets, there have been some investments. Often these investments have involved cost-sharing between TransLink and the federal and provincial governments.

These investments have included upgrades at SkyTrain stations. They have included the purchase of new SkyTrain cars and other related pieces. Again, as with the previous answers, I would be very happy…. We will take a very holistic look at this in terms of all of the assets, whether they are currently B.C. Transit or RTP 2000, and make sure that we provide the member with as thorough a summary of upgrades and investments that have been made in any of the assets that are actually involved in the transfer that will be facilitated by this piece of legislation.

G. Heyman: Are there any assets held by any other provincial bodies that aren’t currently being consolidated?

Hon. T. Stone: No.

G. Heyman: I’m a bit curious about subclause (4) that says: “The minister may, by order made after this Act receives Royal Assent and before this Act comes into force, exclude from the transfer under subsection (1) any asset or liability of BC Transit.”

Is this simply a precautionary measure, or is the minister contemplating something that will need to be done in the foreseeable future?

[1620]

Hon. T. Stone: The member is quite correct. This is, for all intents and purposes, a stopgap measure to provide one final opportunity for B.C. Transit, once this legislation moves through this House, to identify any asset that may have been inadvertently captured by the intent of this act that actually relates to an asset that B.C. Transit needs and uses to support its operations and its broader provincial mandate.

Again, the mandate that B.C. Transit has is outside of the Lower Mainland. At this point, we’re not anticipating that this particular subsection will need to be employed. But again, we put it in there through an abundance of caution, to provide B.C. Transit with that one final opportunity to identify and to extract from this transfer process
[ Page 7178 ]
any particular asset that they require for the fulfilment of their mandate outside of the Lower Mainland.

G. Heyman: Just further to that question, I would assume in any event that there was some discussion with B.C. Transit to identify anything that could or should be excluded because it should rightfully stay with B.C. Transit or there was some overlap. Or is this a matter of the discussions were not commenced or not completed?

Hon. T. Stone: Actually, there have been several discussions, lots of different interactions and meetings between B.C. Transit and staff in the ministry over the last number of months, as this legislation has been prepared, to identify and put as accurate a fence as possible around all of those assets at B.C. Transit which will be captured through the intent of this particular legislation.

This is not a case whereby this clause was put in here to facilitate subsequent discussions, because we’re having a lot of discussions. This was, again, really just a stopgap measure, one final opportunity, should the legislation pass the House, to afford B.C. Transit with the opportunity to identify an asset that really should not be part of this transfer because it’s critical to their operations outside of the Lower Mainland.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

G. Heyman: Section 5 refers to the lease of assets to TransLink under the TFA. When is the lease due for renewal?

Hon. T. Stone: The lease goes until January 30, 2018.

G. Heyman: Is the minister planning any significant renegotiation of the lease or a simple extension?

[1625]

Hon. T. Stone: At this point in time, we’re not anticipating any significant modifications to the lease agreement. Then again, it doesn’t come up for renewal until January of 2018, as I mentioned a moment ago. As we move forward, the Evergreen line comes on stream likely in the late spring or summer of 2016. The Expo and West Coast Express lease goes until January of 2018. The Millennium Line lease goes until 2017.

Certainly, as we move forward in time, as issues are identified and opportunities are identified, that may impact our thinking around all of the lease agreements. In fact, this was exactly the kind of opportunity that we believed would present itself by bringing all of these assets into the BCTFA so that they’re all in one place. There can perhaps be some better coordination and consistency of the lease terms involving all of the assets that make up the complete transit system in the Lower Mainland.

G. Heyman: To follow up on that a bit, can the minister think of any ways in which the consolidation might lead to some beneficial or contemplated changes in the lease?

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, one of the benefits that we anticipate, one of the goals, is to achieve some efficiencies. That’s one of the underlying objectives of this piece of legislation, again — and transferring all of these assets into one place.

One area where there could be some efficiency is in the management of the terms of the leases for the different assets but also the management of those leases. It’s premature to project or to speculate at this point exactly what those efficiencies could look like, but again, that’s one of the driving objectives of this transfer of assets that would be facilitated through this piece of legislation.

G. Heyman: Can the minister indicate if the consolidation affects the existing lease in any way?

Hon. T. Stone: No.

[1630]

G. Heyman: Can the minister indicate if any consideration is being given or might be given to a direct transfer of the assets to TransLink at the end of the lease and, perhaps, give reasons why or why not, depending on the answer?

Hon. T. Stone: No, we are not contemplating any transfer of these rapid transit assets to TransLink. They are, in their current incarnation, assets held by the province of British Columbia on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and they will continue to be once they’re all transferred and located within the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority.

G. Heyman: If I remember my history correctly, at the time of the original lease agreements the province was providing substantially all of the funding. That’s no longer the case. The province is providing about a third of the funding. We’re waiting for the federal government to commit a third, and of course, taxpayers in Metro Vancouver are being asked to contribute a third to TransLink.

Given this, why would the minister not consider a transfer of the assets to TransLink, who will be charged with the costs of maintaining as well as operating the assets without full funding from the provincial government?

Hon. T. Stone: I’ll add my two bits here, as well, in terms of a history lesson on this file.

The original assets of the Millennium Line, the Expo Line and the West Coast Express were actually paid for 100 percent by the province of British Columbia. Obviously, Evergreen is a cost-sharing arrangement.
[ Page 7179 ]
There have been a number of upgrades to stations and the purchase of cars and so forth that have been cost-shared, but the original assets were 100 percent paid for by the province of British Columbia.

I would also remind the member — I know he knows this but for the purposes of saying it into the record — when TransLink was created, the deal that was agreed to by the government of the day, which was an NDP government, and the mayors of the region at the time was that this entity, TransLink, would be responsible for the cost of transit and transportation expansion of the transit network in the Lower Mainland along with the major road network that represents assets that are part of TransLink’s mandate. In exchange for that, the province would fund 100 percent of hospital capital expansion. Indeed, that is what the province has done.

In recent years the province has stepped up, as has the federal government, beyond that original agreement and has also agreed to participate in a one-third cost-sharing capacity on expansion of transit and transportation in the Lower Mainland.

[1635]

G. Heyman: The minister, of course, is correct in his history. It’s precisely the change in the history to which I was referring that would lead, I would think, to some rethinking of the terms of the lease or a transfer of some or all of the assets for TransLink — and, by extension, the Metro Vancouver residents who are being asked to increase funding for TransLink — so it can take its one-third responsibility for expansion of these assets as well as for operation and maintenance.

I will leave my questions on clause 5 at that.

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

G. Heyman: That’s one vote that will have to be retaken, I think.

Can the minister outline which records to be transferred to the TFA are being contemplated by this clause that refers to B.C. Transit records — either specific ones of which he knows or categories of records?

Hon. T. Stone: In terms of the types of records that B.C. Transit will be required to provide as part of this transfer of assets, as the member knows, section 9(2) of this bill refers to a copy of these records being provided to the TFA in accordance with the terms established by the TFA. The TFA will provide an itemized list of the types of records that it requires B.C. Transit to transfer.

That list would likely include items like agreements, invoices, licences, plans, approvals — any types of documents that in the opinion of the TFA are documents that relate directly to the assets that are being transferred and that particularly relate to the ongoing operation of the existing assets. Those would be the types of records that the TFA would require B.C. Transit to provide.

G. Heyman: The minister talked about records that relate to the ongoing operation. Would the TFA — the TFA, of course, is substantively the minister and the deputy minister, and that’s about it — consider other records that may not pertain to the ongoing operation but have historical significance or may need to be referenced for one reason or another in the future?

[1640]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the staff within the ministry that are responsible for the Transportation Financing Authority will pull together that list. On that list will be the records that staff believes are necessary to have as part of this transfer. Again, they may involve documents that are directly related to the ongoing operation of the assets, possibly, and the ongoing maintenance of the assets as per this section.

Staff may also determine that there are certain types of documents that are of a more historical nature that relate to the assets that also would be of value to have. Again, those documents would be included in the itemized list that TFA will provide B.C. Transit.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

G. Heyman: Perhaps the minister could indicate, with respect to this particular clause that has a sunset of three years, why, first of all, the three-year sunset was chosen and what time frame the minister is actually contemplating for actions under this clause.

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, as the member knows, while it’s a very simple transaction at its highest level — simply transferring all of the assets, these different rapid transit assets, on an as-is basis — when you actually get into the detail to implement this, it can be quite complex. It’s going to take some time.

There’s going to need to be an ongoing opportunity for the TFA and for B.C. Transit to be able to ensure that if an asset, for example, in the determination of both parties at the end of the day was inadvertently transferred to the BCTFA and needs to be transferred back — this just as one example — that can take place.

Now, in terms of the three-year time frame, we settled on this time frame as a period of time that we think is not unreasonable. It’s not too long. It’s not too short. It should give both parties ample opportunity to facilitate all aspects of this transfer.

G. Heyman: I appreciate the minister’s answer.

Within the parameters that the minister outlined, is
[ Page 7180 ]
there a shorter time frame than three years that is a target time frame for an intensive review to ensure that everything that was intended to be done or needs to be captured or would advisedly be captured is, in fact, captured?

[1645]

Hon. T. Stone: We do not have a target time frame that’s less than the three years provided for in this section. That being said, we can say that staff will begin working on this transition and the transfer of assets immediately, should this legislation pass this House. There will be a lot of details to work out, and there are a lot of moving parts here.

We talked a moment ago about the leases, the different assets. Evergreen will be completed next year, so in 2016. The Millennium Line lease expires in 2017. The Expo and West Coast Express lease agreement expires in 2018, and 2018 is about three years from now. Again, we think this is not an unreasonable period of time, during which staff in the ministry will be working very closely with B.C. Transit staff to facilitate this transfer of assets as quickly as possible.

G. Heyman: Subsection (4) indicates that there could be further inclusions or exclusions. Are there any specific inclusions or exclusions that the minister is contemplating or ministerial staff are contemplating or at least that have been identified as needing further review or discussion before a final decision is made, so that within the record we can know if there’s something specific that’s at least being contemplated or considered that’s not listed in the bill or in the specific assets that were read into the record earlier?

Hon. T. Stone: No, there are no specifics that we are contemplating today in terms of items that could be excluded or included in the transfer as per this section. Again, this section is simply here to provide maximum opportunity or latitude to best address any situations which arise, once staff with the TFA and staff with B.C. Transit actually begin the process of working together to facilitate the transfer of these assets.

G. Heyman: For the record, if memory serves me correctly, I think the minister at an earlier date indicated to me that these transfers were at least in part a result of the core review identifying some potential administrative savings that would result from this, and while not great, they were quantified. Perhaps the minister would like to read that into the record as well.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, as I said, I believe, in second reading, the hard cost savings from this transfer of assets we believe will be very modest. We’re anticipating administrative savings in the range of $50,000 to $80,000 on an annual basis, and that will largely come about through savings related to accounting and legal.

That being said, we do anticipate, again, that this transfer of assets will afford the opportunity to potentially achieve some additional efficiencies beyond those hard costs savings of between $50,000 and $80,000 per year.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

G. Heyman: On its surface, at least, section 11 appears to be substantially similar to section 10.

[1650]

Perhaps the minister could explain what the differences are, in that they both address to some degree the ability of the minister, after the date the bill passes for a period of up to three years, to order transfer with or without conditions, assets or liabilities.

Hon. T. Stone: Section 11 provides for an order that can be made that, essentially, is effective the moment it’s issued. Section 11 does not allow for the possibility of an action that is retroactive in nature, whereas section 10, because it provides for Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council regulations, does afford the opportunity for retroactive actions to be taken if retroactive actions are required.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister for the explanation. Again, is it safe to assume that, like with section 10, this is essentially a precautionary clause, or is there anything in particular that the minister or ministerial staff are considering?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes. It is simply precautionary in nature, very similar to the responses I’ve given to the questions that the member has asked. There is nothing specific that we are contemplating at this point in time.

G. Heyman: We’ve read into the record the assets and liabilities that are going to be transferred today as we debate this bill, but sections 10 and 11 both provide for actions subsequent to the bill becoming an act, should it pass today. Does the minister contemplate that if there is some further inclusion or exclusion in the future, there would be some period of consultation or debate with respect to the inclusion or exclusion or a notice period prior to transfer?

Hon. T. Stone: The intent through this legislation, again, is to provide the tools necessary for B.C. Transit and the TFA to engage as required to facilitate the transition of these rapid transit assets to the TFA.

Certainly, in the course of that work, if there are issues identified or if a potential inclusion or exclusion is identified, that issue — certainly, from the perspective of the TFA, and I would expect nothing less from B.C. Transit — would be dealt with in a very respectful manner and would
[ Page 7181 ]
involve providing the other party with as much opportunity for engagement and consultation notice as possible.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

[1655]

G. Heyman: This section removes reference to Rapid Transit Project 2000. Does this change have any effect, or can the minister or his staff contemplate any effect, aside from the simple deletion of the reference?

Hon. T. Stone: This section will allow B.C. Transit to continue to own, acquire and dispose of property in Metro Vancouver as required in the operation of their services outside of the region — those services that integrate with services in the region. That being said, it does facilitate the removal of the reference to the Millennium Line SkyTrain because that particular asset, through this legislation, would be transferred to the TFA.

G. Heyman: Sub (9) refers to owning, acquiring or disposing of “property that is located in, or is being employed in, the transportation service region as defined in the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act.” Are there any specific properties in mind for either acquisition or disposal?

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, at this point in time we are not aware of any assets which B.C. Transit may be thinking of acquiring within the Metro Vancouver region or, for that matter, disposing within the Metro Vancouver region. In fact, this legislation does nothing to change the right that B.C. Transit has to own, acquire and dispose of property in Metro Vancouver.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

G. Heyman: Section 14 refers to powers of expropriation. Does the minister or the ministry or the authority have any specific plans with respect to expropriation? And in the event of an expropriation, is there any different process envisaged about consultation, negotiation, etc.?

[1700]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, this section 14 continues B.C. Transit’s power to expropriate land for its prescribed purposes. But all the while, similar to the last section that we just went through, it also removes reference to the Millennium Line SkyTrain, which is being transferred to the TFA.

That being said, we are not aware of any lands that B.C. Transit may be contemplating to expropriate, but that would be businessspecific to B.C. Transit that would be quite outside of the purview of this legislation.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

On section 16.

G. Heyman: It appears on reading section 16 that if the amendment was not made, the effect would be to allow TransLink to lease B.C. Transit property for revenue generation outside of Metro Vancouver. Can the minister simply confirm if my reading of that is correct?

Hon. T. Stone: My response to the member from Fairview is this. The repealing of sections 38(8) and 38(10) is taking place because those were provisions that were simply there to put a statutory lease in place. Repealing these sections actually allows the current statutory lease to be renewed but be renewed by agreement between TransLink and the TFA.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

G. Heyman: Perhaps for any lay people who may be watching or will ultimately read the transcript, the minister could explain the purpose of this expansive definition. It’s a new definition, and perhaps he could indicate why it’s being added, whether other acts will refer to this definition eventually, or if it’s strictly provided for clarifying the new role of the Transportation Financing Authority.

[1705]

Hon. T. Stone: This new term “transit system” really just represents an amalgamation of existing definitions which are in the British Columbia Transit Act and two specific definitions that are in the B.C. Transit Act.

One is a definition of a “rail transit system” and the second is a definition of “ancillary Rapid Transit Project works.” So what we’ve done, for the purposes of this act, is we’ve amalgamated those two definitions which are in the British Columbia Transit Act. We have amalgamated them for the purposes of this act.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

G. Heyman: Section 18 establishes powers for the Transportation Financing Authority with respect to operation of a transit system. Could the minister explain how the language relates to the powers that B.C. Transit has and TransLink has and whether it creates any new powers or if there’s any potential for conflict with the powers of the other bodies?
[ Page 7182 ]

Hon. T. Stone: This whole concept of stepping into the shoes of municipalities with respect to rights-of-way, easements, licences, and other powers that they have for the operation of these rail systems…. These are powers that B.C. Transit currently has. They are powers that RTP 2000 currently has. They are powers that B.C. Transit will continue to have on assets outside of these assets that are dealt with in this piece of legislation. This amendment simply ensures that the TFA will also have those same powers.

There is absolutely no expansion of power here whatsoever. This is just a complete replication of the authorities which RTP 2000 and B.C. Transit and, for that matter, TransLink have. We do not anticipate any challenges or concerns being raised by any municipalities in question.

G. Heyman: So for clarity, it’s a replication of the powers but to be applied to separate spheres of influence or jurisdiction with no overlap?

[1710]

Hon. T. Stone: We do not anticipate any conflicts or challenges with any municipalities in question. These authorities that step into the shoes of municipalities’ authority or concept are something that RTP 2000 has today in the operation of their rail assets. It is something that B.C. Transit has today in the operation of their rail assets. There have not been conflicts or challenges with municipalities. We do not anticipate that there will be on a go-forward basis with the TFA once these assets have been transferred to the TFA. But this particular section is required to ensure that the TFA has those similar authorities.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

G. Heyman: My question on 19, which refers to establishment of tax exemptions, is similar to my question on 18. Is there any potential for overlap or conflicting jurisdiction with TransLink or B.C. Transit?

Hon. T. Stone: No, we’re not anticipating any conflicts with B.C. Transit or TransLink in relation to section 19.

G. Heyman: Are there any specific exemptions currently being contemplated by the Transportation Financing Authority or by the minister or ministry staff?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, in relation to this section, very similar to what I said with similar questions on previous sections, we are not contemplating any…. We have no tax exemptions in mind as of this date. Staff from the TFA and B.C. Transit will get into this, should this legislation pass.

Again, this section simply provides the space and the flexibility that we believe is prudent for the TFA and Transit to work through any tax-related issues that might arise as they work through this transfer of assets.

G. Heyman: For clarity, at this point at least, whatever tax exemptions currently exist, are they considered adequate?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, all existing tax exemptions — the status quo, if I may refer to it as such — we anticipate continuing.

Sections 19 and 20 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. T. Stone: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:14 p.m.

[1715]

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — BC TRANSPORTATION
FINANCING AUTHORITY TRANSIT ASSETS
AND LIABILITIES ACT

Bill 2, BC Transportation Financing Authority Transit Assets and Liabilities Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage debate on Bill 15, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 15 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 15; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 5:17 p.m.

Hon. S. Anton: I’m joined by Sam MacLeod, superintendent of motor vehicles; Melanie Murray, legal services; and Corey Bowness.

On section 1.

M. Farnworth: Section 1 has a number of changes in terms of the language in the legislation. In fact, it amends
[ Page 7183 ]
subsection (2)…. The exact wording is “to parallel the language used in section 25.2(1) of the act, as added by this bill.” Can the minister explain what the significance of these changes are and why these changes have taken place in this particular section?

[1720]

Hon. S. Anton: These amendments are consequential to the addition of the mandatory driver programs that are proposed to be added by section 3 of this bill. Subsection (2) is amended to correspond to wording used in the new mandatory program provisions that are in the new proposed section 25.2.

Subsection (6) clarifies that the superintendent…. I’ll put it in plain language. If somebody is required to take the responsible driver program, the superintendent still, in addition, has discretion to require them to take the interlock program or vice versa.

M. Farnworth: That discretion would be based on the individual’s driving record, for example, or a history they may have had in terms of driving offences or related incidents. I thought I saw the superintendent nodding. That’s correct?

Hon. S. Anton: That is correct.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

M. Farnworth: Following on that explanation from the minister, this section establishes that a person who is required to attend or participate in driver programs must pay, in addition to the prescribed government fees, the charges imposed by the providers of the programs.

Can the minister just say if that is different from how things are structured presently and, if there are differences, what those differences are?

Hon. S. Anton: This is clarifying current practice, which is that there is a prescribed fee payable to government. There’s also a fee to the service provider. It wasn’t clear in the legislation before that those were two separate things, so this is clarifying by the second part, by (b), that the service provider fee is covered also in legislation — the requirement to pay the service provider.

M. Farnworth: That makes sure that the person, the company or whatever program is providing the service that you’re part of is also getting paid. The government will also make sure that they get paid, and that is where my next question is under this section.

[1725]

In terms of the fee — and the minister said a prescribed fee — that is a set dollar amount. How is that fee determined? Is that fee subject to change on an annual basis, or is it changed by a regulatory change?

Hon. S. Anton: The prescribed fee is prescribed by regulation. The service provider fee is set by contract.

M. Farnworth: But in terms of the prescribed fee by regulation, is that a fee that is reviewed on an annual basis? How is the level of the fee determined?

Hon. S. Anton: The fee is not reviewed on an annual basis. It’s set. Then, from time to time, there’s a fee review done.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister tell us exactly what the fee is currently set at?

Hon. S. Anton: The prescribed fees are $880…. At the moment the current level of the fees is $880 for the responsible driver program and $150 for the ignition interlock program. Then, on top of that, there are contract fees — which is the part (b) — for the interlock program.

C. Trevena: The minister said that there are contract fees. I just wondered if the minister could say who the contractor is and how much those fees are.

[1730]

Hon. S. Anton: The current contractors are these. For the interlock program, it is Alcolock Inc., and the total amount is about $1,500, although there are some variables in there. For the responsible driver program, the $880 is an inclusive fee, and the provider there is Stroh Health care.

C. Trevena: Just one quick follow-up question on that. These contracts — are they done through an RFP, or is there just one provider that’s known through the country as the provider to do these sorts of services?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. S. Anton: In the previous iteration of these two contracts, they were the only providers. When we do the next RFP, it is believed that there will be others who may come forward.

M. Farnworth: One quick follow-up to that is: when will the next RFP come up for proposals?

Hon. S. Anton: Both the contracts expire this year, 2015. We are proposing to extend them a year and then do an RFP next year, the reason being that these proposed amendments may have some impact on the contracts. It was thought wise to do the amendments first, extend the contracts and then do a new RFP in due course.
[ Page 7184 ]

Section 2 approved.

[1735]

On section 3.

M. Farnworth: Just a quick question here. This section establishes the mandatory driver programs. Are the only programs that this section covers the ones that the minister has just enumerated in the previous sections, or are there additional programs that this particular section will see established?

Hon. S. Anton: The two programs proposed are the same two: the responsible driver program and the ignition interlock program.

C. Trevena: I just wanted to know — these have been discretionary up to this point — why the minister feels it’s necessary to make them mandatory.

Hon. S. Anton: The reason to make it mandatory is it is more efficient. The existing referral and reconsideration process is extremely resource-intensive, and because of the time delays, it reduced the effectiveness of the driver remediation.

C. Trevena: I understand the need for efficiencies, having talked to the RCMP. They like these immediate roadside prohibitions and like to be able to deal with things so that they don’t have too much paperwork.

There have been a number of challenges to previous programs that have been introduced. I’m wondering whether there is a concern or where the safeguards are — that this isn’t just going to end up being challenged by many people, as the previous ones have been.

Interjection.

C. Trevena: Apologies to the minister. When IRPs were first brought in, they were being applauded by the RCMP, for whom it makes sure that they can just deal with it and not be bogged down in endless paperwork. Obviously, the view is that the mandatory prohibitions will speed up the case for many people.

However, there have been challenges to the IRPs. Some people have challenged the due process of this. Is the minister confident that having mandatory prohibitions and mandatory remediation programs will meet the test of that challenge?

[1740]

Hon. S. Anton: To date there have been no challenges to the constitutionality of the remedial program, so we do believe that making it mandatory in this way does strike the right balance.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

M. Farnworth: Section 4 repeals provisions establishing the AirCare program. Can the minister outline why these changes are necessary and what they’re intended to accomplish?

Hon. S. Anton: On section 4 I’m joined by Kevin Volk from Transportation and Glen Okrainetz from Environment. Perhaps if the member could oblige me and ask the question again.

M. Farnworth: Why are you doing it? Why are you repealing the section? Why is this section here?

[1745]

Hon. S. Anton: The announcement to terminate AirCare was made in May of 2012. This is the legislative manifestation of that announcement. The program was, in effect, terminated at the end of December of 2014. It was considered that it had done its task. It dealt at the time with older cars and either got them to be fixed or taken off the road. There was certainly much less need for it as the cars became newer and cleaner.

M. Farnworth: One quick question. Why did it take so long to get here?

Hon. S. Anton: I am sure there are many people in the Lower Mainland who would rather it had been done more quickly. In any event, these things come into effect when they’re important and go out when they’re less important. That’s what happened here.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

The Chair: Member for Port Coquitlam, would you please repeat the question for the minister?

M. Farnworth: Section 5 “repeals a provision dealing with matters covered by the Financial Administration Act and the Insurance Corporation Act.” Could the minister just briefly outline what that matter is?

[1750]

Hon. S. Anton: This a housekeeping amendment. Section 65 is no longer needed because section 12 of the Financial Administration Act requires that all public money collected be paid into the consolidated revenue fund.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.
[ Page 7185 ]

On section 7.

M. Farnworth: Section 7 requires a superintendent to revoke a driving prohibition that results from notice under section 94.1 of the act and take related actions if a sworn or solemnly affirmed report under section 94.3(d) of the act is not forwarded by a certain time.

Can the minister outline what that time period is and, also, the other changes that come into effect by this section that are different from what we currently would have in place?

Hon. S. Anton: There are a couple of instances where we’re making a similar provision to match slightly different parts of the act. In this case, this is for an administrative driving prohibition. This same provision will be repeated for the immediate roadside prohibition. The administrative driving prohibition is when you have too many speeding tickets. The immediate roadside prohibition, of course, is the drinking and driving provision.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Anton: There may be some drinking and driving attached to this one as well, but it’s not the IRP piece.

First of all, in response to litigation, the Longstaff case, and also for administrative efficiency, it has been the case that if the police officer did not send in their sworn report, the reviewing person might adjourn and make the request for the report and so on.

We’re taking that out of the equation now. The officer must have their report in within seven days. Otherwise, the superintendent can have a hearing and dismiss the prohibition.

M. Farnworth: I just want to be clear on that, because I think, on this particular piece of legislation, this is one of the consequential amendments that is an important change.

What the minister is saying is that whereas right now there is no requirement that that police report must be in by a particular time, what this section will do…. What the minister is saying, from what I take from the minister’s comments, is that that police report must be in within seven days or the prohibition and the consequences may, in fact, well get thrown out. Is that not correct?

[1755]

Hon. S. Anton: I need to correct something I said a moment ago. The administrative driving prohibition arises as a result of a Criminal Code charge, as opposed to the immediate roadside prohibition. When there’s a Criminal Code charge, you can then get an administrative driving prohibition, which is a three-month prohibition. These are the circumstances, again, where the officer needs to, on a review, send in the sworn statement.

The statement must come in, in seven days. I think that was what the question was. Just to reiterate, it is on a review. So when the review is sought, the officer must have that paper in within seven days, or the driving prohibition will be revoked.

M. Farnworth: I just want to be clear on this. I am driving. I am pulled over. I blow between 0.05 and 0.08. I get the prohibition. I want a review of that. The police officer must have the paperwork, or the documentation, in within seven days. That’s my understanding, and if I’m correct…. That’s what I’d like the minister to confirm.

[1800]

Hon. S. Anton: Just to clarify, this particular section is dealing with an administrative driving prohibition. One gets that by being over .08 — not by too many tickets, by being over .08.

When you are over .08, you may or may not get charged with a Criminal Code offence, but you are definitely in that realm where you could be charged with a Criminal Code offence. You might not be, but in any event, if you’re over .08, this is when this section 94.4 applies.

M. Farnworth: Thank you for the clarification. The next question that flows from that, because it was really about the seven…. Is that seven working days or seven calendar days?

[1805]

Hon. S. Anton: That comes from the Interpretation Act. It’s seven calendar days. The Interpretation Act does provide that if the seventh day is a Sunday, then there is another day added to that.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

M. Farnworth: This section removes a requirement that a person “applying to a court to review a driving prohibition of more than three years give prior notice to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.” Can the minister explain why this particular change is here and what’s brought it about?

Hon. S. Anton: If a person was reviewing the length of a court-ordered prohibition, they were required to inform ICBC. That’s unnecessary. ICBC is only required to be notified if there is an actual change made by the court.

Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

C. Trevena: I’m sure we’re going to need to change staff
[ Page 7186 ]
at this stage. We are into the left-lane issues.

Section 13 is adding to the list of the definition section in the Motor Vehicle Act, which covers the various definitions which relate to driving on our highways, and adds “official vehicle.” I wondered if the minister could say what the regulation is that defines what an official vehicle is.

Hon. T. Stone: As we work through these next few sections, we will talk in more detail about the instances in which it will be acceptable to be in the left lane. One of the new items that is being added through this legislation is to allow drivers to use the left lane when moving left to pass an official vehicle which is stopped on the side of the road.

The term “official vehicle” is actually prescribed in section 47.02 of the Motor Vehicle Act regulations. It is, again, to mean a vehicle stopped on the side of a highway displaying an authorized flashing light where there are also workers present.

[1810]

C. Trevena: Common sense is that this is an ambulance. It is a police car. It is a conservation officer. It could be a peace officer. Does this also include a tow truck? You have a tow truck. It’s flashing lights, doing work on the side of the road. By common sense, that’s when you’d also be passing it in the outside lane.

Hon. T. Stone: First off, just to correct the record, in my previous response I referenced section 47.02 of the Motor Vehicle Act regulations. It’s actually section 47.01, just so we’re absolutely clear.

This was the “Slow down and move over” regulation, which we expanded in December of 2014. I was very proud to do so. It’s all about worker safety. We expanded what was at that time the existing regulation, which applied to emergency vehicles only. We expanded the regulation to capture any vehicle which has flashing lights and has workers present.

That was done to capture vehicles like roadside maintenance contractors, tow truck drivers, Ministry of Transportation employees that have vehicles with flashing lights and a wide range of other vehicles. For any official vehicle where there are workers present, we felt that those workers have as much of a right to be able to work at the side of the road and do so safely as the emergency vehicle workers had through the previous version of the regulation.

C. Trevena: Not wanting to belabour this, but with this being the “Slow down and move over” regulation for the construction workers on the highways, I wonder why the minister didn’t also say explicitly about the people. I know the flaggers have been very concerned. The minister has talked to the flaggers. I’ve talked to flaggers about ensuring that there is safety for them.

I’m wondering why there is also not just one line talking about the people, as the minister just mentioned now, who are working in construction zones, working on the side of the road, whether they be flaggers, whether they are doing ditch clearing or anybody who is working close to fast-moving traffic or potentially fast-moving traffic.

Hon. T. Stone: These changes were not intended to address workers who work in construction zones or setup zones. Typically, as the member knows, in a construction or setup zone there is advance signage, for example, that can be placed quite some ways away from where the actual construction is taking place, that advises motorists to slow down as they approach.

The types of workers in emergency vehicles and in maintenance vehicles and other ministry vehicles, utility vehicles that are on the side of the road, don’t typically have that advance signage that you would normally associate with a setup or construction zone. I hope that answers the member’s question.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

C. Trevena: Section 14 repeals one section in section 150 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and 150 of the Motor Vehicle Act is about the driver on the right. There has been quite a lot of emphasis from the minister and from his government about keeping to the right, just passing on the left, but we have already a large section about it.

I’m wondering just why the very slight amendment, which is passing an official vehicle stopped on the side of or on the road, is necessary when it really, I would say, would be captured in the fact that you drive on the right unless you’re passing on the left, which is already captured in the legislation.

[1815]

Hon. T. Stone: We do know from ICBC, from law enforcement, that one of the leading causes of driver frustration is left-lane hogs or people that seem to think it’s their lot in life to drive in that left lane and impede the flow of traffic behind them. That can result in driver frustration, and that does cause collisions. Actually, people have lost their lives as a result of this.

We are making the changes here, through this section, as law enforcement has requested, as ICBC and other safety stakeholders have suggested, to tighten up the language so that law enforcement has better tools to use in order to have a higher degree of certainty that, should they issue tickets under this provision, those tickets will actually stand up in a court of law.

Now, what we’ve done here with this section specifically is we’ve taken it from a paragraph form in the previous section. We’ve actually bulleted it out so that it’s very,
[ Page 7187 ]
very specific as to the instances in which an individual can be in the left lane.

In the legislation which we’re amending, there were two exceptions — i.e., two reasons that a person could be in that left lane. That was overtaking and passing or preparing for a left turn. In this new section we’ve included those two provisions, but we’ve also provided for an additional exception, which we just spoke of in the last section, and that is the ability for traffic to use the left lane if they are moving to the left to pass an official vehicle which has its flashing lights and is stopped on the side of the road.

C. Trevena: The minister says that there were requests from the RCMP and ICBC for these changes. I wondered if the minister could tell me how much of a request. How long has it been going on for? Again, this seems to be, for many people I’ve been talking to, including the RCMP and others…. This is effectively known as, literally, the rules of the road. It’s what you learn when you do your driver’s training. You may forget it, but it’s still here, so I’m wondering why there was a spur to do this now and what level of involvement the RCMP and ICBC gave.

Hon. T. Stone: This particular item came directly out of the extensive engagement that we did across British Columbia last year. That was our rural safety and speed review. We received thousands of submissions from British Columbians, and indeed, we met with hundreds of organizations, including all of our safety partners and safety stakeholders. We met with the RCMP, various law enforcement agencies, obviously ICBC, and others.

Coming directly out of those meetings, through the consultation, the RCMP identified as one of their key suggestions for our consideration the work that we now have in front of us here, which is the tightening up of this keep right except to pass regulation.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

C. Trevena: This one, section 15, is an addition to the already quite explicit rules of the road that are in here. It expands the area where you are supposed to be driving on the laned roadway and how you are supposed to be doing it.

I wondered, again, if the minister could give a bit of flesh to the bones. We have a number of different scenarios. You’re driving on a pretty empty highway and you want to avoid getting the splashback from the vehicle in front of you that is going at almost the same speed that you are, so you can’t pass it. Is that going to be permitted under this? Moving on the left because there are animals on the right — will that be permitted under this?

[1820]

Also, as you see either leaving Victoria or, obviously, very much in the Lower Mainland, you get into very slow-moving traffic where you find yourself in the lane…. You’re in the right, and you just happen to be passing on the inside. How is that going to work in relation to this? If the minister could just put a bit of flesh on the bones of this section.

Hon. T. Stone: I’ll very quickly walk the member through the intent and what we believe will be in the application of this particular section.

The first section defines the leftmost lane to not include HOV lanes or bus lanes, designated-use lanes and so forth. For example, if you’re travelling on a three-lane highway and the furthest lane to the left is an HOV lane, drivers will be required under this legislation to move over into the centre lane, not to move over into the HOV lane. That’s the purpose of subsection (1).

Subsection (2) defines the conditions under which the new rule applies. Again, this is where it very specifically outlines that it applies on a highway with more than two lanes in the direction of travel, where the posted speed limit is 80 kilometres or higher and where the actual speed of travel speed is more than 50 kilometres per hour.

That’s an important one. We wanted to ensure there’s common sense in here, as well, in a time of congestion. There might be six lanes, and if the traffic is moving at 30 kilometres per hour, that likely means that there is heavy congestion at that particular time, and therefore, it’s likely very difficult to switch lanes.

The third section permits travel in the leftmost lane if no one is approaching from behind. This was also intended to cover off a couple of pieces. One is that you’re travelling at two o’clock in the morning. There is virtually no one around, and you just happen to be in that left lane. You’re not impeding any flow of traffic. There’s no one approaching you from behind. So we wanted common sense to prevail.

Likewise, often you need to be in that left lane because the right lane might have debris in it, or the right lane, maybe, hasn’t been plowed yet if it’s winter conditions. And I’ll tell you — I’m sure the member would agree — that in rural parts of the province there can also be times at night when wildlife, you know, jump out of that ditch on the right-hand side. You feel a bit more comfortable being over in that left lane.

We’ve tried to accommodate all of those provisions to make it very clear but also to ensure that there’s common sense that flows through this section as well.

C. Trevena: Well, the minister is talking about common sense. This is, as I would perceive it, the rules of the road. I’m sure the minister has been driving for a good 20-odd years. I’ve been driving for 30-plus years,
[ Page 7188 ]
and these are lessons that are instilled in you when you are driving.

His ministry did the big survey in the last year, and we got back two effective responses from that. One is that you put up speed limits. Secondly, you remind people of the rules of the road, and we’re now seen the big billboards around.

I don’t want to belittle it, but again, I’m just wondering why we need to specify so much more clearly what is already, effectively, in the legislation. Why do we need to say what we already know, what is here, but not quite so explicit? I’m just wondering why we needed to go this extra step of putting this into the amendments.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, as I said earlier, what is there today, absent these amendments that we are proposing through this legislation, is not explicit. Law enforcement has made that point very clear to us.

[1825]

Coming out of that safety and speed review that we did, not only did we hear from a tremendous number of British Columbians about this challenge of left-lane hogs, but we also very clearly heard from law enforcement that they wanted the legislation to be much, much more clear so that they would have the tools in order to issue tickets on this provision and know that those tickets would stand up in a court of law.

C. Trevena: Which leads me to the next question on this. The penalties associated with breaching any of these rules of the road, any of these pieces of legislation, will depend, obviously, on the amount of RCMP who are able to be patrolling the roads and enforcing what has already been law and making sure that they’re able to approach the people, the offenders, with the actual details that they have now broached it even more clearly because it’s expressed more explicitly.

I’m wondering what sort of penalty regime there is going to be. Also, whether the minister will convince his cabinet colleagues to put more money into the RCMP road traffic division to ensure that we are getting the policemen on the road to enforce not just these laws but the distracted-driving laws, the smoking when you’ve got a minor in your car — all the various pieces of legislation, no matter how minor and how major, on our roadways.

Hon. T. Stone: As I’m sure the member knows, the existing penalty for a contravention of the existing “keep right except to pass” provision is a fine of $109 and three penalty points. We are just in the process at the moment of taking a look at that to determine whether or not those penalties at those levels are still appropriate. I can say it’s likely that, at minimum, the fine and the penalty points would remain similar to what they are today.

C. Trevena: Just one last question, and then we can move on to the next section tomorrow.

I did ask the minister whether there was going to be any additional police enforcement, if the minister is encouraging his colleagues to put money into the road traffic. We’ve got a number of very important pieces of legislation. Again, talking to the RCMP, they are very concerned that they don’t have the manpower on the road to deal with the people who are distracted driving. So there are a number of areas, and this is obviously going to create more work if it’s enforced properly.

Hon. T. Stone: These amendments are part of the solution, moving forward. We do not expect to see a dramatic change of driving behaviour overnight just because of these changed legislative requirements. The penalties will be a part of the solution, moving forward, as will enforcement and, frankly, education awareness and driver training, which is why we’ve had conversations with ICBC about their training practices.

We will certainly encourage law enforcement and ICBC and other road safety partners to come together in a collaborative fashion and promote the safety aspects of this particular provision, very similar to what we have done in the recent past with distracted driving and CounterAttack campaigns, to name a few.

Section 15 approved.

Hon. T. Stone: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise and report progress and request leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:29 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
[ Page 7189 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Hamilton in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On Vote 19: ministry operations, $5,460,832,000 (continued).

R. Fleming: Before we broke for lunch, we were talking about the RESP plan, the B.C. training and education savings plan. I asked the minister about whether there were any changes planned in light of Alberta’s cancellation.

I will move on from that just to ask him again, though, about participation rates. We had talked a lot about this last year. I think the opposition and the government are both on the same side — that 100 percent participation rate should not only be the goal; it should be something that’s being actively worked upon.

Now, Budget 2013. There was an explanatory note that showed that the budget for the funds, and essentially the longevity of the program, was made on assumptions that said there would be a 57 percent takeup rate. I want to ask him, I suppose again…. At 57 percent, the program lasts until 2019.

If there’s a 100 percent takeup, the program has obviously expired. The $300 million in what was originally called the children’s education fund will be used up.

Again to the minister: is there a note somewhere in this budget that I have missed that continues to suggest that the assumption is the same as the 2013 budget, when this program was repurposed from the CEF, that uses 57 percent as some kind of baseline for participation?

[1340]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The budget numbers that you’ve referred to are…. What we have done is we have budgeted, and we’ve also worked with the Ministry of Finance. I’m sure that when the Minister of Finance’s estimates come up, that is a question that can be asked of him. This government and the Minister of Finance are very supportive, and if indeed we go above what has been budgeted….

That is the best assumption at the moment, and, as the program rolls out, our goal is 100 percent participation. Whether we ever reach that, I’m not going to speculate. We’re working very hard to get the message out. We also know that the Ministry of Finance will provide us access to contingencies on a program like this if indeed the subscription rates go above what has been budgeted.

R. Fleming: I think we have made suggestions in the past, so I will apologize if I repeat myself. The way to get to 100 percent…. I want to understand, maybe, the ministry’s efforts to better upon 57 percent, because that’s basically what they budgeted it on. The sustainability of the plan that they have derived is premised on excluding up to 43 percent of British Columbians from participating. Otherwise, the fund will be expired sooner.

To get to 100 percent and, I think, to get to the most important people who otherwise would have little or perhaps no savings for their children — those that have the least means available to them…. Alberta found that was not happening in their program, and it was cited as one of the reasons why they cancelled it. They were finding that they were simply topping up people of better means and incomes who would already have RESP savings at their disposal for their kids, and it was failing to increase participation amongst those with the greatest needs.

In order for us to avoid that in British Columbia — avoid what Alberta concluded had occurred after ten years of the program — I think government needs to work with other ministries. It needs to work with those kids that are involved in early childhood education. There’s a grant application, for example, that’s means-tested for people that qualify for that so you can target low-income families.

You could work with families that are involved with a number of ministries — so Ministry of Children and Family Development would obviously be one — those that are on income support, and let them know about this program. Perhaps some of this is being done.

Even MLAs’ offices, I might suggest. I certainly have never received any promotional material for my constituents. We’ve done it on our own initiative in our newsletters and such, but it just seems to be ad hoc, and I’m not convinced that every step is being taken to do what the minister has suggested — that he shares with the Minister of Finance a goal to get to 100 percent. The assumption is 57 percent; 100 percent would be good. I’m not sure everything is being done to mobilize that. Perhaps I’m wrong.

If the minister could comment on what steps the K-to-12 ministry is doing right now to make sure that takeup rate increase is even higher….

[1345]

Hon. P. Fassbender: There are a couple of things. One is that whenever you do a program like this, as I’m sure the member is aware, you have to have some working assumptions as to what uptake you might have. Of course, we base that assumption on previous experience. Based on the total 2007 cohort of 43,649 eligible students, 60 percent were identified in September of 2013 as being the
[ Page 7190 ]
first uptake that we might see.

I think it’s really important to know we’re not leaving anybody out. This program is available to every child, every family in the province of British Columbia that’s eligible.

What we are doing, and I think I mentioned it prior to the break, is that our team is working with the financial institutions. We just recently had Royal Bank agree to come on board. We didn’t want to develop materials until we were ready to roll the program out and they were ready to roll it out. They will be assisting us in developing their own marketing campaign in addition to what we’re doing. I absolutely will be more than willing to provide every MLA office on both sides of the House with the information when we have it produced. We do want that to get out to everyone.

The other thing that I think is really important is that there is an operational advisory committee across ministries that is working on this program to ensure…. We’re working with MARR, with MCFD, with the other social ministries to make sure that everyone, no matter where they fit in the economic spectrum, is eligible and is made aware as best we can.

Just recently I worked with the minister of MCFD on children in care, because they’re a more complicated process in ensuring that they have the ability to access this in terms of where their future is and their ability to collect on it when they reach the age where they would access it.

We’re doing everything across all ministries to ensure that we get the message out, that no one is marginalized or left out of the process, and with the support of the financial institutions, who are very supportive, as I said — the credit unions, the Royal Bank now. I suspect there may be others, because there’s no limitation where people can open up an RESP, but the ones that are coming on board are the ones who are active partners.

All of those details are being finalized. But I do assure the member that we’ll give him more material than he may want to ensure that every MLA office has the ability to promote the program.

R. Fleming: Just a follow-up question. The first children eligible for this were born on or after January 1, 2007. Has the cut-off period expired where the parent can register for children that were born in 2007?

[1350]

Hon. P. Fassbender: No.

R. Fleming: Is there a deadline for registration of children born on or after January 1, 2007? There have been deadlines previously published by government. I think the last one I saw was February 28, 2015, and I understand there’s an extension. But I think there was a regulation earlier that by the time the child turned seven, they had to be registered in the RESP. Is the minister saying that no longer exists?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m not aware, and neither is staff, of a deadline for that. But we’re going to check, and we’ll get the information back to the member.

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister a few questions about the student information systems, the transition from BCeSIS, which was a poorly functioning database that limped along for the better part of a decade and is now being transitioned by one of the same consulting firms, actually, that developed the original system to become MyEducation B.C. I know that the rollout of MyEducation B.C. has been ongoing since the award was made in 2013. I want to ask a few questions just about the status of that.

How many school districts, if any, have completed the transition where they are using MyEducation B.C. exclusively, and are there any numbers within that — number of schools, for example, as well as districts?

Hon. P. Fassbender: To the member: I’ll give you some statistics, and we can provide this in writing if you would like.

In terms of B.C. public schools, the number of students in total that we have is 223,994, which represents 635 schools in the province. Of the StrongStart students, we’ve got 18,170, or 172 of the StrongStart. B.C. independent schools — we’ve got 13,962, and that represents about 56 schools.

So the totals. The subtotal of that is 256,126 representing 863 schools across public schools, StrongStart and independent schools.

[1355]

First Nations — to date we have 402 students and four of the schools that have started. That gives us a total of 256,528 — 867 schools in total.

This system — while I appreciate the member’s perspective, I don’t share it on BCeSIS — was one of the earlier adopter programs. It matured. We saw the need to have a more robust system for the future. That is why we have gone with MyEducation B.C. Districts will decide what other components, as we move along in the future, that they add to the program.

That’s the beauty of this. It’s not proprietary. It’s an off-the-shelf program. It has the flexibility for additions. Districts will look at how they add and augment the initial phases. What we do know is the numbers that I’ve given are on board using at least the initial phases of MyEducation B.C., and we will see it grow in terms of utilization as well as numbers as we move along.

R. Fleming: For the 2014-15 budget, the system’s operating cost for BCeSIS was budgeted to be $10.5 million, and the recoveries from districts and schools was calculated to be $5.5 million, so a little over half of it was recovered from school districts. I’m just wondering. Those
[ Page 7191 ]
were budget numbers. What were the confirmed actuals for that fiscal year, and have there been any adjustments to the budget for the current and coming years?

Hon. P. Fassbender: We don’t have the figures readily available in terms of the actuals. We will provide that to the member subsequently. In the budget the actual cost is $10.5 million, as it was before, and the per-student rate of $10 remains the same.

R. Fleming: I think one of the things that concerns school districts is there a risk with this kind of an IT project. They’re worried about, as was the case with BCeSIS, a lot of extra requirements to try and have the system function, which regularly crashed, especially during examination and grading periods when there were many people trying to get onto the system.

The additional cost to try and make the system function often fell to them to figure out. Based on comments provided to me by different districts, they’re already accumulating quite a list of downloaded costs. This is supposed to be evenly split. It’s budgeted at $20 per student; $10 of that is to come from the district, $10 of it from the ministry. But when it comes to the cost to make sure that there’s adequate hardware and software at the local level, that is not funded.

There is the question around having adequate access to the Internet in both districts and schools. That varies widely from district to district. That can cost quite a lot of money to upgrade — hardware, Internet access.

Then there are training costs for teachers, which have proven to be quite significant, from the comments I’ve had. The MyEducation B.C. coordinators in various districts have had to expend more time than they thought they would to have teachers become familiar with this system. These would be the schools that are using the system now that the minister outlined.

[1400]

Administration of the system is time-consuming. It does take time to put information into the system. There’s also a requirement a lot of schools are finding when they issue a personal education number and when they give a parent access to the system. Districts are finding it necessary. Schools are concerned that they going to have to provide training for parents and guardians. All of those have cost.

There are additional storage requirements when you have as much information stored in the cloud that is proposed here on students’ work that they will perform in their different grades. Costs will fall, they fear, to the district.

Has the minister received some feedback similar to what I’m hearing around a range of costs, where it’s uncertain whose responsibility that will be, that are outside of the $20-per-student anticipated cost of this project? How has he responded? Is he going to help districts manage the risks of those unanticipated costs?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I wanted to acknowledge that Jill Kot, who is here from the services and technology division, is heading up the ministry team that’s working with the districts.

[1405]

I have to say, in just speaking with her and even in my travels around the province, that I’ve not had the same feedback that the member opposite has. That doesn’t necessarily surprise me.

But I will say this, that the feedback we are getting is that the level of cooperation between the ministry and the districts is very good. The districts are responsible for the training in their districts. We provide all the materials, and they are responsible for the rollout of the training programs. Again, every district has unique dynamics, geography being one of them — the ability to bring the teams together. We have the trainers who are training the trainers, and that seems to be going extremely well.

In terms of the issue on storage, the ministry, the government, is totally responsible for the storage. We do not have any issues now or anticipated. When this system was chosen as the preferred option, clearly we recognized it is a system that is going to start at a certain level and then mature and grow. Different opportunities to include newer additions to it will be there in the future.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about some of the concerns, some of the feedback that his ministry has received from the Information and Privacy Commissioner about the risks of this greatly expanded data storage system.

There will be a lot of information about individual students, digital personas created about each individual student that will follow them around for at least 13 years in the school system. Understandably, that will accumulate. It will go far beyond the sort of analog-era records, if you like, of attendance, grades, Dogwood certificates and all that, to include examples of work, incident reports and a whole host of things, including documents submitted by teachers and by parents, because there are so many users of the new database.

The characterization of the Information and Privacy Commissioner is that it’s government’s responsibility to ensure that digital constructs aren’t used or abused in new ways for administrative or government purposes. I think this was as much a warning as also a request for proof that government both understands these risks and will seek to convince the commissioner that in fact this is being done.

There has been a lot of debate amongst privacy advocates, too, about what’s being called — I don’t think it’s the precise term — the right to be forgotten. Government has to give assurances that these records are going to be pared down and disposed of in an accurate, timely manner once the individual is no longer a student and that
[ Page 7192 ]
only the things that are truly useful will remain.

There’s a risk, too, that these kinds of databases…. Because they are so vast about demographics that all kinds of commercial interests would love to dearly have access to, there are data mining opportunities that present a risk. Some of these data sets can be socially sorted to provide information that people, nefarious or otherwise, may be interested in getting that would violate an individual’s privacy.

I’m wondering how the back and forth or how the relationship between the ministry and all those working on this IT project works with the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s office.

[1410]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, right from the beginning, privacy, the access to information, was paramount in both the system that was chosen and the protocols that are going to be in place. Our ministry, of course, is working closely with the chief information officer in Citizens’ Services and the Privacy Commissioner.

Prior to even considering moving forward, a complete privacy impact assessment was done as per government policy, because it is absolutely paramount. We’re very sure of that in working with the school districts because, ultimately, the access and so on is being handled by the districts within their community.

It’s strictly controlled by the role that a person plays. There isn’t open access to this whatsoever. It’s very tightly controlled by role, whether it’s a teacher, the students themselves, their parents, counsellors. Any of those things is very tightly controlled. We have clear guidelines that we’re providing, and we’re working with districts as they start to move into implementation.

We have, I think, the confidence that all of the protocols that are necessary — and even the safeguards that we need to make sure are implemented both on the government side and on the district side — are in place to ensure privacy. And as I said, we’re working closely with the Privacy Commissioner to make sure that those things are protected.

R. Fleming: I’m just wondering if there are issues around intellectual property that may be outstanding as part of this discussion that the ministry is having with the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

For example, who owns the student information? Is it the student who ultimately owns it? Is it the school district? Is it the ministry? How is that established, and was that figured out before there was a 12-year contract signed with Fujitsu, or is it being clarified now based on inquiries through the ministry?

The same goes for the teachers’ work too — if there’s any intellectual property around who owns the teachers’ work that is stored on the system. Is it the school district? Is it the ministry? Is it the individual teacher?

[1415-1420]

Hon. P. Fassbender: When it comes to issues of intellectual properties and so on and as it relates to education, the reality is, as it is now, the students own their own data. That has not changed. We store that data. Right now we store student records for, I believe, anywhere up to 70 years.

As the member probably knows, as he was applying for something — he wanted his transcripts — he went back to the school district, and those were supplied because those are kept. There’s no difference to the storage of information on students today.

When it comes to intellectual properties or information that’s developed by teachers that finds its way, either being shared through MyEducation B.C. and so on, it is the employer who owns that intellectual property as a result of the relationship with the employees. That’s the way it is right now. The school districts themselves, as the employer, own the intellectual properties.

R. Fleming: I think the point I was trying to make is that the data collection is going to be massive — the amount of work. I can retrieve my transcripts, as the minister said, but I can’t retrieve old essays, I believe. I mean, when I went to school, the Commodore 64 was the latest thing. We’re in a different era.

Anyway, I know that this is a topic that deserves much more attention. There are legitimate privacy concerns. I’m pleased that the commissioner has expressed some of that and that it will go into the system design. It is rolling out now.

I think I’ll just maybe talk about a different topic in the interest of limited time this afternoon, talk about changes to adult basic education that the government announced a few months ago, on December 4, 2014, to be exact. There was a significant policy change made.

The formerly tuition-free upgrade courses for adult learners, which they could take through school districts through the school system, are now subject to tuition fees. This presents a significant barrier for people to upgrade courses to then pursue post-secondary education.

My first question is really around the sudden nature of this announcement. It was announced on December 4. It was right around the same time that government signed a memorandum of understanding with the B.C. School Trustees Association that was based on a protocol that they had developed a couple years earlier — within days, I believe.

Interjection.

R. Fleming: On the eve of the signing of this memorandum of understanding.

They signed this document of principles. I won’t express all of them here in the estimates process. The main commitment of both partners — both school districts
[ Page 7193 ]
and government — is that they will consult one another when there are significant changes made to policies or administrative practices — those kinds of things. This is a significant change.

I want to ask the minister: did he give a heads-up or have a discussion that planned and consulted upon how this program — which was introduced in 2008, the education guarantee, to much fanfare by his government — would potentially change? Or did he make it up as he went and just decide that it would be cancelled immediately, beginning in the next fiscal year?

[1425]

Hon. P. Fassbender: First and foremost, within the K-to-12 sector.… And the reason that I made the announcement is that the Minister of Advanced Education was not available on the day the announcement was made, which happened to be the day after the MOU was signed. That said, I was happy to do that on behalf of government.

I think there are a couple of key elements here. Any person in the province of British Columbia who has not graduated from grade 12 still receives that graduation certificate free of charge. That has been a policy of government; it remains the policy of government.

There’s also been a change to the academic upgrading for graduated adults. That is, adults who have already graduated will be expected to cover the cost of some of the academic upgrading programs. We will, however, continue to fund 26 foundational courses which often support non-English-speaking immigrants and their path to the workplace. We continue to support those foundational programs.

We are also ensuring the sustainability of adult upgrading. The Ministry of Advanced Education, where a lot of this responsibility does flow, has an additional $7 million to provide support to those individuals who might be classed as the most needy. That does not just cover tuition. There is travel, there is daycare, and there are a number of other elements that are now in that program to support those people who may have those needs. It’s a means-tested support program. We understand that in the early days the uptake on that is what it should be. Those people who need that support are getting that support.

With respect to the MOU. I believe the member was in the audience when we signed that and I made the comment: the MOU is not and was never intended to be a panacea. It’s a living document. What I did clearly say and it says in the document is that as a minister of the Crown, I am subject to budget confidentiality, cabinet confidentiality. There isn’t always the opportunity, under those guidelines that I have to operate by, that allows me always to have the kind of consultation that I might even like. That is the reality of the environment.

[1430]

What the MOU does do is it sets a path. It says clearly that wherever possible, my ministry — I as the minister; my team, in terms of the ministry team, the deputy and the senior executive — will do everything we can, as we’re looking to the future, to work with the school districts, with the superintendents, with the secretary-treasurers and everyone to have robust consultation.”

A good example of that is our shared-services initiative. There are committees that are being formed and that have been formed which have been working for quite a period of time. There is robust consultation going on, leading towards whatever might be the outcomes of that in terms of any regulations or activities on shared services.

We’re committed to that consultation, but there will be times when I am subject to those things that I have to operate under where I will not be able to do that, or the timeliness of it may not be what people might want but is necessary from a government’s point of view in developing our fiscal framework.

I make no apologies for that, either. I told the BCSTA that when we signed it. I think what we need to do is to let it continue to grow and evolve as our relationship strengthens in the future.

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

R. Fleming: I guess what I think people who are affected by this policy will struggle to understand, from what the minister just said, is how a cabinet can sit around and make a budget that decides it will spend $230 million, giving a tax cut to the richest 2 percent. A millionaire will get 17 grand back in their pocket when they file taxes next year.

For 15,000 graduated adult learners who want to improve their lives through advanced education, through pursuing post-secondary programs of all kinds, but who cannot be admitted into such programs until they upgrade their high school diploma to have the additional sciences that they may need, to improve their grades in English, to have math, an examinable subject that they lack currently on their Dogwood certificate, whatever it may be, those people are going to be charged tuition fees. Government is putting in a new barrier for those at the bottom who are trying to pull themselves up and build a better life for their families.

This is a $9 million program. To cut $9 million away from this population across British Columbia and then make a decision that the top 2 percent of British Columbians can get $230 million in a tax cut — I don’t understand how the cabinet can make a decision like that. It’s ridiculous. To spring it on school districts that are rightly proud of the programs that they deliver to graduated adults — and this is going to cost them, by the way, because the ministry is no longer going to fund this — without any notification, I think says it all.

I want to ask the minister specifically this, because I don’t expect he’s going to address the comments I just
[ Page 7194 ]
made. Or maybe he will. He failed to consult on the policy changes. Within the policy change that he made, there are some things that are just absurd that I don’t understand. If you work full-time and you make $11.37 an hour or more…. If you make 80 cents an hour more than the minimum wage and raise a family on it, somehow you’re seen as having means to now pay for the tuition that’s going to be introduced. How was that number arrived at — that $11.37 an hour for your family puts you in an affluent category?

I mean, think about that in Metro Vancouver or any part of the province. These are people who are trying to get into advanced education and will incur, undoubtedly, student loans and other costs. Before they get to that significant barrier and investment and risk that they want to take on themselves, they need to upgrade their courses. This, to my mind, is putting in place a new barrier for people trying to build a better life for themselves and their families, who can’t afford it.

[1435]

It’s a major reversal from what this government committed to in 2008 when it brought in the education guarantee. I remember that day. We had hammered the government on reintroducing adult basic education fees in the first place, and it went on for years and years and years. They finally heard back from college administrators and others that they were unable to attract students that they would like to see in their system because government had done this.

Murray Coell, who was the Minister of Advanced Education at the time, working collaboratively with the Minister of Education, brought in the education guarantee. And with a stroke of a pen at a press conference on December 4 of last year, just five months ago, all of that was thrown away. I don’t get it.

If you have $230 million to give the top 2 percent a tax cut in the coming fiscal year, are you really telling this group of British Columbians they can’t get the help they need? You know, they can’t have the rungs and the opportunity ladder that they need to better their lives for themselves and their families because that costs $9 million that the government can’t afford. Is that the message that the minister is sending out with this policy change?

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, thank you, Chair. Welcome to the committee.

For the member opposite, I’m not going to redebate the budget. I appreciate the member wants to do that, but I’m not going to enter into that debate.

The decision that was made was based on a look at budgets both within Education and within Advanced Education. Advanced Education has indeed been given additional dollars to help the most needy in a very significant way, in terms of not just tuition but the other things that I mentioned.

I’m sure that the member…. If he would like more clarity from Advanced Education, the minister happens to be sitting in the room, and he’d be happy to provide the member with more detail if, indeed, he didn’t get it during the Ministry of Advanced Education’s estimates.

But I will say this again. No person living in British Columbia who does not have a graduation certificate will be prevented from getting that at no cost. Those people who come to this province from other jurisdictions who may have graduated in those jurisdictions but need support for foundational programs, particularly in the language areas, will receive that support and will continue to receive it.

I am confident, as I know the Minister of Advanced Education is, that this program is going to support those that are the most needy, and they will get the support that they need in order to be successful.

R. Fleming: I think we will be arguing this for a long time to come — the government’s ridiculous assertion that you’re rich if you make $11.37 an hour. The fact that they can absurdly claim to have a jobs plan and now they’re putting up barriers to people who can’t get into trade apprenticeship programs because they’ve graduated from high school but they don’t have the programs, the coursework that is required to get an entry into various trades or college or university, is an absurdity.

[1440]

It will fall upon those with low incomes who are struggling to build a better life for themselves and their families. But that debate will take a longer period of time than we have for this afternoon.

I want to move on now to talk about the CommunityLINK program and just maybe begin by asking the minister what level of funding there is for CommunityLINK in this budget and whether that represents an increase upon last year’s amount and what it looks like over the three years of the service plan.

[1445]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The budget this year is $62.67 million. Unfortunately, we don’t have the number for the previous year readily available because we’re just finalizing that, but we will provide that to the member subsequent to estimates.

The Chair: I recognize the minister from…. Sorry, the member for Vancouver-Fairview.

G. Heyman: I’ll take “minister.”

A Voice: : Are you crossing the floor?

G. Heyman: No, I think I’ll stay on this side. It’s a better place. I’m just anticipating.
[ Page 7195 ]

Thank you to my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake for accommodating me on what’s a busy afternoon. I had an interesting, if intense, meeting with a couple of my constituents last week, named Marlene Rodgers and Jen Stewart. The minister may be familiar with them as two of the parents who have organized families against cuts to education.

I’d like to read into the record — I think it’s important that this go on the public record — some excerpts from a letter that Jennifer Stewart sent to the minister and copied to me and all MLAs the day after the budget. It reads:

“I am upset and concerned by the budget you announced yesterday, February 17, and its effects on British Columbia’s public education sector in particular. I’m not a teacher, nor am I affiliated with any political party. With a child in public school, I have seen firsthand the impacts of years of cuts in our education system. I care about public education and the society of our province, and I’m deeply troubled by the facts of your budget.”

She goes on to list some points.

“What you are calling increased funding to education covers only the costs associated with the negotiated teachers settlement reached last September. It does not cover the 4 percent rise in MSP premiums, nor does it cover inflation and other fixed costs, let alone address funding shortfalls that boards were already facing.”

I would add, before I go on with her letter, that it doesn’t cover increases to B.C. Hydro or a number of the other benefits that may be included in the collective agreement.

She goes on to say:

“School boards, who have faced year after year of grueling cuts, are required to cut another $29 million this year from their budgets that are already cut to the bone — past the bone, in many cases — and another $25 million next year.”

That’s a total of $54 million in two years.

She goes on to contrast this with:

“Funding to independent schools is increasing this year by $30 million, the same amount that public school boards are being forced to cut, and will continue to increase next year.”

Now, the minister has said: “There’s nothing to be gained by perpetuating a myth that our public education system is underfunded and broken.” The minister’s assertion just, frankly, doesn’t ring true to my constituents or many of the people who attended a very significant family and parents and kids rally in Vancouver last Sunday that I attended.

One parent said the government is trying to balance the budget on the backs of our kids while increasing funding to for-profit private schools. I think a lot of people thought, with the end of the strike, there would be renewed funding for public schools.

A student, who happens to be Jin Wang, the Vancouver school board student trustee, said: “I’ve been in the public education system since kindergarten, and I got so many opportunities in music, drama and band and strings. It makes me angry that students in kindergarten now won’t get those same opportunities.”

A number of points that were raised by Ms. Rodgers and Ms. Stewart when they met with me is that parents are being asked to subsidize a public school on the west side of Vancouver to a tune of $100 a family this year.

Parents are asked to raise money to pay for necessities like books and microscopes, and they believe that this leads to an inequitable system of have and have-not schools that’s dependant on which parents have enough money to respond to such an appeal and which don’t.

They go on to tell me that the PAC is always fundraising. The euphemism of “let’s get money for the teachers’ wish list” is used, but these are actually educational necessities like art supplies, library books — often tissues. Parents are asked to bring a ream of paper each to help supply the photocopier.

Other examples from my constituency are Simon Fraser Elementary School, which is currently full. Included in that catchment area is the growing, populated Olympic Village. They currently have two portables. They’re getting more.

What’s happening is that there are more kids in the catchment area than spaces. Under the catchment lottery, some child who may live two blocks from the school may not make it through the lottery system and may actually have to travel, at great inconvenience to their parents, to a school further away.

[1450]

Librarians cut back to 2½ days a week. There are testing delays, as we know, throughout the system — not just in Vancouver-Fairview schools — for kids with special needs, as well as gifted kids.

My question for the minister is: given this, can the minister give Ms. Rogers and Ms. Stewart and other parents who regularly meet with me in Vancouver-Fairview some examples of what he thinks are low-hanging fruit or wasted administrative money within the school board system that could be cut without hurting education?

If, in fact, he can identify any of those, can he tell us why that money wouldn’t be put back into the system to meet the educational necessities that are currently not funded, that parents are being asked to fund rather than being returned to the government? I think it’s a fair question.

We heard earlier today of some low-hanging fruit of about $44 million in foregone revenue from a sale of government assets. Surely, there are other places to look for money than from the skin of kids who are trying to get an education and a decent start in life or from parents who are stressed to the max in trying to provide for their families without having to pay through an add-on fee for an education system that is supposed to be public and equal.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Members, we will recess the House for the vote and then reconvene after the vote is taken. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 2:52 p.m. to 3:06 p.m.

[M. Hunt in the chair.]
[ Page 7196 ]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I just wanted to read one item into the record from a previous question that I didn’t have the answer for. The question was asked about the education savings plan and expiry. I will read this into the record.

Children are eligible for the BCTES grant on their sixth birthday, up to and until the day before their ninth birthday. Some eligible children will be older than nine in August of 2015, so the last day for them to apply is August 14. Of course, we will be communicating that as part of the communications plan.

Going to the last question that I was asked before we adjourned for this short time, first of all, I want to correct the member. We do not fund any for-profit schools in the province of British Columbia one penny — for-profit schools. That was part of what the member was quoting in the letter, and of course, we’re answering to Jennifer Stewart on a number of the other issues.

The other thing that I think is important is that the investment in education has grown since 2001. I say that every time I’m asked the question and make no apologies for it. It’s over $1.2 billion more since 2001. I recognize that in that period, as all of us do in our own personal lives, costs of everything continued to rise, and all of us have to manage within whatever budgets we have. School districts and the government and other agencies are caught in exactly the same position.

[1510]

On independent schools, it’s very clear that we support independent schools. We continue to support independent schools, but the funding formula for independent schools hasn’t changed for 25 years.

Now if parents choose to go to an independent school, they do that in the full knowledge that that school is either funded at the 50 percent level or at the 30 percent level, depending on where it fits in the categories. That is a parental choice that this province stands by and that we’re proud of. We believe that parents do deserve a choice, and they make those decisions based on what they feel their family needs are.

In terms of savings or potential savings, it’s a big issue. We have been looking throughout the province. Our ministry staff have been working with the school districts, and I must say that some of them are doing a great job. I’ve said that continually. I also know that not all districts are doing the same things. One of the things in our moving forward and looking for administrative or structural savings — and eventually, in building a shared-services program within the Ministry of Education — is to find those opportunities where there are savings that prove that those dollars can be invested in education in this province.

I’m going to give the member a couple of examples. One district saved over $300,000 by moving workshops and seminars outside of the school session. That was an effective use of teaching time and using it — thereby eliminating the cost of teacher-on-call payments for those seminars and other workshops outside of the school hours. And $18,000 was saved by another district converting to a paperless model for board meetings. Simply by going to electronic use, which most members in this House have, they saved $18,000. Not all districts are doing that at this stage.

A number of districts saved $1.8 million in the consolidated phone contracts that they’ve done. But not all school districts have participated yet, and we think that is something appropriate to be looked at. Another school district reduced their advertising with local stories and theatre productions, and they saved $14,000. There are a number of opportunities, and I hasten to say again that many school districts are doing some things that other school districts aren’t. We’re going to continue to find and to work with them, to see those opportunities that make sense to be used across the province, which will actually save them money.

One other district revised a natural gas contract. They renegotiated it, and they saved $90,000 for their budget. That money doesn’t come back to Victoria. That money stays within the districts and is used in the overall education budget for those districts. I think those are the kinds of things that I know the Premier was talking about and that I’ve talked about. I think that is a win-win, both for the taxpayers and for parents and students in our education system.

R. Fleming: I want to just go back to the CommunityLINK program that we were discussing before the bells rung for a vote. There’s been a lot of data about the lack of food and the lack of preparedness for school — which, unfortunately, far too many kids in different regions of British Columbia experience as a course of everyday life.

I know the minister is fully aware of how not having proper nutrition, not having a full stomach, has an impact on a child’s ability to learn, to absorb information and to get the most out of their school day. It can lead to falling behind, and it can lead to poor performance as a student. It’s an awful feeling to struggle with hunger, for a child.

The CommunityLINK program, I presume, was meant to address levels of insufficient food for the numbers of children in various districts around B.C. I don’t understand all of the contours of the program. That’s why I ask these questions this afternoon.

[1515]

What is clear, based on a number of studies, is that the CommunityLINK program is inadequate to satisfy the needs that exist, and that in some cases are growing, in different districts, including large school districts like the Vancouver school district and Surrey as well. A recent study in Vancouver concluded that there are 2,000 kids going hungry every day and, in this district, report
[ Page 7197 ]
that the shortfall that CommunityLINK does not cover is approximately $1.7 million.

There will not be lunch and breakfast programs in a number of schools potentially beginning next September because the money has become stretched so thin and it’s inadequate. Some of this is because the inequality rates and poverty rates are growing. The cost of living for a family in places like Vancouver is that much more difficult.

What I wanted to ask the minister is why some parts of the province — or some children, really, as it plays out in different schools — do qualify for meals that are funded by CommunityLINK, which is also buttressed by private donations — including the Vancouver Sun, which has one of the programs that generously donates to this.

Why do some kids qualify and some kids do not? That’s the reality in British Columbia today. The program is not sufficient to meet the criteria of whether a child is hungry or not and their ability to afford food. It’s something that has been rationed to the point where some kids qualify and some kids don’t strictly on the basis of geography.

Has that been studied by the ministry? Have they looked at revamping the CommunityLINK program so that its coverage is adequate to help kids who struggle with hunger in our school system?

[1520]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I wanted to, again, reiterate the fact that the funding for CommunityLINK has gone up to $62.67 million. As I mentioned, staff is getting the number from the previous year.

What’s important here is that we provide the CommunityLINK funding to school districts. We do not direct how that money should be used. That’s a local district decision. I know, clearly, in some of the districts I’ve visited they have a great relationship with local supermarkets or other people where their food program…. They don’t use CommunityLINK funding because they have community support. They then dedicate those funds to other needs that may be existent in their community.

Every year they identify how they use the funds. They report that back to us. But one of the things that we are going to be doing within the coming months is having our technical review committee, which is made up of representatives from districts and the ministry, sit down and look at the allocation formula and look at other opportunities where that might be enhanced.

I think one of the keys is every community is different. Every community has the flexibility at the school district level to determine what their priority needs are and to meet those. I believe, as the member has said, nutrition is at the heart of it. We continue to encourage districts to make sure that the most vulnerable students, who are not properly cared for before they come to school, get that kind of support.

R. Fleming: I’ll just maybe ask a final question on CommunityLINK to see whether the minister has met, not just as a minister but as an MLA from Surrey, with the Surrey school board. I think this is an interesting community to look at the shortfall that CommunityLINK does not provide. Surrey, like other districts, has been good at raising funds and contributions, in-kind food contributions, cash money, Vancouver adopt-a-school program funds and leveraging the CommunityLINK funding to become much more substantive.

They faced $8 million in revenue shortfall overall in their budget last year. That’s what they had to cut. The administrative savings clawback over the next two years from this government’s budget is going to be $6.6 million. They simply can’t go above and beyond what they’re currently being asked to do. And the problem is worse because the demand is growing.

I think there are boxed-lunch programs in 22 schools in Surrey. That’s my understanding, but the district estimates there are perhaps in excess of 1,000 kids who should be involved in the program and be getting either a breakfast or a lunch program to help them be more successful in school. They’re unable to meet that demand.

I’m just wondering if there are any strategies that inform him from his local experience as an MLA. What is clear is the provincial strategy right now has some serious gaps that are opening up.

[1525]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The information, of course, that we receive back from districts is that — this is an average; it varies by district — the average is that 25 percent of the CommunityLINK funding is used for food; 75 percent is used for other very important programs by district. I want to reiterate that they make the decision. The amount is fixed that goes out. They decide whether they use it for youth workers in the school district, mentorship programs, other counselling programs — all things which they determine, by community, are important.

As far as the city of Surrey goes, I indeed have met with the school board, and I also am well aware that the city of Surrey and the school district work together with other community agencies in pockets where we have higher needs. Food programs are there, Breakfast Clubs of Canada. I was at an event not long ago where I met with the community volunteers that work with Breakfast Clubs that provide food to those students. So I’m very confident the district is doing as good a job as it can, and it’s engaging other partners in it as well.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. We will recess for another vote in the House.

The committee recessed from 3:28 p.m. to 3:40 p.m.
[ Page 7198 ]

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I just wanted to correct very quickly something I misspoke in a previous question. I think I said that the funding to independent schools under the formula was 50 and 30 percent. It’s actually 50 and 35 percent, not 30. I think I was thinking about my age or something like that.

K. Conroy: I represent three different school districts: No. 20, which is Kootenay-Columbia; No. 10, which is Arrow Lakes; and I share No. 8, Kootenay Lake, with my colleague from Nelson-Creston. All three have expressed concerns about their budgets and what they see as cuts coming to their budgets — or administrative efficiencies, as the minister likes to refer to them.

District 20, for instance, sees a deficit of at least $600,000 to $800,000. They’re trying to figure out how that’s going to work, and they don’t have any low-hanging fruit left to cut. They’ve done all the cuts. All the cuts that the minister referred to, all those administrative efficiencies — these three school districts have done them. In fact, they’ve done a lot more than that. They’re all very frugal.

They’ve closed schools, they’ve made significant cuts to their administration, and they all recognize that they have lower enrolment. They recognize that, but they are now looking at — especially district No. 20, for the first time ever — direct cuts to student services, and they’ve never had to do that before. They’re struggling with that, and they feel that there’s a limit.

The other thing that No. 20 has done…. It’s got some of the best training in the province. In fact, the ministry has used their staff to train other districts. They’re well known for their training, and they’re at the point where they’re thinking they’re going to have to cut that training, which is a sad fact for every district in the province, including the ministry. It will cost the ministry more in the long run, I’m thinking. They are looking at it reluctantly, because they feel that training is incredibly important — obviously, because other districts are using their services for it.

They are also looking at ways that parents will have to pay. I know that one of my grandchildren said: “Granny, what the heck is a ream of paper? I’ve never had to do that before.” She’s in grade 3 and had to buy a ream of paper for her school supplies. They all are doing that — reams of paper. The schools can’t even afford paper. I mean, when we all went to school, they might have not had the computers that they were talking about, but schools at least were able to provide paper.

They’re also looking at charging parents for busing. We’re a rural constituency. Families that might have three or four kids in their families are suddenly, with an extra fee, being charged for busing. It is a substantial fee, in some families’ eyes, and it’s created some issues within the constituency.

The buildings are in disrepair. They are struggling to save the money to ensure that the buildings get the repairs that they need. One of the schools, Stanley Humphries, a secondary school — in fact, a school I went to — still has some buildings there that were there when I went there, and it was a long time ago. It was a long time ago. I graduated in ’75. I’ll say it. It was a long time ago. It was a good year, 1975.

It’s hard for these school trustees, who are struggling to make ends meet. They recognize…. I want to quote one school trustee. He actually, in frustration, wrote a letter to the paper. He said that he recognized that the government was increasing funding, but, at the same time, he said that you have to read the fine print in the budget that left school trustees and administrators feeling like they have been “played for chumps.” They’re not getting funded for things like the raises that have come up for the support staff or the teachers, and they’re struggling.

[1545]

They say: “How are we going to raise that?” When the minister says that the money doesn’t come back to Victoria, well, it hasn’t left Victoria. The school districts don’t have the money to actually cut from, so how can you say it doesn’t come back to Victoria when it hasn’t even gone from Victoria in the first place?

They have gone through a lot of looking. They’ve put out their budget. District 20 has put out their budget to the public and said: “Help us. These are the things we’re looking at cutting.”

They’re looking at cutting the learning coordinator. They’re looking at cutting elementary counselors. They’re looking at cutting teachers. One of the cuts they’re looking at making is to custodial services. Even though they say it’s not direct service to the classrooms, it is. When we look at the things like flus, colds, diseases that go through a classroom, they go through because the classrooms aren’t clean — and even buses, if the buses aren’t clean. Those are cuts that they’ve been looking at making. What are kids going to be asked for next? Are they going to have to bring HandiWipes and wipe down the seats before they can get on the bus every morning? I mean, what’s next?

People are frustrated. These school trustees are working really hard to try to make ends meet. They’ve cut everywhere they can make. Now the cuts that they’re looking at are to direct services to the kids in our districts, in my constituency. Parents are worried. Parents are extremely worried about what’s next.

I ask: how on earth can these districts, who have been cutting, who have made all the cuts they can make…? There aren’t any more administrative cuts to make. There aren’t any more. They’re struggling to make ends meet. Where the heck are they going to cut from?

[1550]

Hon. P. Fassbender: We’ll just carry on with the answer that the member asked for. Let me say this. In reviewing all of the school districts around the province, there is really good work that’s been done by many of them in finding efficiencies and doing what they can to maintain their budget. I appreciate that, and I know that’s not easy. I’m not suggesting that finding additional efficiencies is going to be easy, but it is something that I think, as a basic philosophy, we are asking ourselves as government. And we’re asking school districts, health authorities and post-secondary institutions to all do the same thing.

However, districts are faced in the next two years with a $54 million target that was in the last budget. That represents one-half of 1 percent per year that we’re asking for. When I and the Minister of Finance said that we felt it’s an achievable target and when you look at local school district budgets — I’m sure that the member is aware, but just in case she’s not — school district 20 has the highest record of accumulated surplus that they’ve ever had going over the last ten to 12 years. It now sits at $2.7 million.

What we’re asking them to do is to look at their budget and the targets, and within their budget, taking into account all of those factors, to come up with a budget for the next two years that recognizes the savings while we work with districts on provincial initiatives, regional initiatives and even some local in the shared-services area.

School district 10 has the highest record of accumulated surplus of $1.8 million, and school district number No. 8 has $2.4 million. I think what is important is that school districts 20 and 10 are both receiving funding protection because of declining enrolments. School district 20 received an additional $456,000, and school district 10, $160,500. We’re doing everything we can to protect those that have declining enrolments.

Health and safety and all of those issues are a priority. Our team, within our ministry, is working with the districts on issues of investments and capital. Our basic priority is health and safety. The second priority is to ensure that we maintain that infrastructure which we’ve invested in. We continue to work, through our ministry and our senior team, with them on issues where there need to be upgrades, and we will do what we can when we can when the funds are available.

We’re not ignoring the work that they’ve done. We recognize it. We’re asking them to be a partner with us as we move forward to maintain the fiscal plan that we have, which is important to all of them as well.

I can tell the member opposite it’s very clear. If we were to lose our credit rating, we would have to find hundreds of millions of dollars that would have to come from somewhere. Because we protected it, we are able to keep a balanced budget and to keep this province on a sound economic footing.

If you look across the country, previously the discussion was on where Alberta is. Well, Alberta made choices in the past that they’re now paying for. We’re not. We’re on a sound economic footing.

[1555]

C. Trevena: Like my colleague from the Kootenays, I have three school districts in my constituency — three rural school districts — school district 72, school district 84 and school district 85. Like my colleague from Kootenay West…. These school districts have been cutting and cutting and cutting. They are small school districts. In fact, I think school district 84 must be one of the smallest school districts in the province. It’s got approximately 400 students across a very large area.

Each school district has been reducing its budget by thousands of dollars every year. School district 72 — which is Campbell River, the largest community; it goes out to Quadra, Cortes, up to Sayward — a large one with a number of schools in Campbell River, is having to cut approximately 3 percent of its budget. Over the last five years it has cut $2½ million. Now it needs to cut about another $300,000. Like other rural school districts, there is nowhere left to cut. There is absolutely nowhere left to cut.

I had, in the last few weeks, meetings with school trustees, meetings with administration across the constituency, all of them trying to find ways of expressing their frustration. Part of their frustration is that they see a government that doesn’t seem to be committed. These are trustees who are volunteers, who are working on behalf of their community, and the administration who have really, most of them, given their lives to public education.

They see a government that is not committed to public education. They comment very regularly on the increase in funding that has gone into private education. The minister corrected a mistake in his statement earlier in saying that 35 percent goes to some of the private schools. This is a huge amount of funding, from their perspective, when they are trying to literally keep their schools running and keep our students educated.

I’m not going to ask the minister where the money is going to come from or how he is going to solve it. I would hope that he would take this more seriously than he is and when he’s talking about balancing the budget that he would realize that the best investment this government can make — any government can make — is a serious investment in our education system, a system where we shouldn’t have to be scrabbling for books, where we shouldn’t have to have parents fundraising.

I’m going to keep my question very simple. It’s on technology. We all look for technology. If we can’t afford to have the books, at least we may have some technology. Rural school districts don’t have a fair playing field for technology.

I have a question from school district 84 for the minister, which is: how come students in Zeballos or Kyuquot, who are citizens of this province as are the citizens of Surrey and Vancouver and Burnaby, have to make do
[ Page 7200 ]
with much poorer technology? The goal for the Lower Mainland, I understand, is access of one gigabyte. In rural B.C., in my constituency, school students still have to make do with ten megabytes.

This is just simple access to information in the contemporary world. Because there have been so many cutbacks, and because there is more reliance on the Internet for education, could the minister please explain how these students are supposed to even start off on an even playing field?

[1600]

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I absolutely agree with the member. Technology is critical in every community, whether they be aboriginal communities or remote communities. That’s why in our service plan, if you’ve read it, you will see clearly the technology advancements.

But technology is only useful if you’ve got Internet access, and I think that’s what you were referring to. We are working diligently with our partner in ensuring that we get high-speed access to every community. It’s not only going to assist education; it’s going to be a significant benefit to health care as well.

M. Farnworth: I have one question for the minister. It will form two parts. The first is about a school in my community in Port Coquitlam, which, as the minister knows, is a rapidly growing suburban community.

The school in question is Minnekhada Middle School. It needs to be replaced. If the minister could give me the status of the replacement — what is happening and when it’s expected to be completed — so that I can let my constituents know. They have been wanting to see a new school on that particular site.

The second question is one that I raised last year in estimates. There’s an area in Port Coquitlam, the Dominion Triangle, that was initially supposed to be light industrial and commercial. The community plan has changed, and there is now residential going in there. There has been significant development take place in the form of townhouses and condominiums. Roughly 1,000 are going into that particular area.

Last year I raised the issue of discussions with the school board about the impact in terms of school sites, because there’s very little down there. Blakeburn, which is the closest elementary school, is easily 1½ to 1.8 kilometres away. It’s outside walking distance, on a busy street.

Have there been any discussions with the school board, school district 43, around the need for a new elementary school, a potential elementary school, in the Dominion Triangle area?

[1605]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Yes, our ministry is meeting with them. As a matter of fact, with Minnekhada, we just received their final plan. That’s being reviewed by ministry staff as we speak.

There are a number of projects that are in the hopper in Coquitlam. In terms of the other ones, we are working with them, virtually on a weekly basis, ensuring that we have their final capital plan so that those things can proceed to approval and funding.

The area you referred to — I’ve never heard of it referred to as the Dominion Triangle. But I know that there has been, as recently as a week ago, a property acquisition that was done in Coquitlam, which I suspect may be in that area. We absolutely are working with them in terms of any changes that have been made to the community plan, so we know where their growth is going to be.

As the member clearly knows, we always find ourselves catching up to changes in community plans and communities simply because when that’s done, we then have to sit down and look at their capital priorities. But we do continue to work with them.

Coquitlam is a priority because of all of the things that are going on and the growth.

S. Fraser: My questions are going to be around aboriginal education, specifically First Nations languages. So 34 distinct linguistic groups in British Columbia, and we’re at risk of losing many of them, if not all. The elders that are fluent are passing, and that’s a big problem. The clock is ticking.

How much is the Ministry of Education investing to support language learning to deal with this critical situation?

[1610]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I will say this and have said this on a number of occasions when I’ve travelled around into communities. The member is well aware that we have a number of aboriginal enhancement agreements between school districts and local bands which reflect the diversity of the bands throughout the province. We support ensuring that local culture and local language are part of the educational journey not only for the students that come from the aboriginal communities but for other students as well.

As a matter of fact, just recently when I was up in Houston, I met with a club in that particular high school. They’re sharing with their peers throughout the school some of the aboriginal culture and language, and they’re teaching them the language as well. The students are helping to expose their friends through that opportunity. We’re encouraging that.

The total amount of money that comes in as part of the block throughout the province for aboriginal education programs, not just languages but in total, is $66.2 million. What we do encourage, of course, is that each local school
[ Page 7201 ]
district, based on the unique dynamics in their communities and the aboriginal communities that are inherent in their school districts, work with them and find ways to ensure that that culture is there.

I have seen a number of cases where there was a lot of cooperation between the school district and the local community to have celebrations, to have other unique ways that they can share culture, language and traditions in their community for the benefit not only of the aboriginal students but of the other students as well.

S. Fraser: I appreciate the minister’s statements, but I don’t know if he’s getting the issue here. I mean, we’re losing languages. The elders that are fluent are passing, and if we do not train fluent speakers, we will lose these languages. That’s a cultural extinguishment. It’s critical. Timing is critical.

The vague amounts of money, $60 million towards…. How much is going towards protecting the languages? How many deliverables? How many fluent speakers have the minister’s policies — vague policies — created?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, I don’t think the policies are vague. We have 16 language templates that are in existence, through the Ministry of Education, around the province. As a matter of fact, a week from now we have an aboriginal linguist coming in to meet with the entire ministry staff to talk about the very issues, in terms of how do we protect those languages.

[1615]

We also believe that the best way to do that is to work with the aboriginal communities so that they are partners in ensuring that language and culture are maintained in those communities. They have a significant role. We embrace that. That’s what the enhancement agreements are all about.

S. Fraser: Again to the minister, he doesn’t know how his policies are affecting protecting the languages. He doesn’t know how many fluent speakers, which are necessary to protect the languages, are being created. He doesn’t know the breakdown on how much money, of the 60-odd million dollars, is going towards protecting those languages.

Can the minister explain how he will ensure that school districts, in a consistent way, are engaging and collaborating with First Nations and aboriginal communities regarding the education of aboriginal children, especially in regards to the funding that is targeted to aboriginal learners for language, culture and support? Besides the platitudes, how?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I don’t accept the premise at all that we are not doing anything. We are doing significant work. We work closely with FNESC in terms of a myriad of issues as it relates to aboriginal education. We work with the federal government and what they’re doing on reserve.

I think the most important thing is that we work every day in those districts — the districts do — with the local community, bringing in elders. Yes, I understand there is a transition going on, but we’re encouraging the community to take that as one of their initiatives, to ensure that they train their own people to be able to share their language in a multitude of different ways.

So we work very hard to ensure that we have the agreements. The enhancement agreements are there to do the very thing that the member has said. We have enhancement agreements in virtually every school district now. We’re going to continue to support that.

When we had the All Chiefs meeting with the cabinet, one of the things that was talked about — and our cabinet and our government said — is that we will work through MARR, through the other agencies we have, to ensure that the aboriginal culture and languages are protected and to find ways to ensure that they remain within the education system, where it’s appropriate, and in relationship to the local community.

S. Fraser: The minister’s words “to ensure” — ensure is the key word here. That’s what the ministry has not been doing. The minister has not been able to provide any deliverables or even the numbers of how much money is going towards protecting these languages or if it’s effective or if there are fluent speakers being created to protect the languages. Obviously, the work has to be done, but there’s not much time.

To the minister, will he at least do an evaluation of the enhancement agreements to see if they are effective in improving the outcomes and ensuring that fluent speakers are being created so that these languages are not lost forever?

[1620]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Yes.

V. Huntington: I understand that the critic has previously canvassed the issue of the context in which the requirements for further cuts have been managed. I’d just briefly say that the lack of context makes districts like mine suffer a great deal.

They worked hard and very successfully to come to grips with the cuts that were demanded of them, or as the minister calls them, the additional efficiencies demanded of them, and have, over a period of time, closed schools, developed academies to support their revenues, have foreign student programs. They’ve cut custodial services to the bone. They’ve had to drop the school bus services in a rural riding that is criss-crossed by four provincial highways. That caused incredible stress with our parents, and the classrooms are definitely being impacted at this point.

My question today deals specifically with the letter that
[ Page 7202 ]
the minister will have received this week from the chair of the Delta school district, Laura Dixon, who is asking and urging that the minister lift the freeze on the management-exempt staff salaries. They are the only group within the system that has not received compensation since 2009. And the employee support grant, which was negotiated to assist non-exempt staff to recover wages as a result of the strike, was not presented in a similar manner to the management and exempt staff.

To quote Ms. Dixon, she says: “While we understand and appreciate the strategy which motivated negotiation of this item” — the employee support grant — “it only serves to magnify the inequity for the management and exempt staff. We have a world-class education system, and we strive for continued success and improvement. We believe that treating the leaders in our system equitably will further these goals.”

Having spoken with the school district, the chair and the superintendent, they are incredibly concerned about the lack of remuneration increase that has been warranted and given to the principals and vice-principals and other exempt staff in the system.

I’m wondering when the minister and his staff are going to be looking at this issue. These staff members are picking up the burden of this strike, and to not have received any compensation increases for this in the last number of years is beginning to tell on this system.

I’d like to have the minister’s response please.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I would urge the member to speak to the Minister of Finance in his estimates about the freeze and when that may be considered in the future.

I will say this. I’ve met with the Principals and Vice-Principals Association. I’ve heard from the senior administrators and districts. Our staff has. We’re well aware of the compression that is going on as a result of increases to teachers. It is an issue that we are going to continue to look at.

When we can lift the freeze, I think they are the people that definitely we have seen need to be re-evaluated, in light of a freeze being lifted. We’re not lifting the freeze across government for very obvious reasons, but I encourage you to go to the Minister of Finance estimates as well.

[1625]

K. Corrigan: I have a few questions. My first one is…. I wanted to ask about the status of the Alpha School partial rebuild. It’s an older school, almost to the end of life. Funding was promised in 2012. I think at this point there is almost approval, which is good news. The district has been waiting for a long time. The question, I think, is whether or not it would be simply a seismic upgrade, which actually costs just about exactly the same as a partial replacement. I’m asking for an update on the status of the Alpha project.

Hon. P. Fassbender: We just received in the middle of March the final project development report. That’s being evaluated by ministry staff, and within a few weeks we will be getting back to them in the evaluation of the options that are being presented. Then, of course, from there it’ll go forward for funding approval to Treasury Board.

K. Corrigan: Well, just to be clear, I know that the staff has done every report, answered every question, submitted every document. I just don’t want the impression to be left that the Burnaby school district, which I was a trustee for, for nine years, doesn’t do everything that they are supposed to do. I appreciate that answer, but I just want to make it clear. Final documents that may be, but they’ve been working very hard to try to get approval. I will leave that as it is. That’s fine. I appreciate that response, and they are waiting for that.

I just wanted to make an observation about the distress that our district is in. The Burnaby school district has the third-lowest administrative costs in the province. It’s a very efficient district. In fact, I’m not sure if he is this year, but the secretary-treasurer has been the head of that organization, the provincial organization, more than once. I think we are very well served in Burnaby.

However, this year the Burnaby school district was faced with a $6½ million deficit, which follows two years of cuts of $4.5 million in 2014-15 and $2.7 million in 2013-14. Those are cuts to status quo budgets. Because they knew that this was going to be a rough year, they made the decision they were going to hold back $4 million from 2014-15, so the actual cuts in services this year will only be $2.4 million.

Some of those potential cuts. Unfortunately, for the first time after years and years of protecting the grades 6 and 7 band program, which is in every elementary school in Burnaby, there are going to be cuts to the band program. There are going to be cuts to librarians — these are potential cuts; the final decisions haven’t been made — ELL staffing and, certainly, ABE, adult basic education staffing. I just want to get it on the record that there is no low-hanging fruit in the district of Burnaby. What there are, are cuts to services and support services in the district of Burnaby.

I don’t know if the minister wants to answer that. I’ll just continue on, if not. I want to ask a specific question about adult basic education. I know that my able colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake has asked questions, generally, about ABE. I know that with the cuts to that program in district 41, Burnaby, there is an estimation….

[1630]

First of all, the cuts are $130,000. I haven’t heard yet. I didn’t manage to get today what the cuts were in terms of the number of students, but there is going to be a significant number of students.

I guess my general question to the minister is…. First of all, two questions. I’ll put them together. Will the min-
[ Page 7203 ]
ister acknowledge that there are going to be less adults getting adult basic education in public institutions? K to 12 is what the minister can speak for. Will the minister acknowledge that there will be less people getting that education?

Also, I just wonder what analysis was done in terms of what the potential impact was going to be on adults, both in terms of the economics and the ability of people to get jobs in the future.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. P. Fassbender: First of all, I want to say that our staff has a great working relationship with Burnaby staff. They work very closely. I know that Burnaby has done a lot of work, and it’s recognized by our staff. Some of the examples of what they’ve done we are going to be sharing as we look at opportunities throughout the province. I want to say that. I believe that that relationship is as strong as it’s ever been.

In terms of ABE, I would urge the member to read my comments from previously. I’m not going to repeat them. I did answer a question with a fair amount of detail. But here’s the bottom line. Any student who hasn’t graduated gets it free in the K-to-12 system in this province. Those students that need fundamental upgrading programs get those free in the K-to-12 system.

Those students who should be getting their upgrading in the post-secondary will be getting that. There was a significant investment of $7 million, providing grants that not only cover tuition but also daycare, travel, a number of other things that might prevent people from getting the education they need. That policy is clearly under the responsibility of the Minister of Advanced Education.

K. Corrigan: I’m assuming that the minister does not have an answer for my question about what analysis was done and whether or not this means that there are going to be less people getting courses in adult basic education.

I’m going to go on to the final question that I have. I wanted to ask a question about PLNet or its subsequent iteration, which is next-generation network. My understanding is that next-generation network is going to be replacing PLNet, which is the data network for, basically, student information, Internet connections and business systems for the province and the school districts within the province.

I also understand that 100 percent of the upgrading costs will be borne by the school districts. That’s going to be $20 million to $30 million annually. That’s my understanding.

Maybe just confirmation that I’ve got those numbers right and when that is going to be kicking in, and just maybe confirmation that it is correct that the school districts are going to be paying that extra $20 million to $30 million — the total of it, how much it is and when it’s going to kick in. I think the estimate for Burnaby is that it’s going to cost somewhere in the range of $1 million a year or $800,000 a year in additional costs. So maybe just an answer to those questions.

[1635]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member is correct that PLNet is currently being discussed with the school districts. The aggregate number of what the final cost will be is not finalized because we’re looking at a number of different options. There is a committee of deputy ministers. We’re working with the Ministry of Citizens’ Services and looking at all of the opportunities.

We’re looking at, in terms of the next-generation network, our negotiations with the provider. It is indeed going to be called the next-generation network. The feedback that we received in the ministry was that we would move to this because they all felt that that was going to be important for them in the future.

The final costs, we don’t know yet. We are looking at what other options there may be there in terms of funding sources. Once we have done all of that, then the final number will be done, and the districts will indeed be bearing part of the cost. There’s no question.

J. Darcy: I have two questions. Neither of them will come as a surprise to the minister, I’m sure.

The first one has to do with New Westminster Secondary School. This is an issue with which the minister is very familiar, I’m sure. New Westminster Secondary School is over 60 years old. I brought the member for Victoria–Swan Lake, the Education spokesperson for the official opposition, on a tour with me last year to the school. He said: “I’ve never seen such a worn-down-looking building in the province, including in northern B.C., which experiences very hard weather wear.”

The minister is aware we’re talking about a school where the roof needs replacing, where paint is pealing. There has been patching and patching upon patching on floors, doors, walls — all surfaces. Holes, exposed wiring, all systems failing or in the process of failing. The longer it goes on, the more money needs to be spent for upgrading and maintenance.

Students in New Westminster, we believe — they believe, their parents believe — deserve the right to learn in a 21st-century environment. They do not have that opportunity now.

[1640]

I know that the ministry staff have been working very, very closely with the school district — with the new chair of the school district, Jonina Campbell, and with the school superintendent, Mr. John Gaiptman. Both of them there, I think, are very highly regarded and have built a very good working relationship with the ministry staff.

I understand they have completed all of the requirements for documentation that need to be filed, in a time-
[ Page 7204 ]
ly manner. There have been lots of exchanges back and forth, but I understand that it is still at the ministry level and has not yet gone to Treasury Board.

I wonder if the minister can please tell me so that I can communicate with my constituents about what the status is. When do you anticipate it getting approval from the Ministry of Education so that it can be forwarded to Treasury Board and so that we can move forward and have shovels in the ground at the earliest possible opportunity?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I was just getting an update, even from a conference call as late as yesterday that our staff had with New Westminster staff. We do have a very good working relationship on a very complex site. I don’t think anybody is fooled by the fact this has been a complex project for a whole variety of reasons far beyond all of our control.

However, we anticipate that the evaluation we received, the final PDR that the member spoke about, on March 26…. They’ve presented two options. We’re evaluating those options.

As soon as that is done, between the middle and the end of May — even during that, there may be questions that staff will have for the New Westminster staff — then we would be in a position to make a recommendation and to move that forward for approval.

[1645]

J. Darcy: I’m going to interpret that as there are a few things that need to be talked through and worked through but that we can be optimistic that you will be moving forward and taking this to Treasury Board in a few months’ time, the end of May.

Hon. P. Fassbender: If we’re ready.

J. Darcy: My second question concerns seismic upgrading. I’m sure that several of my colleagues have spoken to this issue before. Certainly, we have 2,700 students in New Westminster — it’s not a very big city — who are presently learning in schools that are not seismically safe, that have been considered to be high risk.

One of them is the high school, but there are also two other schools, Richard McBride and F.W. Howay, which were among the 45 high-risk schools that the Premier committed, before the election, would have money spent in order to make them earthquake-proof. Richard McBride was slated to be upgraded in the 2014-15 school year and F.W. Howay next year.

Can the minister please tell me and tell the students and parents of New Westminster when to expect that the schools in which they learn will be seismically safe?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, a lot of work has been going on. We don’t have the final PDRs from the district yet on those two schools. We expect the one very quickly, and that is Richard McBride, I believe, and F.W. Howay is being worked on. We expect that as soon as we get them, again, we’ll be able to evaluate those PDRs and then move them ahead.

H. Bains: I just want to say thank you to our critic here, who posed a number of questions about the Surrey school district, from hungry kids to a lack of a capital plan for Surrey and the operation money. But there are a number of other questions that I, on behalf of the Surrey MLAs, would like to pose to the minister. Hopefully, we will get some real answers rather than the old worn-out statements that the minister has been using.

Close to 7,000 students are in portables, and that problem is growing. It costs about $4.5 million in operating those portables. And the money that, according to school board trustees, can be used to hire 50-plus teachers’ positions to deal with the crowding, or the class composition and class size issue…. They tell me that they have no more capacity to expand with a growing district.

They have a French immersion demand so high that thousands of students are waiting. They can’t get in, and they cannot put the plan in place to accommodate the demand in French immersion. They have to actually use an electronic lottery for the students to get into French immersion.

In fine arts 270 students are on the waiting list. There is much demand for Punjabi in schools, which the NDP government in the 1990s put in place along with a number of other languages, and they have no room to expand there either, no capacity to expand other than just moving from one school to another school. I think that is a real problem there. Many schools are on split shifts in order to accommodate the education of our students.

I think the issue with the Surrey school board is this. When you look at the per-student funding formula, my understanding is it’s from $8,000 to $28,000, based on different factors. But having growth, a uniqueness that the Surrey school district faces, is not one of those factors.

[1650]

I think it’s about time that the minister looked into that and used that as a factor when it comes to the per-student funding formula.

Then we come to how the school district can deal with the growing demand in class size and class composition. But then we have a space issue. As I’ve said, there are hundreds of portables out there, and there’s no new money being announced to build new schools. The minister has been reannouncing the same announcement over and over, and they have heard this. I hope the minister will not use the same statement again today, because I think they’re tired of hearing the same thing over and over.

The school board trustees know exactly how much money actually has been announced and how much money is committed. I think they’re looking for the min-
[ Page 7205 ]
ister to go to Treasury Board, if he hasn’t gone there. If he has gone there, what is the response of Treasury Board? Has he been refused? Or is he going to go to Treasury Board to get more, additional funding, new money to build more schools?

The portables. The number of students in the portables alone is the size of West Vancouver school district. I mean, that just shows how large the problem is. We need to have new capital to build new schools. They can use a couple of secondary schools and then three or four elementary schools tomorrow. That’s the demand right now, but there’s no new money being offered to the school district.

My question is, will he look into the funding formula using the uniqueness of Surrey so that they’ll get a little extra per student? Will he stand up and say: “Yes, there will be some new money to build some new schools for Surrey”? Those are my questions. There are so many questions, but the timing is such that we can’t ask all those questions. Hopefully, the minister will answer those questions.

[1655]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I want to help the member opposite, and I’m not reannouncing anything.

What I am doing is speaking to the facts. The facts are that in the province we have been investing significant dollars in capital. To date we are looking at, in the fiscal year up to 2014-2015, $436 million plus.

In Surrey we have invested…. In terms of total capital spent — if you think of Surrey as the largest-growing district in the province — we’ve invested $335 million since 2001 in Surrey, and we continue to invest.

H. Bains: I thought he said he wasn’t going to repeat the same things.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, I’m sorry. The member thinks that that is old news and old investment. It’s real dollars brought in by taxpayers, invested in Surrey.

The following four projects were approved in October of 2014, not too far in the past. The member is very clear. A new Clayton secondary, Adams Road Elementary addition, Rosemary Heights Elementary addition, Morgan Elementary addition — a total additional investment of $45.6 million.

Projects have also been completed that provide the following: we have Fraser Heights Secondary, an addition of 200 new spaces to meet the growth. Goldstone Park elementary was completed in January of this year — I think even with the member’s memory, it probably still is top of mind — with a capacity for 555 kindergarten-to-grade-7 students.

Sunnyside Elementary replacement opened in September of 2013 with 450 additional seats, 180 more than the old school had. Again, sites were acquired in 2012 for new elementary schools. Panorama Ridge Secondary School, an additional 300 seats. Katzie elementary was completed in April of 2014 with an additional capacity of 605 kindergarten-to-grade-7 students.

Being a member from Surrey, I am patently aware of the pressure that we feel because of growth, and we’re doing everything we can. We also are providing good quality education. We have some of the best outcomes. And we know that transition space is a reality of life in fast-growing districts, so manufactured classrooms are providing that.

I’ve seen some of them, and they’re not the old portables that people refer to. They are warm. They are safe. They are appropriate facilities in close proximity to the main building, and they’re providing space for education to go on.

[1700]

I’ll simply say this: students are resilient. They get a good education as a result of the good teachers and the good programs in those schools. We continue to work closely with the city of Surrey as well to ensure that we find ways to meet the growth needs, to be able to project where additional growth is going to come.

When it comes to the language programs, I will say this. The member and I attended a meeting with the other MLAs from Surrey, and the superintendent of the Surrey school district said that they realize the pressures that they’re feeling from certain communities. The Punjabi community is an example, where we have one school that teaches in the Punjabi language. He was not prepared to make a statement at that meeting, because the board is in the process of developing a long-term strategic plan for all of those issues — in language particularly, including French immersion.

I have not seen that plan. I have not heard that the public has been consulted with that plan. But I know they are working on it. That is a school district function. He committed to continuing to do that, to meet those pressures. But he said what they would not do is to make knee-jerk decisions while they don’t have their strategic plan for the long term in place. So they are resisting the pressure in the short term so that they have a long-term solution. I applaud them for that, because I think it is going to meet the needs of the community, not only today but in the future.

H. Bains: I said right at the beginning that we don’t need the minister to repeat what he’s been saying. If I could go back to the Hansard of last year, I think it will be pretty well word for word what the minister said last time. Anyway, that’s the response. Also, I heard the minister clearly saying that the portables are the way to go in Surrey and that no new money is coming to replace the portables because that is not a bad situation to be in.

I think with his being from Surrey, people had hoped that this minister would be a champion on behalf of students, on behalf of parents and teachers, to bring additional capital. We were talking about additional capital,
[ Page 7206 ]
, not the old announcements that had been made by the previous minister. They are looking for it. Where is the new money to build more schools?

What has already been announced — the funding for that already has been allocated. But they still need more money to build more schools to accommodate growth, and the minister isn’t committing. He’s not being the champion on behalf of the students, the parents and the teachers of Surrey. I think he’s leaving them, basically telling them that they have to go to somebody else to put their case forward to the treasury.

The minister is saying that we attended a meeting. Yes, we did attend that meeting. Since that time…. They have plans, Minister. They have plans — plans where they want to expand Punjabi in different schools. But they cannot, because they have no capacity, and they have no space. Also, French immersion — there’s a huge lineup for people to get in. But they don’t have space; they don’t have capacity.

Fine arts. As I said, 270 students are on the waiting list. So the plans are there. They want to do things. They want to serve the people, as the trustees are elected to, and the administration is trying to do the best job they can with the resources that they have. Now on top of that, the minister is asking them to cut more money from their funding, as part of their announcement, on top of the additional responsibility that was dumped on them by way of B.C. Hydro, MSP premiums, ICBC premiums. All that extra is not funded.

I’m totally disappointed. I know people of Surrey are disappointed. The parents are disappointed. They’ve been after this government for years now to have enough capital committed to have all of those portables replaced with real classrooms so that their students can actually have a real classroom learning experience.

I hope the minister will have one more chance now to tell us if there’s going to be any new money to build new schools, to give them the space and capacity that they need so that they could deal with the demand of the Surrey school district.

[1705]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I could refute a number of things the member said. Number one, as a member from Surrey, I advocate for my community, as I know the member does and the other MLAs in the community. We know the growth. We see the growth. I will continue to advocate as an MLA.

As the Minister of Education, I will continue to look for where the pressures and the priorities are, and Surrey is at the top of that list. The announcements I talked about are real money. It’s recent money. Some of it hasn’t even started to be expended because we’re now getting through the final stages of the project developments. Those things have not been constructed yet, but that money is being spent as we speak and committed to the city of Surrey.

Yes, we will continue to look at additional priorities moving forward. I can assure the member this: when I stand and advocate for the province of British Columbia as the Minister of Education, I stand and advocate for every community and the needs they have, but I stand as MLA for Surrey to advocate for the fastest-growing district in the province. And yes, I indeed do hope that we will have additional money. But for me to try to stand here today and tell the member what amount that’s going to be, I can’t do that yet because we’re not there.

We are working with the district. We are working on their capital plans, their long-term strategic plans, and we will continue to do that. We will respond as we can.

I will say this as well. Manufactured classrooms are appropriate places for education to take place. It happens every day. I’ve seen them. I’ve been in them in the city of Surrey and other communities. To say that the level of education is inferior because of that physical structure is totally incorrect. It is not true. Yes, everyone wants a complete structure that they can be proud of. In the meantime, while we’re working towards getting the funding for that, which we are, manufactured classrooms provide a quality environment for the students. They are not what is characterized as substandard, because they are not.

B. Ralston: Just by way of a rejoinder to what the minister just said about portable classrooms, I’m sure that many will be surprised to hear his spirited defence of portables. Be that as it may, the other fact that’s not reflected in the funding formula is that they cost more to operate — $4.28 million a year in Surrey, which could be used for other purposes. That’s not reflected in the formula. That’s a function of Surrey’s growth that the minister has acknowledged. Yet by having those portable classrooms, whatever their effect on the learning environment is, fiscally, they constrain the budget there.

I have a question about school safety. I have a bit of a prologue. It’s brought to me by a constituent whose son is a student at L.A. Matheson Secondary School, which is not in my riding. It’s in Green Timbers, just over the line, but she lives in my riding because the catchment area traverses the provincial boundary.

Her son is now in grade 12. As a result of a series of incidents of harassment, threats and, ultimately, culminating in a physical assault on March 23 — an incident which took place during the lunch hour while he was walking with some friends, walking back to the school from buying a pizza lunch. So he’s on the lunch hour on his school time. He was left unconscious in a ditch a block from the school.

The police were called. Four people are arrested. Police recommended charges, and now he’s being escorted between classes and to after-school sports. A number of the people involved have been the subject of what are called section 177 of the School Act orders. Those are orders given under the School Act by a person in authority at
[ Page 7207 ]
the school, to keep people off the premises.

[1710]

She feels that the police, the RCMP, have done an excellent job. She has no quarrel with the RCMP. But there is a lot of rhetorical talk about a violence-free B.C. There’s a lot of talk about safe schools. But what happens in this school, she tells me, is that there are regular objective reports — she’s a very engaged parent — of physical confrontations, fights repeatedly, every week at this school. This is in the context of 18 shootings in the area in the last month. There was an arrest just yesterday or today of a young man who’s age 18.

The Surrey RCMP’s chief superintendent, Bill Fordy, is quoted as saying that this is a result of a dispute over drug turf between South Asian and Somali groups in the community. One can imagine, although this is not stated in the news report — I want to stress not stated in the news report — that this might very well have some association or at least an impact on the mentality of people in the school.

It’s not difficult to imagine that teachers and support staff might well feel intimidated from intervening in physical confrontations or enforcing discipline when the work environment is subject to repeated physical disruptions, and there’s an atmosphere of threats and violence in it.

She has some practical solutions. There are surveillance cameras in the school, but half of them don’t work. I suppose, although one could achieve what the minister repeatedly calls administrative efficiencies by shutting them down, not replacing them, not maintaining them, it would seem that it might be a good idea to enhance the surveillance system and the cameras in order to maintain or help maintain some order in the school. The kids apparently know which cameras are working and which don’t, and not surprisingly, the violent incidents take place out of view of the cameras that work.

What other solutions…? I mean, these are serious issues, and I don’t raise them lightly. I raise them somewhat reluctantly because, in some cases, Surrey has an unfair reputation for these kinds of incidents. But what solutions does the minister offer beyond the rhetorical for real student safety in the public schools of the province?

[1715]

Hon. P. Fassbender: First of all, I can’t comment on the specific issue that the member has brought forward. It’s the first time I’ve heard about it. But I will say this. Any student that is at risk for any reason is a concern to us and is a concern, I know, to the school district and, I’m sure, the administration at L.A. Matheson.

The issue on the cameras. I don’t know how that particular school is dealing with their security issues, but I do know this. As part of our ERASE Bullying strategy — which is not just about bullying, but it’s about an entire approach to community engagement in significant issues — Surrey is one of the leaders in that.

Surrey has the Wrap program, where they work with the RCMP, the school district and other community agencies that interface with the community to deal with some of the very complex issues that exist. I will say this to the member. Based on what he has provided to us today, I know that our staff will speak with the district to find out exactly what they are doing.

There are isolated incidents that happen, but that’s one of the reasons we put safe schools coordinators in 60 school districts, including Surrey, who are working with the schools. We’ve trained over 10,000 teachers in terms of risk identification and methodology to deal with risk when it is identified. We have reporting programs where students and/or other people in the community can report issues that are of concern anonymously, so they don’t need to feel threatened. I would assume that teachers have that kind of a program in their school with their principals and with the district.

We will look into that and be happy to provide the member with some more feedback once we know what the situation is. We as a province, from a policy and a training and an overall perspective, are doing everything we can to ensure that we have safe schools in safe communities, and we work with the community to achieve that.

D. Routley: I’d like to read into the record an excerpt from an e-mail I received from Nanaimo school district 68 trustees and then make a comment in anticipation of what I expect to be, generally, the answer to this excerpt. The trustees write to me:

“Not only are we grappling with the most recent government funding shortfalls, over the past decade there has been a steady decline of government funding, and our schools are treated like a business rather than a public service.

“By that token, our school district has been put into a position to grapple with the decline and enervation of (1) our once-thriving teacher-librarian positions; (2) our ability to support teachers with much-needed supplies and resources; (3) our ability to work with MCFD to address issues for our high-risk students; (4) our capacity to meet the needs of our students with disabilities, especially with the limited resources to hire much-needed education assistants; (5) any hope of new school builds or upgrades throughout our district.

“Overall our school district rates among the highest in the province for class size. Our needs are great, and our morale is low. We really would benefit from targeted funding for special education.”

Now, having served as a school trustee and being the grandson, son and brother of teachers and having dealt with these issues for a very long time in my personal and political life, I will anticipate that the minister is about to stand up and tell me how much more dollar amount, money, in funding Nanaimo school district has received this year and in previous years. I’m here to tell the minister that that matters little to the students and teachers who are dealing with the real-world deficit that his underfunding has created in their classrooms.

Underfunding — not because he can’t defend by saying he’s put this many more dollars into Nanaimo school district, even though they have this many fewer students,
[ Page 7208 ]
but underfunding because his government has downloaded such costs that, on top of basic inflation of costs, have left huge deficits for every school district to grapple with year over year. To deny it is an insult to those who serve our schools — both teachers and trustees and especially students.

[1720]

I would also say that if he is going to mention per-student funding and the record levels that it happens to be at, then I would invite him to manage my daughter’s allowance. I will double her allowance. Then the minister can download upon her allowance the increases in her teacher’s salary, the increases in MSP premiums, the increase in hydro rates and on and on and on.

When she comes to me at the end of the week and says, “Dad, I don’t have money for these costs,” I can simply send her to the minister, and he can tell her, as he’s about to stand up and tell me, how much more money she has and that she has more allowance per child than any child has had in history. But it won’t matter because the costs she bears are not being met by the funding she has.

That’s the core problem. That’s the problem in classrooms. It will do no good for the minister to do what he’s about to do, but I invite him to do it anyway.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member has said it. Funding has gone up. It continues to go up, and he’s answered his own question.

D. Routley: Well, it has gone up, but it’s gone up at the slowest rate of any province in the country. We’re ninth per capita in education funding. In 2002 education funding was 25 percent of the provincial budget. Today it stands at 14 percent. So yes, the dollar amount has gone up. But again, it matters little if the dollar amount is coming in no way near the basic costs.

The minister may enjoy — he seems to enjoy — standing up and defying that obvious truth, and frankly, from an opposition member’s point of view it may serve my purpose. I can go to those people who know full well that their needs aren’t being met. I can go to the parents who come into my constituency office in tears because their child with needs is not having those needs met.

I can go in and talk to parents who have been through the system for years and years and have seen the decline, and I can let them read the minister’s comments, which then seem to them unfeeling, uncaring and absolutely in outrageous denial of fact. But that being what it is, we’ll leave it at that.

The district of Nanaimo-Ladysmith also adopted a ten-year facilities plan with ministry approval. It includes four major school rebuilds. Planning for these rebuilds is currently impossible, they say, in part because requirements for consideration of ministry capital funding are not clearly outlined, and unlike the seismic mitigation program, there is no report that shows which schools and school districts are on the list to receive capital funding for major capital renovations, rebuilds or new builds.

The most recent announcement regarding the availability of capital funding continues to confuse this issue. To help school district 68 better plan, when will the ministry create such a list and commit to transparency of the steps necessary for such funding consideration? They wonder what capacity utilization must be there in order to qualify for this list. What amount must the school district contribute? Is the number 1 percent? Is the number 20 percent? Is the number 50 percent of the funding to the project?

Must the school district include partnership with local organizations and other levels of government? What elements and what factors will drive our schools onto that list and up the priority list so that they’re more likely to gain approval?

[1725]

Hon. P. Fassbender: You know, the member raises a number of questions and made a number of statements. As I have said continually in these estimates, our staff worked diligently with every school district staff.

What’s important there is the criteria are very clear and transparent. Every school district has to present their long-term capital plan. Our staff will then sit down with them, go through the priorities they’ve established and on what basis they’ve come up with those.

The key criteria that are used are, first and foremost, health and safety; second, the condition of the schools in that district and what may need to be done to protect that investment; and then the last one, which is a broad and a challenging one, especially in declining districts, is the utilization of space.

[M. Morris in the chair.]

I know in the case of Nanaimo that they recently made a decision…. A previous board had decided, because of underutilization, to close a particular school, and the new board has decided to keep the school open.

We work with the districts, and we will sit down face to face — the ministry staff with the district — and work through their plans, ask the questions that are necessary and then, in light of all of the other priorities that we have, sit down and look at what is a realistic target for any upgrading…

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

Hon. P. Fassbender: …or any expansion. We will do that.

S. Robinson: School district 43, Coquitlam school
[ Page 7209 ]
district, is the third-largest school district in British Columbia. When we look at the total grants, when we exclude the special needs students, the provincial average is just over $7,600, but Coquitlam gets just a little over $7,000 per student.

Coquitlam right now ranks dead last for the student grants of all 60 school districts. If the total grants had kept up with inflation since 2009-2010, Coquitlam would have received just shy of $7,500 per student.

[1730]

The $447 difference between what they would have gotten had they kept up with inflation and what they’re currently getting, interestingly enough, when you multiply it by the 31,000 students, equals $13.8 million, which was exactly the shortfall last year for this school district.

When the school district had to deal with that last year, they cut 100 jobs; 65 of them were full-time-equivalent teachers. The minister had said earlier that children are resilient because of good teachers. I agree that children are resilient, but you actually need to have teachers in the classroom to make that happen.

I want to know if the minister will take a fresh look and perhaps consider readjusting the student grant for school district 43 given that it is facing numerous growth challenges, as the minister alluded to earlier. Right now what’s happening is the school district has been carving into the very lifeblood of public education in the Tri-Cities, and it’s continuing to be challenged at the front lines.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I appreciate the question from the member. The first answer is to the last question that was asked. The ministry, through a technical review committee, will continue to look at the funding formula and the allocation to ensure that it’s meeting the current needs of school districts throughout the province.

I’m sure the member is aware that, indeed, the per-pupil funding for Coquitlam is $8,100 in 2015-16. This is $743 below the provincial average. But it’s due not to the fairness in terms of the students that are there but to the supplemental categories of enrolment decline, funding protection, geographic factors and aboriginal education along with significantly less than average enrolment in special needs. All of those factors go into calculating. Coquitlam is not a lot different, when those factors are taken in, from surrounding communities. I think Coquitlam is being treated the same as other districts around them.

We will continue to look at the funding formula in terms of any improvements that we think will benefit communities throughout the province.

D. Donaldson: I have a question to do with graduation rates for children in care. The Ministry of Children and Family Development published a performance report in January. To quote the ministry: “There is strong evidence that completing high school is conducive to general well-being throughout life.” I’m sure the minister would agree with that in what he sees in his ministry.

[1735]

However, the record has been abysmal. Children in care in this province who graduate high school with a Dogwood diploma, 27 percent. Average graduation rate for kids overall in the province, 84 percent. We’re talking not about leaving certificates but completing high school with a Dogwood diploma — 27 percent, kids in care; 84 percent for the rest of the province, on average.

It’s not a new issue. The Representative for Children and Youth pointed out in a report in 2007 that the high school graduation rate for kids in care was 21 percent, compared to 78 percent for the provincial average. That was — what’s that now? — eight years ago, 2007. So a 57-point spread then, and a 57-point spread remains today.

She pointed out that a child entering foster care at any point in his or her life will probably not graduate from high school. “This is a tragedy that calls out for immediate and systemic action” — eight years ago. The ministry, after they released the report in January, said they were working with the Ministry of Education on guidelines and plans to support the children in care and monitor their progress.

I would put to the minister, can he inform us, in this upcoming budget year and the budget we’re discussing today, of the guidelines and plans that he’s going to put in place to improve the graduation rates of children in care from the 27 percent up to that provincial average of 84 percent? What plans, what actions, is he taking to immediately address this really total failure? Will he commit, as the Ontario Minister of Education has done, to close the graduation rates for children in care to the same level as the provincial average in five years?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Let me first say that children in care deserve the same quality education that every other child does. They present some unique challenges to the ministry and to the Ministry of Children and Families because one of the challenges that we have is, sometimes, the mobility of these students. By the time the school is aware that there’s a continuing care order for a child, they’ve already moved on.

[1740]

So we have done a number of things within the ministry, working with the Ministry of Children and Families, to find ways to deal with this problem. I am not going to stand here today and say we have a solution covering all of those issues. We have initiated a number of things that we have been complimented on by the representative, including having an individual in every school that can deal with children in care and provide them the support as they come in and perhaps go out and move to another school.

There are a number of issues in terms of confidentiality of their circumstance and that information. We are
[ Page 7210 ]
working hard with MCFD to find ways to get rid of some of those barriers, to allow us to do a better job in identifying and helping them. We are also working very hard with the ministry to find ways to find solutions for that.

I can’t stand here today and say that I can guarantee whatever percentage in terms of graduation. I would hope that children in care, as I said, have the same potential for graduation that every other student has. Because it is complex and because they are very vulnerable and their circumstances are less than stable sometimes, it is a big challenge for the education system. But our relationship in looking for some of those new approaches is ongoing, and we’re going to continue to work with the representative as well.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer. It’s the complex cases that are the most difficult, but it behooves us to spend the resources and pay the attention, especially to the children that need the help the most.

I have a question in a different area now. Recently I met with the Autism Support Network, parents helping parents with children who have autism. It’s a totally volunteer organization, an amazing group of people. We had a wide-ranging discussion. One of the areas they pointed out was, as the minister knows, that from zero to six, families who have children with complex special needs around autism are eligible to receive up to $22,000 a year in order to access special services that they need.

After the age of six, from six to 18, that figure goes down to $6,000 per family with an autistic child to access out-of-school interventions. There’s a $16,000 gap, and the assumption there is that the schools are picking up the added services that are needed for an autistic student, an autistic child in the K-to-12 system.

We know that in terms of children with special needs in a K-to-12 system, those with autism spectrum disorder have been the fastest-growing. The numbers are from 2001-02, and there were approximately 1,523 of these students identified. By the end of 2013-14 it was 6,750. That’s an over 340 percent increase, a huge increase.

My question regarding this topic in this budget year and this cycle is that we know school districts and school boards are struggling. You can pick up the paper every week and read a different perspective from a school board about how they’re struggling with budget restrictions. How is the minister ensuring that resources to serve the needs of autistic children in the K-to-12 system are in fact there for the parents and the kids?

[1745]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I have spent quite a bit of time since being appointed minister meeting with various groups that deal with autism spectrum disorder. I’ve seen what we’re doing and what’s happening with a lot of these volunteer organizations and other non-governmental organizations as well, and what I see is a much clearer desire to find more wraparound types of services.

One of the keys that I’ve heard from day one is that the early diagnosis is absolutely fundamental to helping parents get the support they need in early days. I was just at the autism walk in Vancouver and had a chance to meet with a number of parents from the organization that the member spoke of and other people who were there. I have clearly seen walls broken down between a lot of those other organizations.

The new autism centre that’s being built in Richmond is going to provide much more robust information and help to parents when a child is diagnosed very early so that they have a path and a program for their particular child and where that child fits on the spectrum, to ensure that they get the best support possible.

Education does play a role, of course, when the children come into the system, because we believe in integration, as long as we’ve got the appropriate supports that they need. One of the things I am aware of is that every board, depending on where the child fits on the spectrum and a number of the needs…. They will receive additional funding of anywhere from $9,500 to $37,000, depending on the severity and the needs that those children have.

That being said, there is a lot of work. Members of our legislative committee have been meeting with other jurisdictions to see what they are doing in terms of an entire range of what might be categorized as mental health — autism is, of course, one of the key ones — and looking at other ways to provide more wraparound services in the schools by the community, as well, so that education and teachers are not expected to have to deal with all of those in isolation.

I see some great work being done there. We’ve got more to do. We’re committed to looking at what’s happening in jurisdictions like New Brunswick. I just met with two doctors yesterday who have a very good program. We’re committed to continuing, at the senior level within government, across ministries.

Deputies are meeting and getting the best advice they can and looking for ways to ensure that within the province of British Columbia and our ministries, we find the most seamless approach we can for (1) early intervention and (2) significant support as the children move on through their journey and eventually go out into adulthood and need to be able to operate in community. That’s why it’s so important to integrate the community in that approach as well.

S. Chandra Herbert: My question to the minister is: if in an independent or a private school that receives public funding a gay, lesbian, bi or transgendered student said they wanted to form a gay-straight alliance or a rainbow club, as they’re sometimes called, in order to protect themselves and make them feel safe, would, in every single publicly funded independent private school, the answer be: “Yes, we will support you”?
[ Page 7211 ]

[1750]

Hon. P. Fassbender: We’ve had a discussion. I recently received a letter. I’m not sure the response has been received yet, but it is on the way. The basic principle that the province of British Columbia has stood by, through our ERASE strategy, is that bullying or discrimination of any type, for any reason, against anyone is not appropriate. The human rights code is very clear.

We do not compel districts or schools, whether they be public or independent, to do anything. We leave that to them under their codes of conduct, to their unique communities, to make those decisions. We do not compel them, nor do we prevent them from doing whatever they feel is appropriate within their community. The simple answer is that I will never compel them to do that, because I believe that is their choice and the choice of their community and the people and the children that they serve.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, it saddens me that Alberta is now leading the way for protecting lesbian, gay, bi and trans students. They have passed legislation saying that if a student needs that form of protection, if they need that peer support, that help in their school, they have that right. It’s because we know that gay, lesbian, bi and trans students face much worse violence, assaults and discrimination in their schools. It doesn’t matter if it’s public, private or private that receives public funding. This is the case.

In public schools they’ve been pretty clear: if a student asks, they should be provided. In private schools in B.C. that’s not the case. In Alberta that is the case. Why does the minister think that a student who is under, in many cases, brutal situations at home and brutal situations at school should not receive that level of support when they ask for it? Why does the minister think that it should be up to them to go somewhere else to get support instead of getting it at the school, where they should be getting that support?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, that is incorrect. Our ERASE strategy has safe schools coordinators in every school. So a student who is being bullied or discriminated against is supported in the schools through that school and through that safe schools coordinator. It is up to the local school to determine what the needs are.

Alberta is actually following British Columbia, because they had nothing before. We’ve been a leader in this country on ERASE Bullying. We’ve been seen that way by the first ministers. We continue to lead by saying that bullying and discrimination are not appropriate. We’ve been training teachers and we’ve been working with community leaders to ensure that anyone who feels discriminated against, for any reason, is getting this support.

[1755]

We’ve invested significant resources to make sure that happens. That’s why we have safe schools coordinators in every school district in this province. That’s why codes of conduct are left to the local school, based on their community and based on their needs. Here is what I know: it’s working.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I’d be very curious to see how the minister knows that it’s working. Has he talked to every student in this province and done a survey to say that homophobia has been on the decline, racism has been on the decline, violent assaults have been on the decline, bullying has been on the decline? I haven’t seen such a study. It would be really interesting if they actually did one, so they could measure the effectiveness of this program.

I would like to ask…. The minister — whether it was this minister or the previous Education Minister — told me that ERASE Bullying did not apply to private schools that receive public funding. They could opt in if they wanted to, but they didn’t have to. Is that the case?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Indeed, the independent schools are participating. I don’t know the exact number, but they are. Again, the same human rights code that protects the rights of every single individual in this province applies to everyone. There are no exceptions.

The human rights code applies to independent schools, to community associations, to public schools, to every public body in this province. Schools, yes, may modify the ERASE Bullying strategy, but I have seen significant involvement in it to ensure that students in independent schools understand that bullying or discrimination is not acceptable for any reason.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’ve had an answer here where the minister claimed that every school had a safe schools coordinator. Then I asked another question, and he admitted that it wasn’t in every independent school, every private school — that not all of them were following the ERASE Bullying strategy. He’s admitted that no, if you’re in a private school and they don’t allow you to start a gay-straight alliance, well, tough luck. You’re out of luck there.

When asked by the media about this, about why they weren’t following what Alberta was going to do, the minister said we’ve done enough for lifestyle tolerance in B.C. I think it’s shocking that this government will not take action to protect people who are in a very, very vulnerable situation, that they’ll to leave it up to schools to make do what they want. Maybe this school will do something; maybe this one won’t. Tough luck for the kid in the school where people aren’t taking action to protect them.

The minister says, “Well, codes of conduct,” which he again leaned on as something that would support kids. “Well, those will be designed in each school to protect people.” Almost 50 percent don’t have proper codes of conduct to actually address homophobia and the other
[ Page 7212 ]
grounds that are necessary to deal with transphobia, homophobia and other issues facing those students. They just don’t have them.

The government has been talking since 2008, saying yes, maybe they should act. Well, they haven’t. Kids have gotten through the whole school system, or most of the school system, with schools that do not have that action to protect them, to make sure they feel safe in their school, because this government refuses to act to support those kids.

I really want to know what the minister meant when he said we’ve done enough for lifestyle tolerance. I think lifestyle tolerance should be about acceptance, about supporting students when they need it, not passing the buck as the minister seems to be doing on this issue.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know I just had a figure given to me that there are 156 independent schools that are participating in the ERASE Bullying strategy. That number has been growing over the last three years.

[1800]

Over 100 schools have trained safe schools coordinators in the independent system, and that’s out of a number of 350. It’s not where I believe it should be, and it is a growing number. They’re seeing the results.

The fundamental issue here, without question, is that some of these issues are definitely school issues, family issues, community issues. That’s why we have encouraged them in local communities, in schools, to work with their community to ensure that any child who feels that they’re being discriminated or bullied for any reason receives the support they need, that they have places where they can go.

I know that what we have seen and what we’ve heard from our safe schools coordinators around the province and the work that’s going on in the schools, the clubs that may be being formed by students…. I’ve met a number of the students from Student Voice, who have told me that in their schools they have clubs that are working, where they’re learning to be more tolerant and understanding of a variety of issues.

I think where it needs to happen is exactly that — in schools, in classrooms, in community. It is working in British Columbia — and committed to making sure that we continue to support that.

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister, in the remaining time, a question about independent school funding. We have talked throughout the day and yesterday about how difficult it is for public school boards to manage the administrative savings cuts that this government has put at the centre of the Education budget. There seems to be a significant discrepancy in this budget, though, when it comes to how independent schools funding is treated relative to public schools.

The minister earlier in this estimates said that the funding formula for private education hasn’t changed in British Columbia in over 25 years. That’s not true. It has been episodic, but it’s not true. In 1993-94 group 3 school funding was eliminated by the Harcourt administration. But what I think is even more significant is that in recent years, and included in this budget, independent school funding has grown and appears to be significantly growing, beginning this year and into the following year.

Just to give an indication of that, public education funding is going to go up 1.8 percent this year and 1.8 percent next year; independent school funding is scheduled to go up 10.6 percent this year and 15.1 percent next year. So a 3.6 percent public school funding increase over the next two years and a 26 percent increase in private education.

I need to understand this discrepancy a little bit better. The answer is not to be found in enrolment data. Yes, private school enrolment is going up. In the deputy minister’s own briefing notes the main driving factor, according to the Ministry of Education, is that all of the strife that this government has pursued in public education has been the leading cause of students to move from public education to private. That’s the main reason why private education goes up.

A 25 percent funding increase cannot be explained by enrolment projections that we’ve discussed in this estimates, so the answer lies elsewhere. I want to understand why some of the decisions that have seen a very significant growth in funding for private education versus public education have been made.

I guess the first question to ask the minister is this. Given that two strikes and two school years back-to-back — the lockout that government pursued that disrupted those two school years — is attributed by his own ministry to leading to a growth in private education, why would the government actually give independent schools an increase in funding that is directly related to a percentage gain on the teacher’s labour settlement fund?

Why would they take the operating grant subtotal for public education that includes the negotiated fund between the BCTF and the government and allow private education to get a percentage of that? I don’t understand.

First of all, they’ve gained on the disruption in our schools in terms of their enrolment. But to have a labour agreement settlement between unionized public school employees and the Ministry of Education, the government of B.C., become some kind of bonus available to independent schools makes no sense at all.

[1805]

First of all, private schools recruit on the basis of having better class size and composition numbers than public education. Secondly, this fund was the crux of a settlement that ended two disrupted school years. The last time I checked, the B.C. Teachers Federation was not a bargaining agent for independent schools, yet they have gained something like $8 million in new funding because we had a teacher settlement in the public edu-
[ Page 7213 ]
cation system.

That makes absolutely no sense, why that money should be in the sub-fund total of the operating grants for public education and, therefore, be part of the 35 and 50 percent formula for independent schools.

Can the minister say why, since he’s talked about how many tough decisions and how difficult it is to find money in government right now, he found it so easy to make that decision and give free money, essentially, on the backs of public schools that were in strife to independent schools?

[1810]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Indeed, the formula that has been in place for 25 years is still in place. That formula is based on enrolment and growth in enrolment and growth in the overall budget for education. Indeed, when a labour settlement is done, the independent schools, based on that same formula without any change, will receive the appropriate funding. In this particular season the independent school growth was 6.34 percent.

We saw the increase because…. Parents do have a choice. Unfortunately, when you have labour disputes…. Quite honestly, some of the issues around the labour dispute about how bad public education was, which I disagreed with from the beginning but was promoted by the opposition and by the Teachers Federation, didn’t help in public opinion. But I believe we are going to turn that around, because our outcomes speak for themselves. Public education is doing well. Students do well. But parents do have a choice.

The other thing that I think is important is the learning improvement fund, which is part of the overall settlement. The independent schools do not benefit from that particular amount. They have seen an increase because of the increase in enrolment. They’ve also seen an increase because of the overall increase. The member, I’m sure, knows independent schools have to attract B.C.-certified teachers, and so they have to compete on salaries.

One of the other realities in our communities is that every parent pays 100 percent of the school taxes in their community. If a parent chooses to send their students to an independent school, they only receive 50 or 35 percent of the support for that education. I think that is appropriate, and it’s the formula that we have used for many years. I make no apologies for it.

R. Fleming: Well, the minister is not being accurate, nor has he provided an adequate explanation. He’s saying it’s dependent on enrolment. A 6 percent increase in enrolment does not equal a 10 percent increase in funding or a 15 percent increase in funding for the following year. The fact is we’ve got a 26 percent growth in private school funding over the next two years and a 3.6 percent increase in growth in public education.

I’m not interested in a pro or anti argument on public and private at this stage of the debate, or at all. What I’m interested in is the apparent double standard that if you’re a private school that can charge tuition fees and you have access to private sources of revenue to top up the administration of your school, you seem to be rewarded.

If you’re a public school that’s struggling for scarce resources and dollars to try and improve classroom learning conditions for your students to stop the decline in enrolment, you get an administrative savings cut of $55 million. That’s the central story of the budget that we’ve been discussing over the last two days.

I’ll have to pursue this another time, because 6 percent does not equal 10 and we’ve got a 26 percent increase in independent schools. The formula has been changed by this government in very recent years. It’s been changed on distributed learning, distance learning. Private schools now get a more lucrative percentage available to them.

I would ask the minister to actually do a performance review on both public and private distance learning programs in B.C., because the growth has been staggering. There are costs associated with it. We need to know whether the public is getting good value for money on that.

The labour settlement fund, the learning improvement fund, which was designed to end the dispute in public education and also fix constitutional issues that the court has told this government that they were in violation of the law for on two occasions, was not designed to be an enhancement or a top-up for private education, and that’s exactly what has happened in this budget.

Let me move on, because I think I have only time for one more question. The minister can comment on that if he would like to. But I do need to ask, I think, about seismic funding.

[1815]

Exactly two years ago, in April 2013, the Premier of British Columbia held a press conference, looked directly into the cameras to speak to British Columbians, and parents in particular. She said that absolutely nothing is more important than keeping our kids safe. Then she went on to say on that afternoon: “We’re going to keep spending money until every school is as safe as it can possibly be.” She reiterated that this government would meet the 2020 deadline to have British Columbia schools, here on the fault line that we live with, made seismically safe.

Now, what we heard just over a month ago from the minister is that if you live in Vancouver, the seismic mitigation program is at least ten years behind. That timeline is now 2030. In the rest of British Columbia the timeline is now 2025. I can’t understand how this kind of back-pedalling can happen when the Premier made such a definitive statement only two years ago.

Surely, that’s not because we were on the eve of an election and the Premier was misleading the public. I really don’t want to believe that. But how does a ten-year delay come from a promise that was made two years ago, solemnly, to parents and kids in British Columbia? She said
[ Page 7214 ]
— let me repeat it again: “We are going to keep spending money until every school is as safe as it possibly can be.” That promise means absolutely nothing to parents and kids and the teachers who work in the buildings, because in such a cavalier fashion, a month ago the minister threw that timeline out the window and said it’s not going to happen.

Looking at how askew the seismic mitigation program now is in British Columbia, I wonder whether even the minister’s 2030 timeline is realistic. When you look at the rollout of this program, at the current rate of the number of high-risk schools — both in the H1 and the H2 and H3 categories — we could be looking at a 35-year program. That’s how slow it has been to come to fruition.

Will the minister sit down with the public, with school leaders and have an open and transparent discussion? Instead of just continually shifting the timelines in the back room and selectively leaking them to the public and the media on a Friday afternoon, actually try and convince a now skeptical public that this government in fact has a plan to work with school districts — that there is in fact a timeline and not some as aspirational goal that is continually violated — to make school buildings in British Columbia seismically safe.

What does that timeline look like? I think it involves an engagement and a discussion with the public, who have been mistreated, on this government’s promises that have been broken time and time again. They need some assurances that are real, and they need to be consulted on this. School boards are tired of hearing it through the media from this minister that they’re not going to get the funds that they were explicitly promised by the Premier and other representatives of this government.

[1820]

Hon. P. Fassbender: You know, the member opposite made a number of statements that should be challenged. But I’m going to stick to the facts, not the innuendo and the misinformation that continues to spew out about how unsafe our schools are.

I would like to read from the letter from the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists, the experts who know about seismic mitigation, who have worked with us to develop a world-class, award-winning program that is meeting the needs of the schools and the children and the safety of those.

We are getting close to the end of our time. I’m going to pick out a couple of things. Then I’m going to give the member a copy of this letter so he can read the whole thing and has the facts.

The couple of things I would like to read for the member are:

“APEG and UBC congratulate the ministry in following the approach and reinforce the importance of maintaining the focus on the high-risk blocks. Both the seismic assessments and retrofit methodology being utilized involve groundbreaking work developed by leading experts in earthquake engineering and research. The methodology has been peer-reviewed — internationally recognized experts in California and a senior adviser in building science to the federal department of emergency management, FEMA, in the United States.”

A little further down it says:

“We believe the retrofit program is well advanced in achieving the objectives established four years ago. It identifies the high-risk provincial school buildings in order to assist with prioritization of seismic risk mitigation. It adopts a common engineering approach to seismic retrofit of school buildings and to implement seismic retrofits that achieve the life-safety objective — not superficial, but based in good research and good science.”

I’m happy to give the member a copy of the letter if he doesn’t already have one.

Because the district with the highest number of schools in that category is Vancouver, we worked hard to get a project office established to ensure that the timeline that the professional engineers will provide to us, as they review those projects, can be met.

We have not established an end date. We have said we want them retrofitted as soon as possible but based, again, on good engineering, good science. The reality is, this government has already committed or spent $2.2 billion on seismic retrofit. We have had great cooperation with most school districts in the province. We have been able to replace or upgrade 213 schools already.

[1825]

Vancouver continues to be a challenge. We now have a project office. It’s functioning. Already I’ve been advised that two projects that were stalled by the school district of Vancouver, in not providing the project definition reports, have now moved ahead and will be moving ahead quickly.

The 30-year comment that was made was based on the professional engineers looking at the speed by which Vancouver was moving the projects forward and said their deadline would be 2045. It isn’t the government that put it out 30 years. It is the school board in the city of Vancouver that needs to provide that.

That’s why we wanted a jointly managed project office. It is up and running, and we will do everything we can to meet the life and safety needs in the Vancouver school district. I know that our team in the ministry, the project office and the experts will ensure that that happens.

Vote 19: ministry operations, $5,460,832,000 — approved.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I move that the committee rise, report resolution of Vote 19 of the Ministry of Education and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:26 p.m.

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.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada