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 28, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 24, Number 6

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

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2015

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

E. Foster: In the House today we have several members of the Allied Golf Association of British Columbia. Trevor Smith, Kris Jonasson, Erica Beck, Corrine Allan, Ken Oleschuk, Jerry Rousseau, Donald Miyazaki, Chris Elder and Trisha Larsen are here in the House today to meet with members and talk about the great things that golf does for the province of British Columbia.

Please make them welcome.

[1005]

Ministerial Statements

NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
FOR WORKERS

Hon. S. Bond: Today I rise in the House to recognize the National Day of Mourning. I join, I know, all of my MLA colleagues in this House and all British Columbians and citizens across the country as we pause to honour those whose lives were tragically cut short or changed forever by an injury in the workplace. We want to recognize and support families, colleagues and communities whose lives have been changed forever.

To the families, we want you to know that we honour your loved ones, and we are deeply sorry for your loss. No words can adequately capture the impact of the pain and the heartbreak that families, co-workers and communities have experienced, but it can and should motivate all of us to do more and to do better. We know that one life lost at a worksite is one life too many. Today, together, we recommit ourselves to be vigilant, to work tirelessly, to create a culture of safety that makes these kinds of tragedies a thing of the past.

S. Simpson: I join with the minister in a solemn recognition of April 28, the Day of Mourning across this country and British Columbia. In communities across British Columbia and Canada today there will be ceremonies. There will be acknowledgments and recognition by workers, by leaders and by officials of the day and of the year.

In 2014, 203 workers died on the job. Thousands more were seriously injured. It is a situation that I know can’t be acceptable to anybody in this House, and it’s a situation where we need to do better. I think the circumstance of injured and killed workers on the job exploded in the minds of people in 2012, when Babine and Lakeland happened, when we had the two tragedies at the mills. It continues today. We have the inquest. We continue to have a focus. Incredibly tragic for the hundreds, if not thousands, of workers who died.

Let us take this opportunity, when, I believe, people are really seized of this issue, to do better. And for us all to commit here…. The institutions that have responsibility, like WorkSafe, employers, workers, unions, everybody…. We have a great amount of work to do, because as we would all know, 203 is too many. One is too many. We need to work together to do that.

Let us not forget this day, April 28, as we move forward through the rest of the days in the year when are going to, sadly, hear of some of those tragedies again.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

RESPONSE TO EARTHQUAKE IN NEPAL

S. Hammell: As we have all learned, Nepal has been devastated by a 7.8 magnitude earthquake. Currently there are over 5,000 lives lost, 10,000 injured and half a million people displaced. The number of casualties continues to climb as rescue teams manoeuver through the rubble of collapsed buildings.

Nepal has a population of about 27 million, similar to the population of Canada but crammed into a geographical area about one-sixth the size of British Columbia. Almost one-third, or eight million people, have been affected by the devastation of this quake.

I had the privilege of teaching aspiring politicians in Nepal about a year and a half ago as they moved toward the election of their second constituency assembly, and while there, I was struck by the similarity of the country to B.C. — high mountains, hills and plains traversed by rivers — and by the warmth and friendliness of the people I taught.

British Columbia has a flourishing Nepalese community of about 2,000 people. Most are originally from Katmandu and currently reside in the Lower Mainland. While anxiously determining the safety of their families back home, the Nepalese Cultural Society of B.C. has mobilized to help the relief efforts in their beloved homeland. The society is actively collecting funds for the Red Cross in Nepal and is encouraging people in British Columbia to donate to the Red Cross, where funds will be matched by the government of Canada until May 25.

The Nepalese Cultural Society of B.C. will be holding a candlelight vigil on Friday in Holland Park and at the Vancouver Art Gallery this Wednesday evening, both between seven and nine. The community, I know, will appreciate all the help we British Columbians can give them.

[1010]

DAY OF MOURNING FOR WORKERS

M. Bernier: Today is an important day, and it’s a day that deserves further recognition. Every day in British Columbia millions of people leave home, they leave their families, and they head off to work. Unfortunately, some never get back home to their families. Today we take time to honour those workers whose lives were tragically cut short or changed forever by workplace injuries.

Today is the National Day of Mourning, and it’s the day that is recognized across our great country. Tens of thousands of workers and families will be attending Day of Mourning ceremonies across this province. Canada was the first nation to recognize the day of mourning 30 years ago, and since then acknowledgment has spread worldwide.

It’s an important day for all of us to address worker safety. We must all build safety cultures that will make all kinds of tragedies that we’ve heard about come to an end. Together, we’ve made progress. The traumatic fatality rate is almost 40 percent lower than it was 20 years ago, but there’s a lot more work to do.

This Day of Mourning reminds us that every life is precious and that all workplace parties need to be diligent in health and safety. Each of us on both sides of this House want every worker to return home at the end of the working day to their families and friends.

No words can adequately express, and neither can we understand, the pain and the heartbreak that families, co-workers and communities go through when there is a workplace fatality, but these tragedies should motivate us to do more and do better.

By working together, employers and government can prevent these tragedies from happening in the future. Perhaps we can forever put an end to a need for a Day of Mourning, because everybody who leaves for work deserves to go home safe.

ROBOTICS PROGRAM AT
GLADSTONE SECONDARY SCHOOL

A. Dix: For eight consecutive years Gladstone Secondary students have made their school, East Vancouver and all of British Columbia proud at the VEX Robotics World Championships. This year’s event was held last week in Louisville, Kentucky, and the school and community mobilized to ensure that Gladstone sent three teams.

All three teams made the playoffs, finishing sixth, seventh and eighth overall and served as great ambassadors for their school and B.C. Considering that VEX Robotics now involves 33 countries, 12,000 teams and 120,000 participants, this is a great achievement.

Over the past eight years the Gladstone Robosavages have consistently finished in the top eight at the world’s, including two world championships and two world runner-up awards. A great deal of the credit for the success of the robotics program goes to teacher Todd Ablett, who founded the program and is head coach of the team.

Todd won the Prime Minister’s award for excellence in teaching in 2011, donating his $5,000 prize to buy more robot parts for his students to work with. As Todd would insist, though, Gladstone’s success is primarily about the students. The program is self-sustaining, with grade 11s and 12s mentoring the grade 8 and 9 students in a wonderful and absorbing learning culture. Former Robosavages return to the school to help as well.

There is nothing more inspiring than hearing how participation in Gladstone robotics changed the career and life path of a student. As a result, Gladstone counts future leaders in applied physics, math, digital and computer programming among its graduates and students.

Congratulations to the Gladstone Robosavages for again demonstrating that they’re a world power in robotics and showing all of us the strength and possibility of our public education system.

DALIP SINGH GILL AND
DASMESH PUNJABI SCHOOL

S. Gibson: As Parliamentary Secretary for Education with responsibility for independent schools it is with great sadness that I must note the passing of Dalip Singh Gill. As a former district education officer from Punjab, Dalip Singh Gill is very well known in the Abbotsford-Mission area as the pioneer principal for Dasmesh Punjabi School.

In 1986 he started Canada’s first Punjabi school with a dozen students in a room at the Khalsa Diwan Gurdwara. Over the years the school has grown and developed into a K-12 institution, with 740 students in my riding. Dasmesh Punjabi School is now highly regarded and well supported as a very credible institution in the education constellation in the area.

In recognition of this service, Dalip Singh Gill was awarded an honorary PhD by the University of the Fraser Valley. My colleague, the hon. member for Abbotsford West, described him as “a dreamer, a man of vision who had dedicated decades to establishing what is now a proud institution of educational excellence.”

[1015]

Current principal George Peary said: “Dr. Gill was our founding father. His vision and passion were instrumental in launching this school 29 years ago. He guided the school’s growth and development. His gentle manner and gracious smile were an inspiration to us all.”

Today there are now hundreds of graduates who’ve benefited from the type of education that Dalip Singh Gill wanted for them. Without question, he inspired the joy of learning for everyone who walked through the doors of Dasmesh Punjabi School.
[ Page 7723 ]

PROTECTION OF FRASER ESTUARY
AND MIGRATORY BIRDS

V. Huntington: Walking along the dikes, you can hear them before you can see them — the high-pitched whistles and the low, muttering trills coming from the thousands upon thousands of western sandpipers feeding on the mud flats. The entire Pacific Flyway population of western sandpiper and of dunlin can be found on the Fraser delta right now — 600,000 western sandpipers and up to 250,000 dunlin feeding on Roberts Bank alone. Similar numbers forage on Boundary Bay and on Sturgeon Bank — millions upon millions of birds.

The Fraser estuary is the most important ecosystem for migratory birds in Canada. Up to 50 different species of shorebirds alone have been recorded in the area as they head north for the nesting season. These small shorebirds are collectively known as peeps. Some are only the size of your hand and dazzle the eye as they fly in unified, breathtaking formation. These tiny birds, weighing no more than a granola bar, fly the length of two continents, from South America to Alaska, and the Fraser delta is the most critical of all stopovers on their immense journey.

The international significance of the Fraser wetlands was recognized in 2012 with a Ramsar site designation. But even with an international designation by the United Nations, we can’t get the level of protection needed to ensure the health of this vital habitat. One oil spill could wipe out not just an entire species of shorebird but could impact both the waterfowl species that use the estuary and B.C.’s great Fraser River salmon migration.

We know what must be done to protect these birds, but governments seem not to care and march forth, determined to double the size of the Roberts Bank superport. I hope my colleagues in this House can join me in acknowledging that we have a moral duty to protect the habitat upon which this wildlife depends.

GOLFING

E. Foster: As many members in the House already know, the appeal of the game of golf is hard to ignore. During the 14.5 million rounds of golf played each year in British Columbia, you get to go outdoors and enjoy one of the simplest, safest and most often recommended forms of exercise: walking. B.C. is fortunate to have more than 300 golf courses that are locally owned and operated in every area of the province. These courses provide 44,000 jobs and pump over $2 billion into the B.C. economy annually.

The excellence of our golf courses is well recognized at home and abroad. As a result, almost one million Americans visit British Columbia annually to play and spend money at B.C. golf courses and in B.C. communities. Recently Destination B.C. identified the B.C. golf industry as one of the key reasons why tourists choose B.C. as a place to play.

Not only is the golf industry taking care of business; it is also taking care of our environment. The B.C. golf industry takes a responsible approach to managing its local environment by naturalizing managed green space into unmanaged wildlife and plant habitat and building wildlife corridors for local animals.

Contrary to what many people believe, golf offers significant health benefits. I’m just kind of thinking about the mental part of being a golfer. Sometimes it doesn’t work out so well. It’s good for your health and your heart. It also provides a stimulating mental challenge and can be played by people of all abilities and all ages. Golf is good for our economy, our environment, and it’s great for our health.

Please join me in welcoming our guest today. And when you have time in your schedule, please support one of the more than 300 locally owned and operated golf courses.

[1020]

Oral Questions

ACCESS TO
CANCER TREATMENT SERVICES

J. Darcy: Last December Fred Cosman from Princeton developed serious swelling and pain on his nose. It took four months — four months — before he was diagnosed with lymphoma. He still hasn’t had a single treatment. After months of waiting, his face is swollen with cancerous lesions almost beyond recognition. My question is to the Minister of Health: why has Fred been waiting so long for treatment?

Hon. T. Lake: Again, in the House we don’t usually speak to specific circumstances, but this, obviously, has been in the news. I’m happy to report that this patient has an appointment with the B.C. Cancer Agency tomorrow in Kelowna at the interior cancer centre. The B.C. Cancer Agency has reached out directly to him and his family to ensure that he receives the very best care that he deserves.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: It is true that Fred finally — finally — has an appointment with the B.C. Cancer Agency. But the reality that the minister can speak to and should speak to is that cancer patients in British Columbia are waiting longer and longer for treatment, and it’s happening on this minister’s watch.

The minister says that decisions about priorities are made by doctors. However, we know that, before Fred’s story aired on TV, the Cancer Agency hadn’t even gotten in touch with him. After his story aired on TV, he finally got a call. Again, to the Health Minister: why do British Columbians have to rely on headlines in order to get the treatment that they need?
[ Page 7724 ]

Hon. T. Lake: I think it is not necessarily appropriate to discuss individual cases and symptoms and diagnoses in question period.

We rely on physicians. We rely on health care professionals to make clinical judgments, to do the necessary tests, to carry out the procedures that are necessary to ensure that people remain healthy. In this instance, the gentleman was seeing his family physician, was referred to a specialist and now has been referred to the B.C. Cancer Agency.

Skin problems, cancer problems, any kind of health problems are not necessarily easy to solve or solvable in question period. We rely on health professionals to make these decisions. We are ensuring that this particular patient has the health care that he needs to ensure a full recovery.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a further supplemental.

J. Darcy: There is a pattern here, and it’s a very, very troubling pattern. Michael Goldman of Qualicum Beach waited 20 months for a much-needed colonoscopy — 20 months. This is a cancer patient himself. He previously suffered from colon cancer. He got no help until he turned to the opposition and to the media.

Jing Wang from Parksville needed a family doctor for a diagnostic test, and she got no help until she wrote to her local paper. Both were at significant risk of cancer. Now we find out that Fred Cosman’s cancer was left untreated until his story was picked up by a local TV station.

The B.C. Liberals promised health care for British Columbians when they need it and where they need it, so why are British Columbians forced to go to the media to get the cancer treatment that they need?

Hon. T. Lake: It’s difficult to sit here and be lectured by the opposition on building hospitals, building health care facilities, because when they were in government, we know what they did. They didn’t build a single hospital.

[1025]

It was this government that had the B.C. Cancer Agency expand throughout the province — six centres throughout the province of British Columbia. British Columbia continues to lead the country in the best overall cancer rates in Canada: the lowest lung cancer incident rates, the lowest colorectal cancer incident rates and the lowest kidney cancer incident rates. The B.C. Cancer Agency and the province of British Columbia lead the country, thanks to the work on this side of the House.

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE
SPECIALISTS IN RURAL B.C.

J. Rice: Fred’s story doesn’t just expose a troubling pattern of British Columbians going to the media to get the help that they need.

His story also exposes a big gap in our health care system — access to specialists for people from small-town British Columbia. Before Fred was waiting for a call from the Cancer Agency, he was waiting for an appointment with a dermatologist. He waited for six months. Does the Health Minister think this is good enough?

Hon. T. Lake: We have about 10,000 physicians in the province of British Columbia. If the NDP government of the ’90s had done what we have done and doubled the number of doctors being trained in this province, we’d have 11,000 in British Columbia. I will not be lectured by members over there about how to run a health care system.

I will not be lectured by that side of the House that did nothing to increase the number of nurses being trained, the number of doctors being trained, the number of hospitals available to the people of British Columbia. It is this government, on this side of the House, that has done that since we have been in power.

SEA TO SKY HIGHWAY REPAIRS
AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT
MATERIAL STANDARDS

C. Trevena: Last week I asked the Minister of Transportation about a crumbling retaining wall near Pasco Road on the Sea to Sky Highway, built just five years ago as part of the government’s $600 million expansion project there. The minister said that the issues “represent mitigation work that is very standard, very normal on corridors around the province and that we don’t believe in any way indicate any performance issues with this particular contractor.” In other words, nothing to see here, folks. Just move on.

Yet on the weekend, a ministry district manager told the media that the contractor used parts in the retaining wall that do not meet ministry standards.

Given that the minister assured the House that the issues of the retaining wall were very standard and very normal, can he tell us how many other retaining walls were built with substandard materials?

Hon. T. Stone: First off, I want to again reassure all of the residents in the Pasco Road area, as well as all British Columbians who regularly travel the length of the Sea to Sky Highway, that there are no safety concerns with respect to the wall in question.

What I said last week I will say again for the member. Through routine inspections that are conducted on an ongoing basis by the contractors, as well as by the ministry, it was identified that at this particular location a retaining wall needed some additional mitigation work to ensure that it actually adhered to the 75-year life span guarantee, which is in the contract. That work will soon be underway. I should point out that all of the costs will be borne by the contractor.
[ Page 7725 ]

Madame Speaker: The member for North Island on a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I hope the minister is actually listening to what he’s saying. He’s saying that five years into it, we do need to have work done on repairing this wall.

According to the minister, from what he’s saying, contractors do routinely use unapproved parts and materials on retaining walls. Again, to quote the minister, the repairs near Pasco Road are “mitigation work that is very standard and very normal.” In fact, he doesn’t even really think it reflects badly on the contractor. Just four years ago the same contractor was involved in a major construction project on Highway 405 in California, where the retaining walls also gave way.

[1030]

My question to the minister is this. Does he expect to rebuild other sections of the Sea to Sky Highway as a result of his lax oversight of government contractors?

Hon. T. Stone: First, let me say the contractor in question is one of the largest and most respected contractors in North America for large-scale highway projects like this. That being said, we do regularly inspect all of our infrastructure on an ongoing basis, as do the contractors. From time to time, you identify a piece of infrastructure that requires some mitigative work.

On the Sea to Sky Highway there are approximately 150 retaining walls. Forty were actually built by the contractor in question. I can report that all of the walls have now been inspected. There are two walls — this wall at the Pasco Road and one additional wall at the CN overpass by Brandywine Park.

Both have been identified as requiring some mitigative work to ensure that the standards that are set in the contract requiring a wall to have a lifespan of 75 years will indeed meet that specification.

There are no safety concerns for the residents. There are no safety concerns for the travelling public. We’re going to ensure that we continue to work with the contractor to ensure that this work is done and that it’s done at the contractor’s expense.

M. Farnworth: One of the issues is around the use of approved materials. We use the term “approved materials” for a reason. Those are the standards that the government expects to be in place when projects are constructed.

In this past week alone we have seen the use of substandard materials — substandard steel in hydro towers. We are now hearing of the use of substandard, non-approved materials on highway construction projects.

Can the minister tell this House why this government has failed to stop the use of substandard, non-approved materials in infrastructure projects funded by the province of British Columbia?

Hon. T. Stone: Let me say right out of the chute here, it’s certainly nice to finally hear the opposition asking questions about infrastructure in the Lower Mainland.

This is a major project, the Sea to Sky corridor, which was not supported by members in the opposition. They did not support the Port Mann Bridge and related projects. They did not support the Sea to Sky Highway improvement project. In fact, if we’re really to the point here, they didn’t build any major infrastructure in the Lower Mainland in the entire time that they were in power.

We’re very proud of our infrastructure record — $17 billion of transportation investment since 2001 in all facets of transportation in every corner of this province.

I will say that we routinely inspect every facet of our infrastructure on an ongoing basis, which I’ve answered a number of times here and outside the House. We will continue to do so to ensure that the infrastructure is safe for the travelling public on an ongoing basis.

B.C. HYDRO
ENERGY CONSERVATION TARGETS

A. Dix: Last week the Minister of Energy confirmed B.C. Hydro had failed to come close to its conservation target in its Power Smart program. They missed by about 1,200 gigawatt hours. B.C. Hydro and the minister budgeted $150 million and spent it. B.C. Hydro, under his direction, abandoned several successful components of Power Smart.

The result: for the second straight year, he missed his target, 22 percent, even though his energy plan depends on that target being met. So on top of 28 percent rate increases and overruns on transmission projects, B.C. Hydro ratepayers will have to pay for another Liberal failure.

Why are British Columbians already squeezed by their government being forced to pay for the minister’s and B.C. Hydro’s failures in energy conservation?

[1035]

Hon. B. Bennett: This side of the House is actually proud of the fact that we are the government that passed the Clean Energy Act in this province in 2010, and we set a goal that Hydro needed to acquire 66 percent of its new generation from conservation, from demand-side management. Hydro has made it very clear — it was made very clear to the member who just asked the question last week in estimates — that they will make that 66 percent DSM target.

The member is confused. In the integrated resource plan that was announced in November of 2013, Hydro had a very aggressive target for DSM of 78 percent. They’re not going to make that 78 percent, but they are going to make the legislated target of 66 percent. There is no other province in this country that’s going to meet that kind of a target.
[ Page 7726 ]

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: The minister missed his target. Remember, this is the target imposed by cabinet order. This is the plan imposed by cabinet order when they stopped BCUC from doing a review of these programs. He missed his target by 1,200 gigawatts hours of electricity. Even by Liberal standards, that’s a big miss. The minister aimed at the net, but he hit his own bench.

The fact of the matter is that ratepayers are going to pay for this. They are going to pay for this. The minister can be all sanguine about it. This is his plan. This is his energy plan that is failing, and British Columbians have become a cash register for the Liberals on these very questions. Massive rate increases. Massive increases in MSP premiums and ICBC rates and B.C. Ferry fares.

This was what the minister said to those British Columbians. He said Power Smart helps them deal with this situation and helps them use less energy. Well, when the program fails, that is not what happens. Can he explain — after the northwest transmission line, after bungled IT projects, after the Interior–Lower Mainland line, after expensive, unsellable private power — why ratepayers are going to have to pay the price for yet another Liberal failure?

Hon. B. Bennett: The member likes to paint a picture of gloom and doom at B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro — I would be the first person in the world, probably, to acknowledge — is not perfect. Perhaps the member who asked the question is not perfect either, and neither am I.

What’s really important to ratepayers is how the corporation is doing generally. Are they spending less money in terms of their operating expenses? Yes, they are. They’re saving $391 million over three years. Have they reduced the number of positions in the corporation? Yes, they have. They’ve reduced the number of positions by almost 1,000. And are they generally on budget in their capital program?

Let me give the member some examples of successes at B.C. Hydro. Revelstoke 5 was a $321 million project that came in at $245 million, $75 million below budget. The Columbia Valley transmission line was a $170 million project. It came in at $115 million. That’s $55 million below budget, a great success for this corporation.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION ON
HIGHWAY 16 TRANSPORTATION SERVICE

R. Austin: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. Does he believe that speaking to four aboriginal women constituted meaningful consultation on the issue of transportation safety along the Highway of Tears?

[1040]

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We take, of course, all issues very seriously. In particular, we engage significantly with First Nations on a very wide range of issues. Whether that is issues relating to activities on the land base, whether that’s activities associated with training, with environmental stewardship, with safety and transportation, we take all of these things very seriously.

We’re out on a regular basis, engaging with nations, talking about a wide range of things. I have had some conversations with some nations about Highway 16. However, it’s in the context of many other things that we’re working on with nations.

Madame Speaker: The member for Skeena on a supplemental.

R. Austin: I’m sorry, but that was pathetic.

Let me state this. First, the government denied that records of its consultations on the Highway of Tears even existed. Then after we asked about them in this House, we finally received some heavily redacted documents. Those records show that just four of the 80 people that the ministry staff met with were aboriginal women.

My question now is to the Minister of Transportation. Does he think that speaking to four aboriginal women has given him a real insight into the transportation safety issues facing aboriginal women in the north?

Hon. T. Stone: Staff in the Ministry of Transportation actually conducted the engagement that the member references last summer. This engagement went over a number of weeks. We did meet with 80 leaders — First Nations and local government leaders, as well as others along the corridor. Those discussions continue.

There seems to be a sense on the other side that that’s it, that there are no further conversations taking place. We identified some tangible actions that we could take from those discussions, which we are moving forward with. We have said that we are going to continue to engage. Staff in our ministry, staff in other ministries of government, are meeting with First Nations leaders up and down that corridor on a regular basis to discuss these safety issues as well as a broader range of issues of importance to First Nations people.

M. Karagianis: Four aboriginal women. That may explain why the minister continues to come out with many bizarre comments on this topic. He says that a shuttle bus service — which, of course, aboriginal groups have been calling for, for ten years — is not appropriate. Instead, the government is providing resources for driver education.

The reality is that if the Minister of Transportation had actually talked to women in the north, he’d know that they don’t own cars, which is why they hitchhike. It seems to me that First Nations have been underscoring
[ Page 7727 ]
this point for many years. One of the most significant contributing factors to women and people hitchhiking along this area is because they live in poverty. Owning a vehicle is a luxury that is beyond very many of them.

I’d like to know. Can the Minister of Transportation tell the House how many aboriginal women he has spoken to that have told him that driver education is a bigger priority than a shuttle bus service to stop them hitchhiking along the Highway of Tears?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I think it’s important — the member and I canvassed this in estimates the other day — to take a holistic view here and look at all of the wide range of services that are currently provided along the corridor and to have an ongoing discussion with people in this part of the province as to how those services can be augmented moving forward.

I said to the member in estimates and will say again now that a shuttle bus that would traverse almost an 800-kilometre distance was simply identified as not practical. It would not address the challenges that are faced by people along that corridor.

What are we doing? We’ve provided $75,000 to the Carrier-Sekani First Nations Family Services for driver education, safe driver and driver licensing programs. We established a web portal, which has consolidated all of the resources that are available to individuals who live along this corridor in one place.

[1045]

There is the Northern Health bus. There is transit service in a number of these communities and opportunities to potentially enhance service.

This dialogue continues. We will continue to sit down with First Nations leaders and other leaders along the corridor to focus on continuing to provide safe transportation options for everyone there.

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: The minister’s response is a $75,000 contribution to a driver education program for people who don’t have cars. Is that absurd, or is it not? All of the answers we hear from this minister continue to be absurd.

He talks about a shuttle bus for an 800-kilometre section of the highway. That is not what communities are asking for.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

M. Karagianis: The notes show that far from saying that the public transportation along the highway would be impractical, community leaders in that area have said that the service is unreliable. The cost of private transportation is seen as prohibitive, and services are unreliable or non-existent.

Now, in estimates…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

M. Karagianis: …the minister did say that this was not a time to celebrate or declare: mission accomplished. “I think we are making progress.” Well, I would say: mission failed. There is no progress until there is proper transportation service along this highway for women.

My question to the minister is: why does this minister continue to ignore the leaders in this area and all of the communities along the Highway of Tears when they are asking for transportation solutions so they don’t have to hitchhike?

Hon. T. Stone: I will stand by the comments that I made in estimates. There is progress being made. This is a safer corridor today than it was ten years ago and than it was 20 years ago.

I will also say again that there’s more work to do. We are continuing to discuss and have a dialogue with folks up and down this corridor to enhance safety through the corridor and to identify safer transportation options.

I can say this, though. There is one strategy that will go a long way to addressing the challenges through that corridor, and that is to support economic development — to support LNG, to support mining, to support the creation of jobs and economic opportunity for First Nations and for everyone along that corridor. It’s time for the opposition to get on board with that.

JUMBO GLACIER RESORT ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT AND SITING OF LODGE

N. Macdonald: In the fall we asked why government had allowed the developer at the province’s most famous fake town to lay what they called foundations for a day lodge and maintenance building in the wrong place and in an avalanche zone. The developer dismissed our concerns. Now we learn that according to the environmental assessment office, the developer did indeed site the Jumbo day lodge and maintenance building in an avalanche zone.

The question to anyone on that side who can answer it is: who in government approved the laying of foundations in a different place than required by the environmental certificate?

Hon. M. Polak: I know the member is well familiar with the project and will also know that there have been quite a number of different processes under which various approvals have been achieved by the proponents. The
[ Page 7728 ]
decisions that were made by the ministry — approving the master plan, the master development agreement — as well as the local government and their zoning were all based on information that had been provided by professionals with avalanche hazard information, some of which had been developed in 1990, 1991, 1995, 1997 — all of the assessments that were available to them at the time.

[1050]

On the basis of a complaint that was lodged, the compliance and enforcement branch of the environmental assessment office asked for a further study, which has now been provided. Now we all are aware that the compliance and enforcement branch has advised the company that based on this new information, in fact, the two buildings need to be dealt with, as they are outside of compliance with the environmental assessment certificate.

[End of question period.]

Hon. T. Wat: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Wat: Joining us in the House this morning are members of the Canadian Chinese Business Development Association. The CCBDA has been serving the Vancouver Chinese business community for the past 31 years to enhance the social and economic position of the Canadian Chinese, to foster a spirit of cooperation and mutual help among members and to establish trade connections with foreign businesses. Members here today include Nicholas Kam, Lily Au, Paul Young, Debbie Tin, Amy M. Huang, Emily Cheng, Benjamin Tik Huang Chung, Michael Lok and Belva Chung. Would the House please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Jobs — and, in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 11.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — EDUCATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

J. Shin: I can’t say that I’m pleased to rise in the House this morning to speak to Bill 11, the Education Statutes Amendment Act, tabled by the government. I do join my colleagues on this side of the House as well as countless students, parents, teachers, staff and trustees on school boards in and out of Burnaby-Lougheed in this province in legitimate and grave opposition to this bill.

I do want to preface my remarks on this bill with a sentiment that what’s perhaps more disappointing is how we — not just us in this chamber but many British Columbians across this province — are compelled by the government to continue exhausting ourselves on poor policy decisions such as this, no different than the government’s work previously against the agricultural land reserve, the Society Act or English-language-learning programs, for example, and the list just goes on.

We have to fight to protect ourselves from the very government that we elected and whose mandate is to represent our best interests and govern accordingly. Too often we are seeing failure to do that.

Much of my two years in this job, half of the four-year term that I serve, were consumed in what literally feels like a weekly affair of going to rallies, petitioning, town halls and protests, be it in my constituency or on the front lawn of this very Legislature.

Whether they were initiated by a small group of concerned parents or a body of subject matter experts, it does pain me to see every time that such incredible amounts of money, energy, resources and time — that could have been spent with our loved ones or for more worthwhile causes — are forced to be exhausted, and all too often in vain, on this government’s ill-advised and ill-conceived agenda, like Bill 11.

We could have been partaking in the second reading this morning of bills for, say, youth vote registration, distressed animals, electronic petitions. But here we are again. It is what it is, as the government would have it, so let’s look at this Bill 11.

[1055]

Bill 11 includes proposed amendments to the School Act, the Independent School Act and the Teachers Act in four primary areas, as the minister has covered. The first one, building a framework for the continuing professional development. In fact, this gives the minister the ability to impose professional development on teachers and define what that should look like.

The second aspect of it is facilitating the delivery of shared services among school districts. Again, this gives the minister the power to compel the school districts to take part in shared services in a way that may not be conducive, where one board may have an upper hand in the kind of deals that are being drawn.

The third aspect is the so-called updating of the accountability framework for student learning through reporting.

The fourth one is aligning the provisions of the disclosure of student data with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
[ Page 7729 ]

Of course, it doesn’t surprise us. There are many issues that have been raised by the stakeholders that the official opposition agrees with them on, and we’ll stand by their side as we continue our debate on this topic in response to the changes that are imposed by the bill.

The amendments of this bill further centralize government control over education. Despite the government’s commitment to the co-governance with school boards, the government is unilaterally giving authority to the minister to impose shared services and projects to improve student performance.

Despite the promises of a new beginning following the end of the longest job action in B.C. history, the government fails once again to consult with the teachers on the very proposed changes to their professional development. Other professions have control over their own professional development. This government’s refusal to even consult on professional development shows an utter lack of respect for teachers. It hasn’t improved since the last time we were on this topic, and it continues to trend in a similar way. It’s disheartening at best.

While other jurisdictions are strengthening protections around student information and data-gathering, this bill loosens the restrictions on sharing student personal information. It’s likely going to facilitate the information of MyEducation B.C.

The school planning councils have been eliminated, as has the superintendent of achievement. It looks like there will be a new superintendent of appeals to deal with section 11 of the appeals in this bill.

Section 12 of this bill appears to give the minister the authority over custody, maintenance and safety of school properties. There are many concerns about the fact that, with a change like this, it’s going to end up forcing a lot of the school boards to consider selling off their land and assets and so on and so forth to make the numbers work. This, ultimately, should be the authority that should remain and rest with the elected school boards. To see an imposition such as this, where the minister is given the authority over that, is deeply disturbing.

A number of stakeholders have spoken out loud about their concerns on this bill. I have spoken with some of the teachers, the school boards, our trustees as well as the Teachers Federation. Here are some comments that came through.

The B.C. Teachers Federation. On the parts of the legislation related to the professional development, Jim Iker has said: “The changes to the professional development were unfortunately announced without consultation. Government staff did say that there would be a two-year consultation, and we will hold them to that commitment.” I certainly see, again, there’s another confirmation there that much of this process is done without consultation. The BCTF also has said: “There are over 41,000 public school teachers in B.C. teaching dozens of different subjects. B.C. teachers will not support a top-down government-mandated approach to professional development.”

The BCTF is also critical of how the bill will expand the Minister of Education’s power to issue directives to the school boards and replace those that are democratically elected — no different than the members of this House — to be able to defend matters as they pertain to how our public schools are managed. “This is absolutely about the government’s underfunding and 2015 budget that is forcing $54 million more in cuts to the school districts.”

[1100]

Of course from Burnaby’s side, our Burnaby school board chair made his comments loud and clear. Ron Burton has said: “It appears that this government does not want to cooperate with anyone in education, whether it be trustees or teachers.”

He also goes on to say that they talk a great game about consultation, but they never do. “They make announcements and afterwards back-pedal, saying they want to discuss it.” The school district 41 chair says that the current structure works well and believes that Bill 11 is a mere attempt to fix a system that is not broken.

The same has resonated on the Vancouver side — the Vancouver school board. School trustee Patti Bacchus is concerned that the changes regarding the administrative directives may be about forcing school boards to sell off land. She says: “That’s an area where we’ve had a lot of pressure verbally from the government and encouragement to get rid of, as they say, capacity.”

She goes on to further comment that her concern is that “this sort of pressure to privatize, to sell off public assets into private hands….” And she goes on to say that she’s concerned with this incredible amount of pushing. Now, in the form of Bill 11, it is going to end up having schools liquidating assets in a way that’s not fair to the taxpayers.

Of course, there’s a number of other school boards from the Okanagan, Nanaimo and the list just goes on. We have former school superintendents that are commenting on this bill, as do many of the parents and students that I’ve spoken with.

There we have it. I do want to give my colleagues an opportunity to speak on this bill, so I’m going to conclude my remarks fairly shortly. But I honestly cannot urge the members of the government more to talk to their cabinet ministers and Premier, to give this bill another sober thought. It’s time that this government does demonstrate that it will listen to the people of this province.

We are talking about reasonable folks, concerned citizens, subject-matter experts, in-the-street leaders who know what they’re talking about, and they have serious and grave concerns about the changes that are imposed by this Bill 11. That’s something that we share on this side of the House. On that note, I’ll take my seat.

J. Martin: It’s a pleasure to address Bill 11, the Education Statutes Amendment Act, on behalf of my
[ Page 7730 ]
constituents in Chilliwack. This particular bill covers four main areas.

First, enabling the development and implementation of an improved accountability framework for the K-through-12 education sector; supporting the implementation of shared-services initiatives across B.C. school districts in order to achieve savings and share best practices; modernizing requirements relating to the use of students’ personal information for consistency with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; and enabling the establishment of a continuing professional development framework for all certified teachers in the province of British Columbia.

As a life-long educator, I would like to address my comments specifically to the professional development component in this legislation. We know that teachers in British Columbia are passionate about their profession and helping students reach their full potential. Therefore, teachers must have access to high-quality opportunities to refresh and develop new approaches and methods of instruction throughout their careers.

Many professions, from nursing to accounting, set clear standards for ongoing professional development. In most cases professional regulatory bodies require that members engage in specific professional development activities. Failure to do so can result in suspension of a member’s certificate.

If I may provide a few examples. Certified general accountants must complete 120 hours of professional development every three years, plus a four-hour business ethics course. Is this an attack on CGAs? Of course not.

Architects must complete 36 hours of professional development every two years. Is this an attack on architects? Of course not.

Lawyers must complete 12 hours of continuing professional development in accredited educational activities. Is this an attack on the legal profession? Of course it isn’t.

Nurses must complete an annual self-assessment and create and implement a professional development plan based on their self-assessment and peer feedback. Is this an attack on nurses? Hardly.

[1105]

It’s time we put teaching on a similar footing as virtually every other profession in the province, and that is precisely what this piece of legislation will do. This Education Statutes Amendment Act sets a foundation on which we will work collaboratively with the teaching profession to build a modern framework for professional development.

Most B.C. teachers participate in some form of professional development over the course of the school year. They have access to six non-instructional days per year, and the vast majority participate in some form of professional development during the year.

But there is a cost associated with professional days. Taxpayers spend more than $72 million each and every year to support these six professional development days. However, this does not include the additional cost to parents of young children who must take the day off work or pay for child care. In addition, millions of dollars are also spent on related costs such as transportation, accommodation and conference workshop fees by the school boards and local unions. In 2012-13 this alone cost school boards $35 million.

We want to work with B.C.’s teachers to strengthen the profession, enhance public confidence, and most importantly above all else, help students reach their full potential. To achieve these goals, we intend to work cooperatively with our partners — partners such as the British Columbia Teachers Federation, the Federation of Independent School Associations and the B.C. School Trustees Association — to build a professional development framework that makes sense for the profession.

The Ministry of Education will work with these key stakeholder groups to develop specifics of the framework. I can assure everyone in this House and yourself, hon. Speaker, that this legislation will not be brought into force until that work is complete.

At the very end of the process, at the end of the day, this legislation will authorize the Minister of Education to set the minimum number of professional development hours per school year, to require certificate holders to participate in a particular professional development day activity or specify the number of hours that must be spent on specific courses or activities, to set different requirements for different types of educator professions and establish categories of acceptable professional day activities.

All in all, I can assure everybody that the teachers have considerable autonomy in their professional development, and we expect this will continue to be the case as we work with the profession to develop a more modern framework. We are well aware that teachers value professional development, and we believe that they will welcome an approach that sets clear requirements and builds public confidence in their professional skills and expertise.

This is not about micromanaging the ongoing learning of teachers. Rather, it is about ensuring there is greater rigour and consistency to professional development, very similar to what we see in other regulated professions. It would be such a breath of fresh air if the official opposition in this House could make an informed contribution to this debate that transcends opportunistic fearmongering and reckless hyperbole.

M. Karagianis: I, like many of my colleagues, feel reluctant in having to stand up and talk to this bill, because it is ironic in the extreme that this bill is before us and all of the various implications here. I want to set the context a little bit for my comments on why I’m not going to be supporting this bill.

The taxpayers of British Columbia rely on the government to provide a number of services, but key to
[ Page 7731 ]
most people…. If you talk to them anywhere in British Columbia, in any constituency anywhere in this province, they will tell you that health care and education are two of the primary functions that they appreciate paying tax money for, that they appreciate government service given to them in their communities right across the board.

Both of those things represent pretty significant components of the lifestyle we live here in British Columbia and, certainly, the kind of standard of living we appreciate here. But I would say that of the two, education is probably one of the most important investments we make in the future of this province. I think everybody would agree that investing in our children and in their best education possibilities, the best outcome for them through the education system, is a goal we all strive for.

[1110]

We know that as long as our children are well educated in classrooms that are effective and have good teaching environments and are not disruptive, they will learn, they will achieve, they will succeed and, consequently, they will provide this province with an ongoing economic stability and well-being in the future, for themselves and for the province. So it seems to me that this constant onslaught against the education system here in British Columbia is very counterintuitive.

That’s why I talk about it being ironic, having to stand up and talk to the amendments that are being proposed in Bill 11. Of course, everybody — and certainly government members — will all stand up and talk about the necessity for good investment in education and for the best outcomes for children and all of that, and at the same time we’ve seen a constant onslaught against the education system for years under this government and, consequently, against students.

This is no secret. Parents talk about this. We’ve had strikes about this. We’ve had debates, hours after hours of debates in this place, about that very thing. It began with the Premier, our current Premier, who, as Education Minister, began to tear into the education system in an unprecedented way and has continued right till the current day.

We’ve been through the longest disruption in the education system ever in the history of this world in a recent strike. After, I guess, much concern voiced by parents across this province, the government came to the table and put together a deal that was supposed to bring peace with teachers.

That peace was so short-lived that I think it’s, again, a bit of an insult to families and to students — students particularly. I think so often in this discussion we lose sight of what this is all about. This is about students. This is about educating students and making sure they have the best possible chances in life, and yet we continue to see the government squabble with teachers and pick fights and this constant erosion of services and of educational environments.

We’ve seen lots of empty slogans here, but I really, sincerely thought, after the outcome of this contractual agreement with teachers and a promise of peace for the long term, that we would see a little bit more stability in that before the government began to kind of rip apart the system one more time.

The issues of class size and composition — still hanging out there, I know, in the schools that I visit every day in my community. When I’m not here in this Legislature, I go out into the neighbourhoods and go to my schools and talk to parents, and this continues to be an issue.

Are we here debating that today? No, we’re not debating that. One of the most important issues that is impeding and standing in the way of our students succeeding in the public school system, and are we debating that? No. We are talking about an imposition of a whole number of amendments here in Bill 11 that have negative impacts on the system.

I don’t know how you expect that you could constantly attack the education system and undermine it and think that somehow it’s going to be successful. You know, there’s this belief that somehow the system is resilient. Young people are resilient. Yes, they are, but if they don’t get a good education, it starts in the early years and continues to trail with them right through their entire lifetime into adulthood.

While we purport to be a wonderful place to live, that we’re about families first, all of the slogans that we could march out…. This onslaught against students, to me, is so wrong, so fundamentally wrong, that everything that’s demonstrated in Bill 11, I think, just shouts out about this.

I have talked in this chamber before about my grandchildren. I love my grandchildren. I’m very proud of them, like many grandparents. My grandchildren — like, I think, the majority of children in British Columbia — come from a hard-working family that cannot afford private school. I think most British Columbians live in economic times where they can’t afford private school.

There is this erosion of the public school system to the point where we are seeing more and more students turning to the public school system. That disturbs me greatly, because if we are going to undermine the public school system that educates most of the students in this province, then we are doing a wrong today and every day for the future of these young people. That leads me to want to oppose this bill and this onslaught against the education system with everything, every capacity that I have here in the Legislature.

[1115]

This is a government that gave a huge tax cut to the wealthy, who, of course, can afford private school or whatever other alternative this government drives them to while they tear apart the public school system. But at what cost? A huge tax break for the rich. What are we seeing for most ordinary working families in British Columbia? We are shortchanging them, we are short-
[ Page 7732 ]
changing their children, and this government seems shameless about it.

Teachers are, aside from the family, the single biggest influence in a child’s life. Who do they see more in their early years than their teacher? Only their parents and perhaps some of their school friends.

The single biggest influence on children outside the home, and we continue to marginalize their ability to do their job, to do it in an environment that is workable. We chip away at their very credibility here with Bill 11. Do we want to see the best, the brightest, the most dedicated teachers devoting their time to our children? The single biggest influence that they will see outside the home in their early years….

Yes, I certainly would like to see that, but, apparently, not the B.C. Liberals. Instead, we continue to see them ripping the system apart. The very fibre of the environment that teachers have to rely on is, again, being destroyed here by Bill 11.

Now, I want to talk a little bit about some of the components of this. When you look at them….The government likes to stand up and say: “We’re doing this accountability and that. You know, it’s all very, very innocuous on the surface.” Well, it’s not. Much of it is so deeply disturbing and so wrong that you have to dig into each of these clauses piece by piece.

This bill, Bill 11, amends and centralizes government control over education — control. I’m not sure I understand where they had lost control over education. Where is this feeling that somehow, the education system…?

The education system is in disarray because of the actions of this government over the last 15 years. It’s not in disarray because it’s coming out of the education system itself. It has been systematically undermined — class size and composition being the most viable, most obvious and most extreme evidence of that.

The government feels that they want to go in and micromanage, now, every aspect of this. I don’t understand why. I simply do not. I have not heard an explanation yet from government as to why they feel they have to micromanage this.

I heard the previous speaker talk about how many sectors get to, and are certainly encouraged to, go out and pursue professional development and some of the other things here. But the way the government is imposing this is, for me, very disturbing.

The government is giving authority to the minister to impose shared services. Let’s just talk a little bit about shared services. I did a quick google on one of the great shared-services investments this government made, somewhere close to $100 million, which ended up scrapped, like many tech programs that this government has got into. I’m talking about BCeSIS. It’s interesting, because when you search out BCeSIS it’s got its own Wikipedia site. Now that’s unusual, isn’t it?

Why would BCeSIS have its own Wikipedia site? Well, it’s because of the sort of disaster that was BCeSIS. The Wikipedia site here says: “The system draws criticism for its archaic user interface. The general design was not field-tested on its intended users, nor was it tested on multiple browsers, and it resulted in a poor user experience.”

That was one of the great investments, one of the great shared services, this government was imposing on the education system — a failure. Wikipedia’s listed it as an abject failure, $100 million scrapped. I cannot help but think that $100 million would have gone a long way to resolve some of the issues around class size and composition. But instead, the government chooses to ignore that little piece of history.

We can see that they have not been enormously successful so far with some of their shared-services ideas, and we can only anticipate that we’ll have more adventures in the future. They’ll be costly, they’ll be expensive, and they’ll take dollars out of the system that could very well be used to make a better learning environment. For who? The students, who should be at the heart of this.

[1120]

Rather than the government’s tempestuous disagreement and long-standing debate with teachers, we could be investing this money into students to make sure they all have the best opportunity, the best outcome. My grandchildren, grandchildren and children of the members of this chamber, children out there in my communities, could all be benefiting from the use of these dollars in a better way, but the government, in its wisdom, continues to whittle away at the education system.

I talked briefly for a moment — and the previous speaker here from the government side talked about it — professional development. The big difference that I see here…. The member stood up and talked about all the various sectors and organizations that seek and are encouraged to….

Of course, it’s desirable to see professional development — the difference being, of course, that that would be self-driven. This is being imposed by the minister, who looks like he’s going to micromanage every little aspect of this. I just want to talk about some of the immediate responses to that.

I know that the government likes to kind of just dismiss what people like Jim Iker, who is the head of the B.C. Teachers Federation, have to say. But I don’t dismiss that at all. This is a lifelong teacher who is the head of an organization of teachers who are there influencing my grandchildren every single day and all the children in this province every single day. I have a great deal of faith in them and in their opinions.

So what does Jim Iker have to say about this particular aspect of professional development being imposed and micromanaged by the government? He says the changes to professional development were, unfortunately, announced without consultation.
[ Page 7733 ]

Well, here we go. This is no surprise. How many things have we seen this government do without consultation, over and over again, or with the appearance of consultation, where really it’s threadbare and not effective?

So you’re imposing some new legislative changes on the B.C. Teachers Federation, a group that you’ve just had the longest-standing battle in history with in British Columbia. You have said there will be peace between you and the federation, and yet the first thing you do is start to impose changes with no consultation. If that is not bad faith with your partner in education, I don’t know what is.

Why does the government not see it this way? Well, we’re not sure. It’s not clear what the genesis of some of these policies are. On the face of them, they just seem to be like the government wants to rip apart the public system. For what purpose? To chase some people into private systems? I don’t understand where that influence comes into the government’s thinking.

But the vast number of British Columbians need public education in order to get jobs and succeed in the future and have a robust economy of the future. We’re responsible for investing in that now. Why would we not invest in that responsibly?

Jim Iker also goes on to say: “Government staff did say that there would be a two-year consultation, and we will hold them to that commitment.” Now, that was in March of 2015, and here we are debating a bill literally days later. I’m not sure that this two-year consultation process has taken place.

If you’re going to do it after the fact, that’s just foolish, because once you’ve passed a bill, it’s in law. Consultation later does what — another amendment to an amendment to an amendment? We’ve seen the government do that a few times in this Legislature as well.

The BCTF also says: “There are over 41,000 public school teachers in B.C. teaching dozens of different subjects. B.C. teachers will not support a top-down government-mandated approach to professional development.” Why should they? No other professional organization in this province would allow the government to interfere and manage their professional development. That is for the sector itself to determine. That’s one of the reasons why Bill 11 is not supportable.

The Burnaby school board chair, Ron Burton, said: “It appears that this government does not want to cooperate with anyone in education, whether it be trustees or teachers. They talk a great game of consultation, but they never do it. They make announcements and afterwards back-pedal, saying they want to discuss it.”

There we have it — no consultation or consultation after the fact, which, of course, is insulting more than it is anything else. The government has embarked on this group of amendments here — statutes amendments in Bill 11 — without adequate, if any, consultation with the very sector that teaches our children and makes sure that our students get a great education.

[1125]

While other jurisdictions are strengthening protections around student information and data gathering, this bill loosens restrictions on sharing student personal information. That is very interesting as well.

We have the government coming in and micromanaging things like professional development and imposing things like shared services and yet loosening the constraints around shared student personal information. What does that say? I don’t understand the logic of this. Would the government ever stand up and just come clean on what this all means and what the implications are? No, they won’t. You have to try and guess, surmise, put it together. It’s a bit like gathering evidence and trying to come to a conclusion.

Section 12 of this bill appears to give the minister authority over custody, maintenance and safety of school properties. This authority currently rests with school boards. So we have a group of individuals who have been elected by the citizens in their communities on school boards, and now the Minister of Education is going to impose himself between that group and the various services that they manage.

The government wants to micromanage professional development. They want to micromanage and impose shared services, when they’ve proven, time and again, that they fail at their capacity to produce these. They burn through a lot of money and waste a lot of money while that’s happening. Now they want to impose themselves between school boards and the very services that they’re elected to provide.

Now, in this province we have autonomy with elected representatives at every level — at the municipal level, the school board level, the provincial level. But all of that goes out the window. Again, I have not heard a compelling response from the government as to why they feel that it’s necessary to go in and now run roughshod, not just over teachers but over school boards as well.

Much of the detail in this bill seems to be left to regulations or ministerial orders. This opens up…. I guess the second can of worms on this is that government can quietly and stealthily, by regulation, make all kinds of changes. Whenever bills like this are brought into the House, where there’s a lot of open-ended language in how regulations will unfold, you have to be really suspicious, especially in this environment where we’ve seen this aspect to micromanage many things.

The government is happy to stand up and declare quite proudly that they are going to interfere and impose professional development on teachers, that they are going to build the framework for that, that they are going to require shared services, even if they’re expensive, even if they fail, instead of investing those dollars where they should go — into student learning.

The question on what is going to happen with student personal information and why we are loosening the re-
[ Page 7734 ]
strictions there rather than strengthening them, and then this idea that the government will work out the details of some of these things in the background, quietly and stealthily, begs a lot more answers from the government than we are getting.

It’s interesting that the B.C. School Trustees Association has come out very strongly against this as well. I know the government does not respect any of these organizations, unless they want to make themselves look good by pretending they have a relationship where they don’t. But a letter that was sent on April 20, just a few days ago, to the Minister of Education from the B.C. School Trustees Association is very clear in their opposition to this.

The letter says that at the annual general meeting this past weekend, which would have been just a week ago, the BCSTA put together the following: a resolution that the BCSTA demand that the government of B.C. “immediately withdraw the sections of Bill 11 that override the authority of democratically elected boards of education.”

[1130]

Well, I agree with that — absolutely. There should be autonomy in school boards who are elected. They should not have the government impose authority over them. So I absolutely agree with this.

They go on to say: “Specifically where Bill 11 adds new provisions which broaden the minister’s authority to issue administrative directives, where Bill 11 would amend the special adviser provisions and where shared-service providers are designated by the Minister of Education.” Absolutely — I agree with each of those, and I have outlined my reasons for doing so.

Secondly, the BCSTA publicly advocates strongly against the erosion of local board of education autonomy. Absolutely — I support them in this. The fight for autonomy of local government, of which school trustees are a level of local government, I think is very real. The government quite often is quite agreeable with autonomy with municipalities, where it serves their purpose, but apparently not here with school boards.

That rejects everything that voters believe they get in a democratic system. You go and vote for your school board. They will manage certain aspects of the education system. That’s what we voted for. We just had an election not that long ago, and yet the government feels that it’s fine to go in and erode the autonomy of this very group of people that we just elected not that long ago.

Third is that the BCSTA demands an immediate review of the intent of Bill 11 legislation and an opportunity to recommend amendments prior to final adoption as well as the formation of a management partners working group to participate in the development of any subsequent processes and regulations. Well, that’s consultation. The B.C. School Trustees Association is saying: “We want you to consult with us — not say you’re consulting and not do it, not give us a directive and say that that was consultation, but true and deep and meaningful consultation.” And I support that absolutely.

So I will not support Bill 11, on the basis of the wisdom and truth in what the BCSTA has said.

With the B.C. Teachers Federation, they have been, I guess, much more direct on the imposition of Bill 11 on their authority. In a letter from April 17 — again, not that long ago — to the minister we see that the B.C. Teachers Federation wants the withdrawal of Bill 11 based on a couple of very real factors. I’m going to read those into the record because I think they are all very important. If it comes down to me trusting what the Minister of Education is doing versus the teachers — who teach my grandchildren and every child here and have at the heart of their careers the best interests of students and of the future of students — I’m going to listen to these teachers.

The BCTF is calling for the withdrawal of Bill 11 based on this. One, “the act is an infringement on the rights and the responsibilities of democratically elected boards of education.” That reiterates what we heard from the B.C. School Trustees Association. Absolutely true and supportable.

“The act is an incursion into teacher-led and teacher-directed professional development.” Absolutely. What other sector and organization in this province would allow the government to come in and impose a framework for professional development? None. And all of the groups that the previous government member listed are self-directed professional development, not imposed by the government.

Three, “the act allows for collection and use of student data without sufficient privacy protections.” What is that about? What in the world could the government be thinking of in reducing the protection of student information? Again, I’ve heard no evidence or discussion or comment from the government side of the House that explains this away or acknowledges it, for the most part, in any of their speakers’ comments.

Four, “the act provides for the extreme centralization of power and control in the role of the Minister of Education.” Well, interesting. Centralization of power with the minister. I mean, that kind of flies in the face of pretty much everything that we believe in as a democracy.

The government has not demonstrated in any way that they can be responsible for how they address the education environment for our students. They have continued to erode the education system and make it difficult for our students to learn, to achieve, to succeed in classrooms. This just continues to do more of that.

[1135]

Centralizing control and power with the minister. This flies in the face of everything that we believe in as a free democracy in this country, in this province.

Additionally, the BCTF says that the act would create an unnecessary increase in government bureaucracy. Well, you know, we lived through deregulation with this
[ Page 7735 ]
government which, at the end of the day, created more problems, more barriers, more disturbances, more impediments and challenges to people going about their day-to-day business and, in this case, more government bureaucracy. What is the purpose behind that?

Why would we negate the organizations that are there, that are dedicated to educating our students and the development of our students for the long term? Yet we’re going to create more bureaucracy that costs more money. We’re going to waste more money.

This government is so good at wasting money. We’ve seen it over and over again. How many systems have we discussed in this Legislature? IT, information technology, systems are built and scrapped, patched together. Hundreds of millions of dollars are burned through like it is nothing, not invested right where we should be investing: in the future of this province, the economy of this province — all resting on the shoulders of the students of today who will be the leaders of tomorrow, the economic leaders, the political leaders. Yet we continue to make it difficult for them to achieve the very best.

We are so far behind the way the rest of the world is looking at education and investing in education. Again, I don’t understand the logic. I have yet to hear one phrase that has come out of this government’s mouth on what their rationale for all of this is.

Yeah, more power. To do what? They have not demonstrated that they can be responsible with our children’s futures, and now they want more power and ways to burn through more money and to impose more will on duly elected individuals of school boards and on the very people who have the most influence and can enrich the lives of our children every single day. The government continues to treat them with such disdain.

There are many more documents I could read into the minutes here, into Hansard. But I think that at the heart of it, the government has let us down on this file for many years, over a decade, and they are continuing to whittle away at the system. It is disturbing.

This bill is unsupportable. Their actions, all together, towards the education system are unfathomable. It makes no sense that we would not want to pour as much enrichment into the education system as we can to make sure that our children are so successful, well educated and ready to take on the economy of tomorrow. This failure on the part of the government just disappoints me more than almost anything else I can think of.

L. Throness: It’s a privilege to stand today and continue debate on the subject of Bill 11, which is otherwise known as the Education Statutes Amendment Act. I speak today in response to a call I got last week from a school trustee in my riding. This school trustee had attended a long day of a session of the B.C. School Trustees Association and had been through a rather gruelling session of passing amendments or motions. There were three resolutions that were passed which are quite negative toward Bill 11, and she wanted to hear the government’s side of the story, so she contacted me.

I want to begin by saying that the BCSTA, the School Trustees Association, is a venerable institution. It’s been around for 110 years. It has as its objects the public interest and the advancement of education. So I think it’s a bit sad that the trustee in my riding did not feel that she got both sides of the story at the BCSTA meeting, that she felt she had to call her MLA to try and get the other side of the story, that both points of view — the total context — were not represented at that meeting. So I sent her my answer, and I want to share that answer with the House today.

I want to begin by talking about spheres of action. The broad context of the bill is that a school board has certain powers, a certain sphere of authority — powers that are delegated to it by the province. A school board is a local body that is generally autonomous within its sphere of action.

[1140]

So a school board doesn’t much consult with the Ministry of Education about things that are within its sphere of authority. For instance, it can manage its own budget. It hires its own teachers. It places students here and there in different schools. It sets the curriculum, establishes rules for its schools and where those schools ought to be and how those schools should be equipped, the catchment areas for those schools, the system of busing, hours of operation, dates for spring and summer breaks and other breaks.

The school district of Chilliwack has a large budget — $110 million. That’s 1/10 of $1 billion. That’s a lot of money. A lot of responsibility is entrusted to those trustees, and they have a lot of autonomy to spend that money and decide how it should be spent.

A school board, for example, can establish a French immersion program, as the school district did in Chilliwack last year. It didn’t require a lot of consultation with the ministry to do that, although I would think that it probably kept the ministry up to speed as it did that. But this is the sphere of school boards. This is their area of expertise. This is their sphere of authority, and it’s what they ought to be doing, making decisions within that sphere of authority.

A local school board is an autonomous body, but it’s not a sovereign body. There’s a sphere of action that belongs to school boards, and there’s a sphere of action that belongs also to the minister and to the ministry. The minister is also responsible for administering a budget — a much larger budget.

In fact, I want to talk about this budget for a moment. It’s the largest-ever budget in the history of the province dedicated to K-to-12 education. It will amount this year to $5.5 billion. That’s an enormous amount of money. This number will continue to rise over the next two years.
[ Page 7736 ]
That’s a great deal of money. It’s the minister’s responsibility to manage that budget. It’s not the responsibility of school boards to manage that budget. It’s the responsibility of the minister.

We’re increasing K-to-12 spending by $564 million over the next three years, more than half a billion dollars — that’s an enormous amount of money — even though this year there are 6,000 fewer students in the system than there were just one year ago. But even though we’re putting more money into the classroom, we’re asking school boards to save a little bit in administrative savings, which amount in Chilliwack to 6/10 of 1 percent of their $110 million budget.

Why are we doing that? Well, we asked a little while ago the Ministry of Health and also the Ministry of Advanced Education to do the same thing, to find some administrative savings. Now school boards are being asked to do the same thing.

Why did we choose those particular ministries? Are we picking on school boards? Are we picking on Health? Are we picking on Advanced Education? The answer is of course not. The answer is because spending in the ministries of Health and Advanced Education and Education will this year amount to $27 billion in spending. That’s an enormous amount of money. That amounts to 59 percent of all the spending of the province of B.C. for this year. The budget of the Ministry of Health will increase alone by $500 million over the next two years.

If we want to control spending…. We have been mandated by the people of the province — we fought an election on that, and I think we won partly on that — to control spending. If we want to control spending, we have to touch on the 59 percent of spending that is represented by health and education.

It requires the participation of everyone, including school boards. We’re asking them to do it for the greater good, just as we asked other ministries to do the same. Yes, it’s difficult. Of course it’s difficult. It’s difficult for other ministries as well.

We met with the school board last week. All the school board trustees were there, and we heard from them the difficulties they’re experiencing in trying to meet the requirements of the ministry. The board is made up of very talented, very experienced people. The trustees are good people. It will take all their skills to manage their budget, to find ways to meet that 6/10 of 1 percent spending decrease that the ministry has asked them to do. I believe they can do that.

I want to point out, as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, that the Auditor General for B.C. did a study. Last year in March we considered that study in the committee. It was found that, with respect to cash management, the school boards have a collective surplus of $1.2 billion across the province. That’s a lot of money as well. The people of B.C., through their Legislature, through the government, have asked that these funds be spent on students.

[1145]

It would be appropriate for some of that money — I’m not saying all of it — to be freed up to spend and to cover the 6/10 of 1 percent that school boards have been asked to reduce, to actually use some of that money and free it up to spend on students. The actions of our government are going to encourage school boards to do that, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. I think that’s a good thing.

The minister is responsible to deal with the direction of education on a provincewide basis. When the actions of school boards affect other school boards, for example, or when the system of education as a whole requires direction, it’s up to the Minister of Education to provide that. That’s his job.

He’s responsible to all B.C. taxpayers for the broad direction and the outcomes of the entire system. The opposition rises every day in the House to call the minister to account for how he spends that money and for the outcomes of the entire system, and that’s what they ought to be doing. That’s what the minister ought to do. No school board is responsible for this. It’s the minister’s problem. It’s the minister’s sphere of authority and his sphere of action.

I want to assert today that there’s value in having provincewide action on some fronts. In this regard, the bill clarifies existing powers of the minister to act in specific situations that refer to this provincial sphere of authority, the interaction of school boards and their decision, and in three particular areas that I want to point out.

The first is on professional development. Other members have been talking about that. The bill mandates ongoing professional development for teachers, just like a provincial college of physicians or engineers or accountants or architects. You could name any number of professions which require specific upgrades for their provincewide membership.

I don’t really understand why there would be opposition to this provision. For me, it’s an entirely positive thing. This is a recognition, first, of the professionalism of teachers. It recognizes that they are a professional body. It’s saying to teachers: “You’re professionals. Let’s put in place a regime, like other professional bodies, of professional development that is similar to other professional bodies in this province.”

I would point out that the bill does not mandate the content of that development. It just says that there ought to be standards — that there ought to be standards of professional development, that there ought to be a certain number of hours spent in upgrading skills and knowledge, and those standards are to be developed in concert with the profession.

Let me just give you one example. I could choose any number of acts of the Legislature, but let me read from the Engineers and Geoscientists Act: “The association has the following objects:…(b) to establish, maintain and
[ Page 7737 ]
enforce standards for the qualifications and practice of its members….”

This is not a coercion of engineers and geoscientists. This is an enabling for them. This allows them to update and to hold all of their members to the highest standard. It’s a good thing. The bill before us has the same intention. Nothing draconian or totalitarian or scary about this. The opposition, I believe, is completely overreacting.

This is a positive thing. It means that teachers, who already get six professional days every year — at a cost to the province, by the way, of $72 million a year — will be held to high and consistent standards of professionalism right across the province, where now, standards vary across the province. Now they will be held to consistent standards across the province.

I would think that all British Columbians, including parents and teachers, would welcome this. I would repeat that the content of that education, exactly what is included in those continuing education standards, is not mandated by the bill. These are to be developed in consultation with the teaching profession. These are reasonable. These are measured ways to make education better in B.C. I think it’s a wholly positive thing.

Now, the second thing is supply arrangements. The bill allows the minister to require boards to participate in specific supply arrangements — the purchase of payroll, HRor IT procurement, other services. There are 60 boards across B.C., and there is value in allowing them to act as a body, to act in concert. Very real savings are possible.

Since the minister has a responsibility to ensure that our system across the province is as efficient as possible, that tax dollars ought to be used wisely, it’s his responsibility, I would say, to put this in place. This is being done to some extent already.

Let me give you a couple of examples: 25 school boards are using common purchasing card systems for annual savings of $600,000. Who can argue against that? And 43 districts now invest their savings, their cash, in the same provincial bank account, and they increase their collective revenue by $3.7 million a year. Why wouldn’t anybody want to do that? Why wouldn’t we do things like that on a provincewide basis?

[1150]

Let me give you two other examples from different ministries. The Ministry of Health is collaborating with other provinces on a national basis to buy drugs in what is called the Pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance. It only makes sense. It started working last September. Why? Because we spend billions of dollars on drugs every year in Canada. Why wouldn’t we gather together to get savings on bulk purchasing? It just makes sense.

Take the Ministry of Advanced Education. Way back in 2013 something called the administrative service delivery transformation initiative began. The name is complicated, but the objective is very simple — 25 post-secondary institutions, colleges and universities, got together to save costs, achieve efficiencies, share best practices and enhance quality of services across the sector. Why wouldn’t we do that? I would argue that if we can save money in this way it is a responsibility of the minister to do that. I think that every British Columbian would applaud it.

Note again, the bill does not say what the specific initiatives should be. It just allows the minister to say: “It’s my business to manage the education budget overall. Bulk purchasing is one easy and positive way to do that.” No school board has the power to mandate that kind of thing. It has to be done at the provincial level. School boards should applaud this, because it will help them save money and reduce the constant pressure on them to balance their budgets.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Finally, on student data, the bill allows for access by the ministry to aggregate student data, to enable analysis of trends and to see how effective different boards are. It also allows researchers to link education data with data from other ministries, such as Health or social assistance, to provide better policy advice for children with special needs. The bill protects the privacy of students and that information. In our consultation with the Privacy Commissioner, she had no concerns.

We take great pride in our government — I’m sure the opposition does too — in being evidence-driven. We’re driven by the data. We’re informed by the numbers. This bill will allow us to mine that data, the data that we already have, and to link it with other data from other ministries to make better policy. Who would oppose that? Not even the Privacy Commissioner, who is very protective of personal information, is concerned about this bill. This is something that every British Columbian can support.

Now, I want to deal with one more issue, and that’s the issue of consultation. It’s alleged that the government didn’t consult enough on this bill. The broad themes of this bill have been under discussion for a number of years. There have been a number of meetings between the districts and the ministry and lots of discussion about this over the past couple of years. The minister can supply further details on that.

I just looked for the random press release on March 21, 2013. There was a press release from the ministry which talked about the B.C. education plan. It said: “The plan focuses on five key elements and innovations: personalized learning for every student; quality teaching; flexibility and choice; high standards; and learning empowered by technology.” It talks about quality teaching and high standards. Those are the kinds of themes that this bill envisages, just one example of the kind of thing the entire profession has been talking about for years.

I want to end with this. On Friday I attended a consul-
[ Page 7738 ]
tative event. It was in Surrey. It was about innovation in education. The minister was there. The minister spoke to it. He started it, and he wrapped it up as well. He attended all day. He listened all day. There were a couple hundred people in the room. There were people representing all facets of education. Both of the chairs of the school districts in my riding were there. We talked all day. We separated into tables, and we talked all day about what can be done to innovate in education. That was just one consultative event that has been held.

In the end it is within the minister’s sphere of authority and his responsibility to act in the best interests for the entire education system, for the benefit of all the students of our province. This is what he is doing in Bill 11. It’s part of his job. We’re going to continue to consult wherever it’s appropriate and discharge our responsibility to act in the best interests of students and parents and teachers and taxpayers in this province as we move forward together to improve our system of education.

I would move, in the interests of time, that we adjourn debate now until the afternoon.

L. Throness moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

D. McRae: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[1155]

Introductions by Members

D. McRae: Joining us in the House today are 43 students, their teachers and their parents from Ecole Robb Road from the town of Comox in the Comox Valley.

I’d also like to pay special note. They were an absolutely amazing group. I took them on a tour. I also had the pleasure to see an old friend. Kailena Krutzmann is joining them. She is a grade 5 student. I’ve known her since the day she was born, and she is an incredibly amazing hip-hop dancer.

Would the House make Kailena and Ecole Robb Road very welcome.

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

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
JOBS, TOURISM AND SKILLS TRAINING

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Thornthwaite in the chair.

The committee met at 10:58 a.m.

On Vote 31: ministry operations, $198,360,000 (continued).

S. Simpson: Just to say that we’ll be doing jobs, economic development, the jobs plan and that. I have a few colleagues who have some questions to ask, so we’ll deal with that.

K. Corrigan: I’m following up with just a few questions about the board resourcing and development office. I know that that is not a responsibility of this minister. My understanding is that the deputy minister, Athana Mentzelopoulos, who is deputy minister in this ministry, Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, continues to be responsible as deputy minister responsible for the board resourcing and development office, while the Minister of Advanced Education is responsible for the office.

Perhaps, first, just a confirmation that Athana Mentzelopoulos, as deputy minister, is responsible within the ministry for the board resourcing and development office.

Hon. S. Bond: My deputy does carry responsibility for the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and also carries responsibility for board resourcing.

[1100]

K. Corrigan: I’m wondering, though, why it is that when Minister Wilkinson and Deputy Minister Mentzelopoulos moved, the responsibilities stayed with the deputy minister rather than it going to the ministry where the minister was moved to.

The Chair: Member, just a reminder to refer to the ministers as “the minister,” not by their names.

Hon. S. Bond: As the member opposite would know, I believe that the minister responsible was canvassed in estimates about this matter. In fact, it’s not uncommon for deputies to have dual responsibilities. We have an extremely large portfolio. The minister who is responsible
[ Page 7739 ]
for BRDO actually has some expertise and some experience with this particular aspect. And so my deputy minister reports to me on the files that relate to Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and reports to the minister responsible for BRDO on those files.

K. Corrigan: According to documents that we have, there was a plan to move the board resourcing and development office to Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training in December. It was well along. In fact, it was cancelled at the very last minute. I think an OIC was going to have to be reversed. I’m wondering why that transfer did not take place.

Hon. S. Bond: I’m advised that the rationale was that it was a continuity issue. As you can imagine, making the kinds of appointments that we make as government is a significant job. The current minister of AVED has had experience and expertise, and that decision was made.

K. Corrigan: Can the minister indicate if that particular deputy has responsibility for any other reporting units or staff located in any other ministries?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes. I am very lucky to have a very hard-working, talented and very skilled deputy. In fact, she does report to the Premier’s office in terms of intergovernmental relations. We call it, fondly, IGR.

K. Corrigan: Finally, to have clarity, does this particular deputy minister, Athana Mentzelopoulos, have ultimate responsibility and approval, then, of the appointments that are made through the board resourcing office, apart from the fact that those obviously often need to be approved by cabinet? Apart from that, does she have final approval within the ministry?

Hon. S. Bond: Decisions about the final approval of people being appointed are done, actually, by ministers. If they are ministerial appointments, they are done by cabinet — if they are OIC appointments. My deputy does a fantastic job of using a process to provide recommendations and advice. Final decisions rest with cabinet and cabinet ministers.

The Chair: A reminder, Member, to stick to the topic of the vote.

K. Corrigan: Thank you, hon. Chair. I have one more question. This certainly has to do with the vote.

The deputy minister is paid for with incomes from the budget of this particular minister, and therefore the responsibilities that she takes on are through the vote of this ministry.

[1105]

Just for clarity on the last answer…. I appreciate that the final decision is made by cabinet. The Minister of Advanced Education answered in estimates, essentially, that the decisions are made within staff — the deputy minister and her staff. What I wanted to confirm was that, within the ministry or within the board resourcing and development office, before the approval goes to cabinet the final decision and the point of decision would be the deputy minister.

Hon. S. Bond: I’m sure the member opposite would recognize that there is a very detailed, public process in terms of how people’s names enter that list, and one would assume there does need to be a spokesperson on behalf of that process. My deputy minister in her role with the board resourcing office works through the process, receives the recommendations and ultimately presents recommendations to cabinet. She brings the recommendations. The final decision is always that of the cabinet or the cabinet minister.

G. Heyman: I’m looking at the sector update for the B.C. jobs plan, the three-year progress update in the technology and green economy sectors. Looking ahead, it says: “Update strategic plan to further improve the climate for innovation, entrepreneurship and technology sector growth in B.C. Expand the availability of job-ready graduates from B.C.’s educational institutions.”

Certainly, the sector has pointed to a lack of skilled and trained available talent in B.C. to fill jobs as one of the significant challenges they’re facing in the tech sector. Could the minister say specifically what has been done to update the strategic plan and to expand the availability of job-ready graduates?

Hon. S. Bond: I am always grateful every day for the fantastic team I get to work with. Not only are they hard-working; they have a wonderful sense of humour.

[1110]

Before I answer that question, which I’m happy to do, I want to recognize, and we certainly know, that I’m being supported today by Deputy Minister Athana Mentzelopoulos, since we went through the first ten minutes asking about her job titles.

I have David Curtis, who is the assistant deputy minister of management services and our executive financial officer. I’m very pleased to welcome to British Columbia Okenge Yuma Morisho, who is our assistant deputy minister for economic development.

Angelo Cocco is our executive director for economic initiatives and analysis, which is incredibly important to us. Sarah Fraser is the executive director of regional economic operations. Tim McEwan is associate deputy minister of the major investments office, and Scott MacDonald is one of my assistant deputy ministers as well.

We’re very excited about the potential for the tech sector and the green economy in British Columbia. It is fantastic that we’ve been able to attract Microsoft’s centre of
[ Page 7740 ]
excellence here to the province — looking forward to that physically opening in that space very soon. We’ve managed to attract Sony Imageworks.

In terms of the actual tech strategy and the strategic plan, I do not hold the pen on that strategy. Obviously, it comes from the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services. I’m not sure if the member canvassed that with the relevant minister. Having said that, we work very closely with them. Technology, the green economy — critical parts of the jobs plan.

We are engaging, as we speak, with the sector to talk about their workforce needs. I’m very pleased that we’ll be convening a round table of some of the most incredible technology leaders in British Columbia very shortly — excellent reception in terms of people wanting to come and talk to us. We’re engaging with the sector directly, as we speak.

The way that it will work is the way it works with our labour market–driven system. Whether you are in forestry or in film, we are working to better understand the needs that exist in our province. We have data that is far better than any we’ve had in the past.

We’ll work with the sector, listen to their needs, take that information into our system and then work through our labour market priorities board to ensure that the spending we’re doing and the programming we’re supporting line up with the labour market demands as industries outline them for us.

G. Heyman: I did, in fact, canvass the issue of the strategic plan with respect to innovation, entrepreneurship and technology growth with the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services, and he referred me to you. I am going to assume that there is no answer to this question, although if either ministry cares to respond in writing at a future date, I’ll amend my assumption that there actually is no update to the strategic plan, notwithstanding what’s in the sector update.

With respect to my question about expanding the availability of job-ready graduates, it’s good to hear there are some plans in the future, but everything I heard was future oriented. I have to assume that since 2014 there has not been a lot of action on this, notwithstanding the fact that the BCTIA and others have been reporting lack of skilled talent as a significant issue for some time now.

The sector update also has a point about: “Work with other levels of government to improve the availability of capital for early-stage technology ventures.” This has been a significant issue that has been raised by the Technology Industry Association for a number of years now. They made a number of points and recommendations to government as well as to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

I pored through the budget looking for any new measures that had to do with the green economy, and I found two new measures. They totalled $5 million all together. One of them was $3 million in the small business venture capital fund, but that’s it. It comes nowhere near the ask that was made by the industry association. And let’s be clear. This is investment in growing a very vibrant sector in British Columbia. I would expect any money invested would return handsomely in terms of government tax revenues.

Can the minister update me on what discussions have taken place, if any, with other levels of government to improve the availability of capital for early-stage ventures?

[1115]

Hon. S. Bond: I want to reassure the member opposite that there is going to be an update to the strategy. I’m not aware of the comments of the minister. He is new to that portfolio, we should recognize. But we should be clear: this is a priority for the government.

For the member opposite to suggest that there’s been no progress and that there are significant issues…. As I said in my first answer, we are actively engaged with the tech sector to ask them exactly what their needs are, not just in the future but today and moving forward. I would hardly think, when you look at B.C.’s technology revenues, that one could suggest that we haven’t paid attention to this file.

When you look at our technology revenues, they actually grew 78 percent, compared to 60 percent over the rest of the country, from 2002 to 2012. We actually see our revenue growing substantively, incrementally, compared to the rest of the country. Our annual revenue is $23.2 billion, up from $13 billion in 2002. Wages and salaries rose 7.7 percent in 2012 to almost $6.3 billion — almost double the 4.1 percent growth in salaries of industry all across the province.

We are working very closely, as I mentioned earlier, with ministries both in International Trade and also Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services. In terms of business venture capital, we do have regular discussions. I know that the staff at MTICS have had discussions federally about venture capital. I can also point out that there is a small business venture capital tax program, which falls under the auspices of International Trade. In fact, as part of the B.C. jobs plan, the small business venture capital program value was increased in 2012 by $3 million to $33 million, and in 2015-2016 there will be additional net funding of $2 million.

The sectors that benefit absolutely include clean technology, innovation, digital media production, research and development of proprietary technology, and a number of other areas. Great stories happening, much work to continue to be done, but I can assure the member opposite that we are working on a refreshed strategy, and that work is underway now.

G. Heyman: I’ve looked at the plan, and I’ve looked at different statements by the government and various min-
[ Page 7741 ]
istries, and what’s unclear to me is how the mandate for green jobs is actually implemented and tracked.

I have several questions. What specifically is the mandate for green jobs? How is the government measuring their success? In other words, how are key actions that are taken by this government, as opposed to actions or successes of industry, tracked? How are the key actions tracked? Are there clear targets and goals? How is progress or success measured and aligned with specific government actions? And what specific actions have been taken in the areas of energy efficiency?

[1120]

We know, for instance, that the LiveSmart program is actually diminished — housing or building retrofits for energy conservation. Clean transportation — we note that there was a stalling of the clean energy vehicle program.

Hon. S. Bond: While I’m happy to have a discussion, obviously, about technology and the green economy, I want to remind the member opposite that the jobs plan is the overarching government strategy related to growing the economy and creating jobs in the province.

In the eighth sector and the sectoral plans that are laid out, our job is to look at the overarching progress being made by all of the sectors. We don’t manage and micromanage the strategies for those ministries. The best place to ask questions about clean energy initiatives and whether or not we have supporting programs for certain green energy projects…. That’s not the Jobs Minister’s responsibility. My job is to oversee the implementation and progress of the jobs plan.

Each ministry…. For example, the Minister of Agriculture is responsible for the commitments in the agrifoods section of the jobs plan. He reports back. We look and track and measure the completion of the targets and the goals that were set.

As I said, the update to the strategy is underway, as was committed to.

In terms of tracking, we are very public about the jobs plan and the progress we’ve made. In fact, all of the information is made public once a year. We started out when the jobs plan was first underway. We did updates every six months, and then, as we realized that some of the longer-term goals would take a little bit longer, I made the decision to look at this annually. For example, the information is available around technology and green economy in our third-year progress update.

I should also note that I do have a parliamentary secretary responsible for the jobs plan. He is currently in the process of reviewing progress on the jobs plan and will be working to present the next annual progress update on the jobs plan.

S. Simpson: I have a couple of questions about one area, and then I know I have a colleague who has some additional questions.

[1125]

When I look at the minister’s mandate letter, mandate item 16, among the things that are to be accomplished is to ensure that the LNG–Buy B.C. program is operational by January 1, 2015. This is the program that I believe Mr. Wilson was hired to implement on behalf of the government.

Could the minister tell us if the program operational, and what does that mean?

Hon. S. Bond: I’m very happy to give an update on this. I do want to begin with recognizing the work that Gordon Wilson has done as the LNG–Buy B.C. advocate. I didn’t know him well at the beginning of this process, but I can tell you he has been extremely highly regarded in the sessions that he has done and the work that he has done right across the province. So I’m very appreciative of that work.

Yes, the program was launched in November of 2014. It is an on-line tool. The thinking behind the tool is very straightforward. We want B.C. businesses to be able to take advantage of economic growth in the province, particularly focused — obviously, with its name — around liquefied natural gas. It’s also led us to be thinking about supplier development more broadly. How do we take what we’ve learned with the LNG–Buy B.C. system and look at how that could be applicable to other industries in the province?

As of March 31, 2015, we have 500 companies registered. The way that the system works is the company gets to network, partner and, basically, prequalify so that liquefied natural gas proponents can actually look and use the tool and make a choice to support B.C. businesses.

S. Simpson: I believe that when Mr. Wilson first started, it was a part-time position that has now moved to full-time status. If the minister could confirm that and what we’re paying Mr. Wilson to do the job. Also, does he have support staff working for him? What’s the infrastructure around Mr. Wilson and the cost of that?

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Wilson does not have dedicated staff that exclusively work with him. He is part of a ministry team, and he receives some support from staff members who actually work on other files at the same time. So he has no exclusive, dedicated staff.

[1130]

Mr. Wilson has always worked full-time. The difference has been that in the first year that we employed Mr. Wilson, it was in four-month increments. The salary has not changed. It is now a one-year contract. He is paid…. For the first year that he was working in the four-month increments, it was $50,000 for the four months times three. So that would be $150,000, but we moved it in four-month periods. Now he has the same salary, $150,000, and it is a one-year appointment.
[ Page 7742 ]

S. Simpson: In making the plan operational for the beginning of January, as per the mandate letter, were there specific objectives set for year 1, year 2, as to what the expectations were, as to what was to be accomplished? Could the minister tell us what those objectives were and how we’ve done in accomplishing those specific objectives?

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Wilson did have very clear deliverables, and I’m just trying to put together basically the first year of expectations. In the beginning, as you can imagine, we were creating the LNG–Buy B.C. system from the ground up. So we asked him to first of all look at best practice literally around the world. He didn’t travel around the world. His job was to look at industry registrations, employment opportunities and how other jurisdictions looked at localized procurement. He did a very good job of doing the homework.

He then was asked to consult with B.C. businesses to ask them: “What do you think the biggest hurdle is if you are planning or thinking about doing business with the LNG sector?” He also had a very specific role in dealing with the LNG–Buy B.C. program and on-line tool at the LNG conference that we held. I actually attended one of his workshops there — extremely well attended by others and very good feedback.

He led the trade show program at the international LNG conference trade show, but he also worked to identify and assist the removal of impediments. He worked with LNG proponents to understand their business model, held industry meetings and community meetings all across the province. Obviously, the first piece was getting the actual on-line tool developed and ready, and he played a critical role in determining what model we might actually use.

The term from February 2015 to February 2016. Obviously, Mr. Wilson will continue to focus and concentrate his work on connecting B.C. businesses with procurement opportunities. Again, as I mentioned earlier, it really gave my deputy and I a chance to think about the work that had been done with LNG–Buy B.C. and think about how we could be using a supplier development model that is similar to that. So I think there has been some fantastic work done. Now we want to look at how we can expand and consider other industries. Obviously, Mr. Wilson will be helpful to that.

Specifically to the member’s question, Mr. Wilson will continue to pursue arrangements with business associations, chambers of commerce and economic development offices to promote the LNG–Buy B.C. program, to make sure that companies are getting signed up with and familiar with the procurement practices of global proponents — working with the LNG Developers Alliance and their subcontracting companies to make sure that we understand what their needs are.

[1135]

He’s also going to be working with First Nations–owned businesses and business associations to make sure they will have an opportunity to take part in LNG-related opportunities and the continuation of other work that he has started.

He will also be refining the LNG–Buy B.C. on-line tool with a view, as I mentioned, of expanding the benefit of this registry to include a broader base of participants. And I’m really pleased to be partnering with the Ministry of International Trade so that we can see the good work that’s been done expanded to other sectors.

S. Simpson: My expectation would be…. I appreciate that a lot of that is sort of preparation and initial contacts and getting, I think the minister said, 500 companies registered on line.

In terms of the objectives, the expectations of government for this office and what it will support in accomplishing them, are there any clear economic objectives about X amount of local economic development generation, creating local wealth, investment with small business or small business opportunity — in terms of trying to generate X dollars of activity or jobs or on-the-ground economic activity — linked to the objectives today? Or is it expected that that will be linked to them in the near future?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member’s specific question, we have not set targets in terms of the percentage of growth or the number of jobs. When we thought about why we need LNG–Buy B.C., it was absolutely about ensuring that B.C. businesses are prepared and have the opportunities that they deserve and that we want them to have with economic growth in the province.

Of course, this is associated with liquefied natural gas. But as I said, one of the roles that Mr. Wilson will be working on with us is to talk about supplier development more generally. It really is to provide operational excellence for B.C. companies, to say: what are those barriers that would preclude you from being active in a global marketplace?

I can tell you that when I look at the numbers, while there are not specific targets, in reviewing whether or not to have Mr. Wilson complete a second year with us, I looked back at the accomplishments that he had managed to amass over the first year. The advocate visited 26 communities, some more than once, connected with over 800 B.C. businesses, made 32 presentations on the program and continues to deliver workshops and supplier boot camps, looking at how we provide support to B.C. business.

The metrics that I looked at…. While we don’t have percentages related to economic growth or jobs, I looked at the connectivity with B.C. business, looking at how many people actually registered with LNG–Buy B.C., the ongoing demand for the presentations that we’ve offered.
[ Page 7743 ]

[1140]

Again, we need to continue to refine on the on-line tool. I don’t think we should underestimate the fact that that was a concept that we started from the ground up. We now can take that work and look at how we expand that whole concept of supplier development to other sectors.

While there are no specific growth or job targets, I can assure you that the primary goal is to prepare B.C. businesses to take advantage of economic growth, not just in liquefied natural gas but ultimately across a number of sectors.

S. Simpson: To be clear — I know we just have a couple of minutes before we break — the minister is saying there are no measurables in regard to actual economic activity or jobs at this point as relates to LNG–Buy B.C. Is it the expectation of the minister that at some time in the future, this program will have measurables in terms of jobs or economic activity?

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate that question. I think it’s a good one. I think the fact of the matter is that in everything we do, we’re driving to job creation in the province. While there isn’t a specific metric, we do have the platform that we’re using for LNG–Buy B.C. It’s called Salesforce. What it allows us to do…. What we’re doing, actually, is facilitating commercial arrangements, using that system.

We are in the process of working with the Ministry of International Trade to enhance the tool to look at how we track connections that are made between various companies and providers. It is really about facilitating those commercial arrangements and making sure that we are giving B.C. businesses every possible advantage.

S. Simpson: This builds on that a little bit, and we’ll have some of this discussion later this afternoon when we come back. Could the minister tell us…? Value-added, obviously, is probably an important area for the minister because the ministry’s responsibility is job creation. We know that, particularly in a resource-based economy, unless you have significant value-added, you’re not going to optimize the jobs in those resources, and obviously, resources are a big part.

Can the minister tell us a little bit…? Maybe she’ll introduce this, and then, I suspect, we’ll be breaking for lunch. How does the minister view value-added? Maybe we’ll just start with forestry, because it’s always a debate. Raw logs is a debate. Forestry is a debate. Can the minister talk about what her ministry’s responsibility is in encouraging value-added in the forest sector?

[1145]

Hon. S. Bond: As I think about the next phase of the economic development work that we’re doing, I would agree with the member opposite. Value-added across sectors is absolutely critical to the work we need to do in British Columbia.

I can tell the member opposite that we are working very closely on some work with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — that ministry and other ministries — to talk about just the issue that he has identified, the whole issue of the value-added sector and how we address that, not just in forestry but in other sectors as well. In fact, if the member were to go back and look at the jobs plan, in the last year refresh we added manufacturing as a very critical component that we would look at across all of those sectors.

I am very, very interested in looking at quite an aggressive strategy around value-added generally. I think it is the next step for us as we develop the economy of the province — a very interesting topic and one that we’re working very hard on with partners across other ministries, in particular with FLNRO.

With that, noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.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